DADT actually post-dates my encounter with the military. I was slated to go into the Navy on the deferred enlistment program during my first year of college, in their nuclear program. I came out that year, and was soundly rejected because of that. I came out the summer before I was supposed to report for duty.

I often wonder what my life would be like if I had just kept my mouth shut and submitted to living a lie. In retrospect, I'm glad I made the decisions I did, because otherwise I might never have met hubby and have the life I currently have. Still, there is always that feeling of "what if...".

Majority support means nothing to the Republicans (and a couple of Dems) on the hill who will fight this tooth and nail.

That being said, I do hope Obama goes after this one soon. While I can somewhat understand his releuctance it this manifestly unfair and damaging policy needs to change. If he does not get to it this legislative year than he must put it on the agenda for next year.

There's no doubt Obama would get a public fight on his hands. He's probably figuring that if he waits a couple years, he'll get it repealed anyway. If he gets massive pressure from the left to do it, he'd be content to let it get fought in Congress.

If Obama were to scrap DADT this afternoon, he'd expect a big political fight

He can expect a big political fight if he chooses the wrong mustard. Maybe he should just do the right thing.

If you guys think it's a great idea to shove gay soldiers down the throats of the majority of Americans who don't want them, I encourage you to try.

People may not say so to pollsters, but they're firmly in support of DADT. But I wouldn't expect people who already knew what "teabagging" means to have a handle on normal American views.

Better to simply stop enforcing the policy quietly, and bring an end to fiascos like the one recently reported on by Rachel Maddow.

While there is a good reason to end the policy, there isn't a good reason to provoke another "hot-button" controversy when there are already so many other issues on the table, some of which are plainly of greater importance.

The fact that this is a debate at all just seems inane to me. Wasn't the whole problem with gays in the military supposed to be that, because they would obviously want keep their horrible secret to themselves, clearly they were making the military vulnerable to blackmail? If people are not closeted, what's the problem?

Social changes in society take time.

What was shocking behavior in the fifties is now the norm. (Dress, porn, music, ad infinitum)

Ditto for racial prejudice and religious bigotry.

The Brass Hats fear and loathe homosexuality. The twenty year old PFCs don't give a shit. . .

"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

The most vocal opposition to repealing DADT won't come from the Rethugs. It will come from the conservadems and the pansies who are shitting themselves in terror at the thought of re-living the Clinton years because of it.

And in the meantime, President Separate-But-Equal has completely backed off every campaign promise to LGBT constituents, refuses to comment when that "it should be left to the states" marriage equality actually happens, and makes jokes at our expense at fundraiser dinners while his lapdog Robert Gibbs dances for the press corps.

Yes, we can. But we won't, will we? There will always be some weak excuse.

Does no one realize that Obama must all be waiting til Franken is seated as his 60th vote in the Sen.? The Reps would love to filibuster this in order to gin up fear & in order to derail healthcare. As a left-wing gay guy, my priorities are more war & peace, social justice, & environment, than they are are gay marriage & DADT. Healthcare reform has a narrow window, whereas DADT etc just grow in strength. You & I know the heinous Reps would use any odious tactic to replace healthcare reform by scary gays in the national mind.
And also this: which many of the gay left focused on bourgeois marriage seem not to notice: for once we ha e a Pres. who does not hold to a "unitary executive: theory, believing instead that the Congress too is part a full democratic procedure in the pursuit of political progress. That's why Gibbs says he wants a "permanent" solutioon to DADT, not a temporary one by executive fiat.

You forgot the most important segment, the military, where do they stand. We are fighting two wars and it wouldn't hurt to see if implementing the policy right now could hurt strategically.

The policy is tired and it's old, it really is time for the military to get with the times. I am a Veteran and I can attest to real hatred of gays, or at least talk of it being fairly rampant. I am not saying we don't change the policy because of the bigots, but do we change the policy during a war ?

I know we are losing linguists and pilots, but the grunts on the front lines might not be as accepting as a fellow pilot or in the office doing translations. Grunts are grunts and they have never been labeled intellectuals. Loads of rednecks who think war is awesome, orders are followed to the T, and the battlefield is no place for gays. These are the people who are laying it on the line and make real sacrifices.

I don't think it would hurt to see where they stand, and how it might effect our readiness.

Poor Myke K. He doesn't seem to realize that gay military personnel have always been there, and no one is trying to shove anything down some hypothetical throat. Gay military personnel serve openly in many other countries, and there's no rational reason why that shouldn't be true here as well. The language and other skills lost because of DADT forcing qualified and highly trained personnel out of service has damaged our anti-terrorist efforts, and generally lessen military effectiveness.

Unfortunately, the troglodyte contingent will make a fuss, but we shouldn't expect them to grow up before they go extinct, apparently.

