Obama admin. cutting gay soldiers pay in half once discharged, when they don't have to

[Bluebear]

What kind of bs is this? And why does the ACLU have to sue the Obama administration to get this changed when the ACLU says the pay cut isn't required by law, it's simply an agency decision made back in 1991, and one that DOD apparently doesn't want to change.

This is gratuitous. (Hat tip to Clarknt67)
From the ACLU:

Congress made a judgment that military personnel who serve their country for at least six years and are honorably discharged should get separation pay. The Department of Defense decided to cut that separation pay in half for any service member who is discharged for "homosexuality." The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit challenging that discriminatory internal policy of the Department of Defense as unconstitutional. The separation-pay policy is not part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Department can change it immediately without waiting for congressional approval.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Richard Collins, a decorated former staff-sergeant in the U.S. Air Force who served for nine years until he was discharged from service under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Mr. Collins's superiors learned that he is gay when two civilian co-workers observed him exchange a kiss with his civilian boyfriend. Mr. Collins received an honorable discharge from the Air Force but discovered after the discharge had been completed that his separation pay had been cut in half on the grounds of "homosexuality."

The ACLU and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network first contacted the Defense Department in November 2009 to request that the separation-pay policy be revised to eliminate the discrimination against gay and lesbian service members, but the department has refused to do so. Because of its refusal to change this discriminatory policy, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico have filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/11/obama-admin-cutting-gay-soldiers-pay-in.html

[Hannah Bell]

1. ....so tiring to keep up with all the hope.

[orleans]

70. god--well said. extremely well said. exactly how i've felt. n/t

[MrsCorleone]

76. I'm not familiar with the referenced site, but it's possible that you all are being gamed.

Take a good hard look at previous article posts month after month. See any trend? Who funds this site?

Please be leary of the astro-turfing groups like those that duped so many into believing that they were " taxed enough already".

[laughingliberal]

77. Oh, for crying out loud! Here, from the ACLU website:

November 10, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [email protected]

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico filed a class action lawsuit today challenging the Defense Department's discriminatory policy of cutting in half the separation pay of service members who have been honorably discharged for being gay. The separation pay policy is not part of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute, and can be changed without congressional approval.

"By denying servicemen and women full separation pay, the military is needlessly compounding the discrimination perpetuated by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "The Obama administration has repeatedly said the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' statute is wrong, but that it needs to work with Congress to repeal the law. But the separation pay issue is entirely within the administration's control. The administration can at least take a preliminary step toward backing up its rhetoric with action by addressing this issue promptly and protecting gay and lesbian service members from needless additional discrimination." <snip>

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/aclu-challenges-discriminatory-military-policy-cutting-half-separation-pay-honorably-dis

[MrsCorleone]

79. Hey, don't get me wrong. This is one of the most onerous parts of this ridiculous & discriminatory

law.

Saying that, however, I still feel the LGBT community is getting astro-turfed, not unlike when the Hispanic community was encouraged to march in the streets with Mexican flags in 2006, kicking off the shitstorm of racist backlash that benefited the Republican Party, and, more recently, the teapartiers with their lobbyist funded anti-tax movement to, again, benefit the Republican Party. There's always an agenda, isn't there?

I don't know if the reporting was true in terms of 30% of the LGBT vote going to the very party that campaigns openly against LGBT civil rights. The media and blogs are so full of shit these days, so who really knows but the individuals who casted those votes.

I'm just asking that we all err on the side of caution.

[TriMera]

2. Speechless. n/t

[QC]

3. HOPETASTIC! n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

4. What a shocker!

NOT!

Certainly people will see this as discriminatory.

[Starry Messenger]

6. You're an optimist.

Cue the defenders of paperwork and "rule of law" in 3, 2, 1...

[TheMadMonk]

11. Butt, butt, something must be done to combat affirmative action.

Pun & :sarcasm: intended.

[Jamastiene]

13. You are such an optimist. n/t

[donco6]

24. They all KNOW it's discriminatory.

Hasn't bothered them much yet.

[TexasObserver]

5. This is an outrage, and heads should roll over it.

This kind of decision cannot be made at lower levels. Someone near the top or at the top had to approve this procedure.

