New urgency on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell

by desmoinesdem, Mon May 04, 2009 at 06:45:41 AM EDT

President Barack Obama's spokesman confirmed in January that the president is committed to ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prohibits gay and lesbian soldiers from being open about their sexual orientation. The official White House website still promises to repeal this policy.

Congressional action is required to change Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and there have been some questions about whether Congress will get a bill on this to Obama's desk during 2009.

The advance of marriage equality in Iowa and Vermont brings new urgency to the matter. The Des Moines Register reports on the front page of Monday's edition,

Gay and lesbian military service members who are legally married in Iowa can still be involuntarily discharged from the Iowa National Guard and other military branches under a federal law that prevents homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces, military officials say.
The federal law, approved by Congress in 1993, takes precedence over the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April that legalized same-sex marriage, according to legal experts. The ruling struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, which had limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The Iowa National Guard is prevented from implementing the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling for its personnel because it is a federally recognized military organization, said Lt. Col. Gregory Hapgood Jr., the Iowa National Guard's public affairs officer. [...]
The federal law allows the military to discharge members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts, and those who state they are homosexual or bisexual. The law says that military life is fundamentally different from civilian life. It also says the prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
The ban on same-sex marriage by National Guard members and other military service personnel also applies in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont, the three other states with legalized same-sex marriage, said Emily Hecht, a lawyer for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group dedicated to repealing the federal law. Same-sex marriage will be legal in Vermont as of Sept. 1.

In December I wrote that Barack Obama needs to keep his word on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Some commenters in the thread at MyDD argued that it was prudent for Obama to proceed cautiously on this issue, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration in 1993.

Even if Obama doesn't take the advice of former Clinton White House staffer Richard Socarides, who advocated "bold action" on behalf of gay Americans in this Washington Post op-ed, the least the president can do is urge Congress to move quickly on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Public opinion has shifted dramatically since 1993. Multiple national polls have shown large majorities in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Servicemen and servicewomen should not be forced to choose between their jobs and exercising their civil marriage rights.

Tags: Barack Obama, DADT, don't ask don't tell, Gays in the military, glbt, Iowa, LGBT (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Sort by

permalink

The 'fierce urgency of now'....

this should happen NOW. Democrats may not be so lucky at the next election to have this much of a margin, therefore push through as many initiatives as possible - this is one that should get pushed through.

by nikkid 2009-05-04 07:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New urgency on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Congressional action is required to change Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and there have been some questions about whether Congress will get a bill on this to Obama's desk during 2009.

I think saying "there's some question" somewhat misstates the situation. Congress seems to have been very clear about what their plans are:

"I believe we should and will do `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' next year," said Frank, a co-chairman of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Equality Caucus. "We haven't done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation."

Frank, who is one of three openly gay House Members, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "always has been" in support of waiting to move the issue next year. He said Democratic leaders will likely push a free-standing bill in early 2010.

"We don't even know the votes in committee, let alone the votes on the floor. ... So I think the prediction it will not happen in calendar year 2009 is probably accurate," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is also openly gay and a co-chairwoman of the LGBT Caucus.

One thing I'll note-- the Congressional Democratic leadership is arguing we should pass DADT reform in 2010, or after the ENDA+Hate Crimes bills pass, and arguing this on the grounds that by doing it this way the DADT repeal will be more likely to pass. You are arguing we should pass DADT reform now because DADT reform would be good. It doesn't seem like this is the correct argument to be addressing. If your goal is in fact to convince Congress to change their minds and take up DADT reform now instead of 2010, then it seems like you would need to be making an argument as to why or how a DADT repeal action could be successful now-- as compared to next year or after the ENDA+Hate Crimes bills have made it through the system.

by mcc 2009-05-04 11:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

if they are worried about a backlash

I don't see how waiting until an election year helps the cause.

If Frank and Baldwin really think we don't have the votes to do it sooner than next year, that's sad. I think a signal from the White House that this needs to happen would help move things along. Then again, Gates may not be on board--I don't know.

by desmoinesdem 2009-05-04 02:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: if they are worried about a backlash

So, a few things here.

First off, I don't read the comments I've seen from Frank/Baldwin/Pelosi as saying they "fear a backlash" exactly. They're just recognizing this is going to be a harder fight than usual and it's going to have to be approached with care-- or maybe one could say there's a potential backlash but it can be mitigated or avoided if they approach the problem correctly.

Second, as far as "we don't have the votes to do it sooner", I think it's more about trying to do one thing at a time-- I think they're saying they expect they can get the votes together to do it if they apply pressure, but their resources on that front are currently occupied with passing the hate crimes bill and ENDA. All statements I've seen from Pelosi indicate that to the extent she is wanting to put off DADT, the schedule on which she is putting it off is specifically determined by how long she expects it will take her to pass those two specific bills. It is quite plausible that that process will indeed take us to the beginning of 2010, so I expect that is what's driving the schedule claimed by Frank etc.