Bennett @5:04:

my priorities are more war & peace, social justice, & environment, than they are are gay marriage & DADT

Uh, Benett, Gay Marraige and DATE are social justice issues. Please try to keep up.

Aargh, I hate it when I don't proof read before I post and find a mistake. DATE shoud be date.

Mea Culpa

Okay, I know I put D A D T corretly in my correction post. Something weird is going on here.

ScottW,

1) There are gay grunts "laying it on the line and making real sacrifices," thankyouverymuch. I know quite a few of them personally, and have been proud to serve with them.

2) Unless the policy goes so far as to forcibly out gays and put them into segregated barracks and latrines/heads, the grunts probably won't know to care. As I told my 82nd Airborne brother when his 19-year-old straight midwestern christian self panicked at the thought, just because they won't lose their jobs if they come out doesn't mean they WILL come out. Statistically speaking, 3-10 of the grunts in his company were gay, and he just didn't know, and probably would never know, even if the policy changes.

We don't come out unless it's safe to, no matter what the law says. This meme about gays getting up at formation and announcing it to the entire world, running through the barracks in dresses and boas, and singing show tunes on patrol needs to quit. Gays in MI and medical fields will still come out at a higher rate than grunts. The reason you don't hear people in Congress or the Village say this is because they're not open gay veterans, and have never had to make the decision whether to come out or not. It's never occurred to them, in their default setting of straight, to ask how gay people, civilian and military, actually live our lives.

the pansies

ohnoyoudidn't.

ohyesidid.

It was either that, or "corrupt, slimy bottom-feeders."

Wait, you do understand that I was referring to Democratic Congresscritters, right?

Wait, you do understand that I was referring to Democratic Congresscritters, right?

I do. It just took me aback that you would pick a word with that history and those connotations.

Hm, good point. I'm not of the gay generation that grew up hearing it as a slur, and it seemed slightly more progressive-friendly than "pussies." Thus I didn't think much of it. And here I was thinking that you were shocked because you believed I was including pundits in that statement! Just goes to show that generation gap, I guess.

Mayhaps "cowering pants-wetters" would have been more apropo. "Mouth-breathing window-lickers" is reserved for the Religious Wrong.

But what does the military think of it? I suspect Obama wants to keep the military brass on his side.

If Obama makes another trademark awesome speech on this topic, then makes it happen, overturning DADT is a massive political winner for Obama. Massive. Like pulling off a band-aid, this will be briefly painful but long run a non-issue. Until 2010 or 2012. Anyone still giving a crap (Huckabee? Mittster? Anyone?) will be, correctly, thought a loser loon out of touch with mainstream America. Will and Grace has been off the air for how many years now? Obama gets a huge feather in his cap, rightfully would look like a leader for advancing the country. Good politics and good policy. But the window of opportunity to grab the political benefits is closing. DADT (and other crap) will fall with or without Obama's help. He would do himself and his party and his country a favor by helping it along. Sooner the better.

ScottW says: You forgot the most important segment, the military, where do they stand.

A Zogby poll conducted back in 2007 found "73 percent of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23 percent) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21 percent of those in combat units."

I suspect the numbers to have only increased since then. When the armed forces are reduced to recruiting known gang members, convicted felons, militia/supremist group members - how can having out gays/lesbians be worse for unit cohesion?

And here I was thinking that you were shocked because you believed I was including pundits in that statement!

What, in my entire history of posting here, would lead you to believe that I held such a view? Perish the thought!

Just goes to show that generation gap, I guess.

Oh, I doubt there's as much as half a generation between us. But yeah, I've probably been around longer.

Anyway, not to tell you how to insult people, but I'm quite fond of the non-gendered and non-sexual orientation-loaded word "candyasses."

CParis, the attitudes are, as expected, different both in generational and rank difference. As of late 2007, the numbers of enlisted who favored repealing the ban to those who didn't were about 70%-30%. The numbers for officers were inverted, 30%-70%. Now that election season anti-gay, racist, drumbeat hatred has died down, there's no real knowing what the numbers are.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that the majority of the junior enlisted, and a hefty chunk of the senior enlisted, largely have no issues. (We tend to live in ground-truth reality, and the reality is that we have gay troops in our ranks who are just as good as the straight ones.) The younger generations of officers (O-3 and below) also have fewer issues, especially among the former enlisted. It's the O-4 and above officer corps who have the problems, particularly among the service academy graduates. As a veteran, I work in a joint service environment with officers and enlisted, and the issue, well, really isn't one. The naval officers I work with, aside from the knee-jerk religious nuts, are just fine from O-1 to O-3, a few of the O-4s have issues, and oddly enough, all three of the O-6s in the department are desperate to repeal the ban. The fact that we are MI, and if the ban were to be enforced, MI would lose 40% of its people, may have something to do with that. ;) It's funny how bigotry magically vanishes when faced with the prospect of crippling your forces.