Here's hoping the plaintiffs get some economic justice.

[gateley]

8. If I'm reading this correctly, it was implemented in 1991. Whose heads should roll? nt

[TexasObserver]

10. Everyone associated with the decision and enforcement.

Not the underlings, of course, but the officers at the very top who made and enforced the decision.

Some may have statute of limitations defenses, but many will not. Go after those. Fire those currently responsible and pursue those whose appropriate statute of limitation has not passed.

[TheWraith]

15. Hush, with your inconvenient "facts" and "knowledge."

You're disrupting the two minute hate.

I wish I were confident that more DUers would take this opportunity to recognize what some of us have seen for awhile: John Aravosis hates the Obama administration's guts, and will take any opportunity to smear them, even when he has to completely make things up in order to do so. It's a long recurring theme.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. What "facts" or "knowledge" did 'gateley' introduce?

Are you implying Aravosis fabricated this information? Or is it you are erecting strawmen to do battle?

[Bluebear]

22. :crickets:

[QC]

42. Could we have some coyotes, too? And maybe a tumbleweed? n/t

[gateley]

52. Oh, was there a timeline in which I was supposed to answer? Damn, I guess

I flunked.

You know something, I was going to explain for the umpteenth time that people are misinterpreting my comments, and I take responsibility for not being more clear, but I'm weary of it and you all just love jumping on someone without trying to engage in a discussion or ask for clarification, so fuck it. Carry on and have fun.

[Bluebear]

54. You "fuck it", QC's question here was not directed at you.

True?

[gateley]

57. Okay. Done. nt

[TheWraith]

47. Aravosis blamed it on Obama, trying to cover the fact that it's been the case since 1991.

It would be just as accurate to blame Obama for invading Iraq.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. So, the answer to my question is "no."

Gately didn't introduce any "knowledge" or "facts" to this thread. As for your comment, "...trying to cover the fact that it's been the case since 1991" that is just sad and fucking pathetic. For someone trying to "hide" that fact, he did a piss poor job of it by placing it in the first fucking sentence!

Edit to correct wording.

[Occulus]

75. Suppose I have a corporate fraud case.

Suppose, further, that multiple CEOs, across multiple years, continued the policy of fraud. Finally, suppose that the fact the fraud occurred is not in dispute.

Is the fraud solely the fault of the individual CEO who instituted the policy, or are all CEOs across the years the fraud continued responsible, to one degree or another?

Suppose one of the CEOs is an individual you really really like, that tried really really hard to turn the company around from his immediate predecessor's destructive policies. Does that exonerate him for the fraudulent policy?

So here we have an abhorrent policy that was begun in 1991, during the term of GHWB. Is GHWB solely to blame, or are Clinton, GWB, and Obama responsible to one degree or another?

Take your time. This is not a hard question. The answer is in white, below (if you are viewing DU with a black-text-on-white background). Highlight the blank area to reveal.

The correct answer is that ALL Presidents from GHWB to Obama are to blame for the policy to one degree or another. Although none of the Presidents except GHWB instituted the policy, each of them continued it, and that makes them all to blame; GHWB the most for creating the policy, and the others only slightly less so for continuing it. Given Obama's claims of being a "fierce advocate" for GLBTs, and then repeatedly betraying that statement (beginning on Inauguration Day), as well as his DOJ's repeated defenses of DADT in court, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is to blame for the policy equally (via aggravated circumstances) with GHWB.

[laughingliberal]

78. Here you go:

November 10, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [email protected]

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico filed a class action lawsuit today challenging the Defense Department's discriminatory policy of cutting in half the separation pay of service members who have been honorably discharged for being gay. The separation pay policy is not part of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute, and can be changed without congressional approval.

"By denying servicemen and women full separation pay, the military is needlessly compounding the discrimination perpetuated by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "The Obama administration has repeatedly said the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' statute is wrong, but that it needs to work with Congress to repeal the law. But the separation pay issue is entirely within the administration's control. The administration can at least take a preliminary step toward backing up its rhetoric with action by addressing this issue promptly and protecting gay and lesbian service members from needless additional discrimination."