Third, as far as the White House goes, all signals they've given in public are that they are themselves actively pushing for the 2010 schedule for reasons of their own. Let's put aside Gates for a moment-- his public statements have been at variance with the rest of the White House apparatus and I really don't know what he is on board or not with. But Obama has been talking about wanting to repeal DADT through "a process" since even before the election. There have been statements from for example Gibbs since Obama took office reiterating this position. The focus here largely seems to be fear of pushing through the DADT repeal without getting the military on board or presenting the appearance of getting the military on board. So what does "a process" mean? What I usually see reference to is, as typified by this Boston Globe article which I think is worth reading, a "comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline". Basically Obama appears to want, when he finally takes this to Congress, to be able to address arguments concerning what impact a DADT repeal would have on the military by saying, look, we have actual data on this, here's what we found. It is unclear to me whether any such study has in fact been started or not, however the timetables for such a study when it's discussed in a press, as in the Globe article, always place the results at later in the year or the beginning of next year-- in other words, neatly in sync with the legislative schedule Frank, Baldwin and Pelosi have endorsed.

Of course none of this reduces the importance or usefulness of creating outside pressure toward a DADT repeal. But I think it's worth being aware that the Democratic leadership does seem to be working under a specific plan that the public statements from Pelosi, Frank and the White House are very consistent on; and since as they seem to see it that plan is specifically designed to maximize chances for both the DADT repeal and the wider LGBT agenda it doesn't seem likely that increased pressure would specifically lead to them switching to a different plan. It almost seems like the most likely way to move the DADT timetable up is if ENDA and the hate crimes bill passed quickly...

by mcc 2009-05-04 03:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New urgency on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I agree. If he really wants to repeal it he should do it now. He still has relatively high approval ratings and he has the numbers in Congress to push through the legislation without any obstacles.

Then again passing the legislation may cost the Obama campaign went it comes to the moderates. Which may have a side effect of weaking Obama in the polls and which also may cost us in mid-term elections as conservatives get riled up. I remember when George Bush proposed his Constitutional Amendment regarding marriage right before one of the elections. It never gain any logical traction....but that wedge issue was crucial as it helped the GOP in terms of donors and turnout.

I think perhaps Obamas trying to figure which legislation to use his "goodwill points" towards. He is gonna need to be strong when he pushes through healthcare reform. He is also gonna need to be viewed as strong when pushing through his desired judicial nominees

by newmexicodem 2009-05-04 12:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

why now? several reasons

1) He has political capital now.

2) This isn't 1993 (when the U.S. electorate was still on a rightward swing and Ellen DeGeneres's lesbian kiss on TV was a huge controversy). Thanks in part to Bill Clinton--yes, the same guy who sold LGBT people out on DOMA and DADT--who appointed openly gay people to high-level posts in his administration and was willing to say the words "gay and lesbian" out loud, and in part to the growing visibility of LGBT people in other parts of public life and culture, queerness isn't as taboo as it was.

Also, thanks to George Bush's terrible foreign policy, we need all the servicemembers we can get, and the American people know it.

3) Even within the supposedly conservative armed forces, support for repeal is very high. Cf. http://www.sldn.org/pages/polling-data . Among the general population, several polls show more than 70% support for repeal.

4) Yes, Obama needs to tread carefully with the top brass, but even the top brass who were dead-set against openly gay & lesbian servicemembers in 1993 now say they regret the policy. If Obama's team emphasizes the great need for, say, the decorated Arabic-speaking lesbian and gay people who have been discharged solely because of this dumb policy, I don't see how Gates could raise much of a stink. (Gates should go anyway, but that's another topic.)

5) Obama needs to win back some good will on the part of the LGBT community. This would be a good start, and much easier politically than repeal of DOMA (which he also needs to take the lead on soon or be forever on the wrong side of history).

by chiefscribe 2009-05-04 01:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree on all counts

I don't think repealing DOMA federally has a chance until long after Obama leaves office, by the way.

by desmoinesdem 2009-05-04 02:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

DOMA will go down in the courts

it just make take a decade or two.

by DTOzone 2009-05-04 10:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

I thought of an interesting problem

DADT could cause a few years back.

When the Iraq War started, I was of draft age...I was 20, so I was first in line. I remember my gay friend walking around saying "they won't take me, I'm gay" and other friends of mine saying to him "dude, if they draft me, you're my boyfriend"

If we have a draft, being gay is the new Canada...the best way to dodge the draft. I don't think anyone who instituted this policy ever thought that men in my generation would have no problem pretending to be gay.

by DTOzone 2009-05-04 10:49PM | 0 recs