A thought: instead of a blanket reoudiation of don't ask-don't tell, use what Joseph Stalin described as "salami tactics." Define certain MOS's as critically short of needed personnel, e.g., it makes no sense to spend a lot of money training Arab linguists while we need interpreters during a war in Iraq and then expel them from the service for being gay. Therefore, critically short MOS's should be exempted from the ban on gays. How do opponents of gay soldiers defend that one? Second, define recipients of certain military decorations as worthy of retention; as Rachel Maddow demonstrated recently, she presented a highly decorated pilot being discharged for being gay and then asked: how does discharging this accomplished pilot make our security safer? It doesn't. Let the gay-bashers respond to that one , too. Then, keep expanding both categories of exemption.

@Keori - thank you for your service.

bilben, while I understand your reasoning, as an activist, I can't in good conscience allow equality for some people, but not others. As a veteran and a career NCO, I can't in good conscience stand up for some of my troops, but not all of them.

I understand that sometimes incremental works best, but this is not one of those times. Troops in harm's way put their lives and the well-being of their families and loved ones on the line every day. Gay troops don't even have the reassurance that their families will be cared for if the worst happens. We owe it to them to raise up ALL of them at once instead of cherry-picking the more popular ones.

No, no incremental games, no more talk about segregated barracks or restricted MOSs or non-deployable status, none of this "some of you are equal and some of you are not" bullshit. As an NCO I saw to the care and well-being of all of my troops equally. I expect no less from the Commander-in-Chief who leads our troops, and the Congress that decides to send them into harm's way.

Bennett @5:05 said it for me.

Michael W, I hear and feel you, still without health care the rest is window dressing. I live and commune with blue collar and service job gays whose existence is pushed to the margins because we cannot afford medical care.

Solve this issue and we will have to the time, energy and health to take to the streets and fight hard for those other policies

While there is a good reason to end the policy, there isn't a good reason to provoke another "hot-button" controversy when there are already so many other issues on the table, some of which are plainly of greater importance.

1. Lame excuse. When was it a safe time to integrate the military? We can do more than one thing at a time. Weak. Very weak.

2. The question is moot anyway. It'll be a hot-button issue for 10 minutes, then everybody will get on with gettin' on with their lives. It'll be over so fast you won't even know it. Anyone who keeps fighting DADT will be a laughingstock, and rightfully so.

Those military polls on repealing DADT in favor vs. not in favor (70%:30% enlisted; 30%:70% officers) are encouraging on the probably younger enlisted side. However, I wonder what to expect from that 30% of enlisted and especially the 70% of officers when it is repealed. Are they so homophobic that they would leave the military, while the military is already overextended with 2 wars or worse, would they be dangerous enough to attack (physically/sexually) or refuse to protect gay and lesbian service members?

D-Day Commemoration

Today, our esteemed president, fresh from his historic speech in Cairo, will join other leaders in the celebration of the 65th anniversary of the World War II landing on the beaches of Normandy. It was a bloody day as the allied forces began the campaign to defeat Hitler on the continent of Europe. Many died, many fought with unparalleled bravery.

I applaud the principles and actions of President Obama and have always thought that he may well be one of our greatest presidents. But he has certainly been less than great in his failure to end the discriminatory and demeaning "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, as he had promised in his campaign. If Harry Truman could show the fortitude to end the much larger problem of segregation in the military, surely Obama could end this senseless policy. The change is slight by comparison, since many gays are serving successfully every day while being forced to hide or lie about their nature. Meanwhile, on Obama's watch, the services are losing Arabic speakers and other valuable people.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

who will tell that wall-eyed fuck Sam Nunn?

Some of the main argument against gays, and not just in the military, is that they are sex predators and pedophiles.

The fact is that female rape victims are mostly children, adolescents, teens and young adults preyed of by heterosexual males.

Most male rape victims are young boys, adolescents and teens preyed on by men to claim to be and often function as heterosexual males.

If Obama changed DADT the haters and fear mongers would hit the media echo chamber and the sheep that are the American people would change there mind again. All of a sudden we'd be listening to lies about "unit cohesion" instead of listening to lies about healthcare and cap 'n trade. I love you Steve but this sleeping dog is best left to lie for another year until the prioritors are sorted out and we have a media cycle or 2 to kill.

Should be a military decision based on effectiveness. Combat is no place for social engineering.

Seems to me just natural that men and women should feel discomfort if forced into communal showers or the like, so why should it be any different with straights and gays? In the real world that libs are above, I have found that Hispanics are particularly both anti-gay and modest,and they make up much of the armed forces. First time a couple of Latin Kings off a gay, libs will do the infamous "man's inhumanity to man" feigned mensch routine.