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/aclu-challenges-discriminatory-military-policy-cutting-half-separation-pay-honorably-dis

I guess the ACLU's just a bunch of haters.

[gateley]

49. No, people are misunderstanding my point and I obviously didn't make that

point clearly as people are jumping on me as though I ENDORSE the continuation of this policy. If you knew me, you'd know I'm disgusted and shocked that it even IS a policy - and more, that it's been allowed to continue for all these years.

Also, if you knew me, you'd know I don't erect strawmen.

I'm tired of trying to explain my point, so think what you want.

And you can take the quotes off my name, it's my real name, I don't hide anything from anybody.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. You should read more closely.

I know these split threads get confusing. I sometimes make that mistake, but I was questioning "TheWraith." It was his strawman I was calling into question.

As I don't know you, you can claim whatever you'd like. I will take you at your word you are agianst the policy, but it also explains why I have your name in a singular quote, it is your screen name. How was I to know it was your real name?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

50. Did he know about it going in? When did he become aware of it? I'm guessing there's

a LOT that a POTUS isn't aware of until he's informed.

Just a question, when I'm 'speaking' in a normal, respectful tone, why are you (and others) so disrespectful that sarcasm and judgment seem to be the way to communicate? I'm not your enemy - I want what you do. Not a good way to treat someone who's in your corner.

[HughMoran]

34. Ain't in the truth

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

59. GOOD RIDDANCE

:thumbsup:

[Tx4obama]

65. +1000 n/t

[Occulus]

16. The ones keeping the policy in place, of course.

Do you take us all for complete idiots? This is a simple fix that Obama will not implement because he really does not care for gay people all that much, and gay soldiers in particular.

[gateley]

17. Why all of a sudden now? It's been in place for over 10 years. Don't you find

it odd that it's only now that they're making an issue of it? I DO think your statement is completely idiotic

[Occulus]

21. "Why all of a sudden now?"

If not now, when?

Idiotic is one thing; untrue is something completely different. Yes, the policy is idiotic, and no, Obama is not now and never was a friend to GLBTs, in the military or elsewhere.

[donco6]

23. Yeah, because if they didn't scream about it before, they have no right to now.

Silly gays!

[gateley]

28. Yes! That's EXACTLY what I meant!

:eyes:

What I'm trying to say is why are they making it sound as though it's Obama's doing? As though his administration implemented it? That's all.

It's shameful that this is the practice and we need to get it rectified NOW. I agree Obama has been dismal on support for the GLBT community and I think THAT'S shameful, too.

My point, again, is just to say it's wrong to make it sound as though Obama put this into play when that's not the case. Am I wrong in taking that viewpoint?

[dsc]

29. He has been President for two years

this policy could have been changed anytime during those two years. They chose not to.

[donco6]

32. He didn't put it into play, but maintaining an obviously discriminatory procedure is just as bad.

IMO. I mean, really. Who could look at this for two seconds and say, "Yeah! Let's keep that in place!"

[gateley]

56. Agree. But do we know he's even aware of it? Or if he is that he's NOT doing

something to rectify it? I sure hope that's the case because if not, there's no justification for allowing something like this to continue. None.

I'd never heard of it before this thread, had you? I hope now that it's out there that he'll be confronted by it and we'll see what he does then.

This would be a good piece for Rachel to address - she presented a good picture of the NON-repeal of DADT which helped my understand the real goings-on, whereas before I was solely blaming Obama, too. This might be a similar situation.

Regardless - it has to end. Ideally, these service people would get back pay - it's only right.

[piratefish08]

35. He's not NOT doing it = he's doing it.

why are simple civil fucking rights such an issue on DU lately?

blind allegiance colliding with what we know is 'right', is my guess.

[Occulus]

36. "why are they making it sound as though it's Obama's doing?"

Nobody did except you. However, Obama is responsible for continuing the policy, and we can only presume this has BEEN policy from Day One. He surely knew about it, and allowed it to continue, all unknown by his formerly faithful supporters, until it was uncovered. The fact that (as you CLAIM) Obama did not institute the policy (which I personally cannot call truth or falsehood as this is the first I've ever heard of it) is proof that the policy was already in place, and is also proof that he (silently, as it happens) allowed it to continue. There is no possibility, none at all, that he didn't know about it. He is, after all, the CiC. This policy falls squarely and entirely upon his shoulders.

That's abominable. It's monstrous. It's yet another intentional stab in the back- as though the furor over DADT wasn't enough.

"I agree Obama has been dismal on support for the GLBT community"

Obama has not been dismal on that score; Obama has been out-and-out hateful toward the GLBT community. There is no other word to describe telling some people they don't deserve a spouse, or that they don't deserve to keep their job, simply on the basis of who they sleep with. It's hatred, and nothing else. Always has been, always will be. Or would you like to hear that you don't deserve your husband (if you have one)? How would you like to hear that you don't deserve your kids? I haven't heard Obama's opinion on gay parents yet, and at this point, I really don't think you want me to hear his opinion. I suspect that you, and many, many others, would not like the result.

"it's wrong to make it sound as though Obama put this into play when that's not the case. Am I wrong in taking that viewpoint?"

Strawman. NOBODY said that, and if they did and I didn't read it, they're wrong. What was said and is true is that the Obama administration is continuing it, and that lays it at his feet, just as was the case for I don't know how many administrations before him. That doesn't mean he put the policy in place, but it sure as blue fuck DOES mean he's allowing it to continue.

And again: that is hateful and monstrous, and Obama deserves every last least littlest bit of open and shameless and bile-filled condemnation he receives from GLBTs and other supportive Democrats he receives until he rectifies it. I won't hold my breath on that. Ponies don't spawn from lack of oxygen.

I have no hope this policy will change. I have been betrayed, stabbed in the back, run over, and outright shat upon by this President too many times, from the very day of his inauguration, to expect anything remotely resembling sensitivity, compassion, empathy, or understanding toward me and anyone like me.

Obama. Does. Not. Like. Gay. People. Period. I was a fucking fool to think otherwise, and his campaign and his administration were and are fucking douchebags for leading me and everyone else to believe otherwise.

[gateley]

48. I'm making it sound that way? How about the title of the thread:

":Obama admin. cutting gay soldiers pay in half once discharged, when they don't have to"

I'm not presenting a strawman. That's how I interpreted the title and was furious, until I read it had been in place since 1991.

That's what elicited my response.

I understand the points you're making, and for the most part I agree. I just think that outrage should also have been directed at his predecessors who allowed it to continue, too. This is another issue he's been dealt and he's been faced with more than most Presidents walking into office.

What makes us think he was even aware of it previously? If we are sure he knows, and we make our outrage heard, THEN if he doesn't address it the criticism is justified. We can't blame someone if we're not sure they know what's going on. And, how do we know he's NOT working to get it undone? One of my main criticisms of Obama is that he doesn't explain what he's doing, leaving us to assume too much, and often incorrectly.

Another thing that comes to mind, Biden is devoted to our service men and women and is NOT a homophobe. I can't believe that if he knows about this he would be willing to let it continue.

We don't know if he truly doesn't like gay people, but again I understand why it seems that way. Even if he doesn't, he's got a human obligation to ensure their civil rights and stop any discrimination.

[Tx4obama]

67. Obama does like gays and has done quite a bit so far for the LGBT community.

President Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other president in U.S. History.

Obama's LGBT Community Accomplishments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x485790

[Bluebear]

71. "Obama does like gays" - that's why he doesn't believe in our equality

[HughMoran]

37. You know why

Destroy Obama at any cost.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SeattleGirl]

46. "You people"???

Really?

Well, I have a few things I could say about YOU PEOPLE, but I don't usually resort to personal attacks and broad brushes when the only facts I can find are ones I could pull out of my ass.

Unlike YOU PEOPLE.

[MrsCorleone]

80. Yep.

Love your screen name. :hi:

[Radical Activist]

41. Aravosis had a choice to make.

1) Focus on the ISSUE in a way that gets everyone to take action, including Obama supporters.
2) Write about it in a provocative way that's meant to divide Democrats and erode support for Obama.

It would have been very easy to write about this issue in a way that unites all Democrats in favor of reversing a policy implemented by George H. W. Bush. But, Aravosis always chooses option two. It's clear what his top priority is.

[dsc]

55. yeah it is his fault Obama didn't do a damn thing for two years

[Bluebear]

60. !

[Occulus]

66. Hey Bluebear, have you ever noticed how,

whenever there's a thread posted that has any ambiguity in it at all, which criticizes Obama or his administration, Ignored is all over the thread, creating long and sprawling argument trees that alternate between Ignored and Reasonable Critic, AND YET.....

.....whenever there's a thread posted wherein yet another Obama backstab is confirmed as fact, Ignored is almost completely absent?

Why is that?

[Bluebear]

68. Curious, ain't it?

Occulus: You are good people. Thank you for continuing to fight the good fight here! :hug:

[Occulus]

74. Why thank you.

Back at ya! :hug:

I should reference here this recent DU thread, which perhaps gives an answer to my question.

Strange times, innit?

[gateley]

7. Agree -- why sue Obama's administration? Why now? Why not Clinton's or Bush's? nt

[Bluebear]

20. Why was the Civil Rights Act enacted in the 60s? Why not under Eisenhower? Or Polk?

[WinkyDink]

25. What's your point? That the policy should be preserved so as not to embarrass Obama?

[gateley]

51. No -- why do people think I'm trying to 'shield' Obama? The title thread subject

line seemed to imply -- to me -- that it was Obama's administration that put this policy in place. I didn't think that was fair as it was put into place in the 90's. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize.

But wow, the venom and snark that's come out from my "friends" at DU toward me because they perceive I meant something other than I did... it sucks.

It's a despicable policy and it should not have gone on for as long as it has. It has to be 'undone' and if he's aware of it and is doing nothing, he's complicit, I agree.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Because they no longer exist

[TexasObserver]

44. Because NOW is when the practice has been revealed.

No one is letting the Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II administrations off the hook. But the current president is in office when the practice has become public knowledge. It doesn't matter who the president is. The government is the government, irrespective of who is the president.

Stop trying to make this about Obama. It isn't about him or his administration. It IS about the military and the people at the top who made this happen or continued it. THEY need to walk the plank.

[midnight]

9. I seriously hope seperation-pay policy is ammended....

This makes no sense....

[Jamastiene]

12. Fierce! I tell ya! Fierce!

[EFerrari]

14. Unf#cking believable.

[Heidi]

18. Recommended.

:kick:

[Obamanaut]

27. There are, and have been, two tiers of separation pay -

full separation pay, and half separation pay.

Both must be separation under honorable conditions, but for 'full', one must eligible for retention. There are circumstances where the member is not elibible, such as Reduction in Force (RIF.) I suspect they are putting the DADT discharges in the not eligible for retention group, even though the discharge is honorable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. !!!! KEY POINT !!!!!

Until DADT is removed, it actually makes some sense. So lets go kill DADT

[BlueIris]

30. Ugly ass shit. nt

[muffin1]

31. But Bluebear, you keep forgetting one thing...

He doesn't have a magic wand!!11!!


All joking aside, I want to thank you for all your hard work in bringing issues like this to our attention. You are tireless, and I am so grateful for you. :loveya:


For him to allow this shit to continue should make it clear that he has/had no intention of being an advocate - fierce or otherwise.
I'm sure there will be some, however, to tell us how wrong we are. How his 'hands are tied', etc, etc.

[Bluebear]

58. Love to you

always :)

[piratefish08]

33. hope in one hand, change in the other -

and see which one fills up first.

[Life Long Dem]

43. They still pay you when they discharge you?

I see a cut back right here the deficit committee can use.

[fascisthunter]

45. I Swear he acts more Repuklican by the Day

[Catherina]

53. Oh nooes! You want Palin! No pony for you!

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

82. !

[amborin]

61. K&R

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

73. I have never used those words that you typed. n/t

[Bluebear]

81. Right.

[Rex]

72. Sounds like a bout of 'shithead in charge' making evil decisions.

I've never been so disgusted with my country, the people that parade their patriotism in office must really hate the people that serve in the military.