"Don't ask, don't tell"

[WaylonJennings]

Say what you will about this administration not getting enough accomplished, this is a landmark civil rights advancement, and just a step on the way to a much bigger fish, I believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html

As I've discussed with a friend, Congressmen like McCain and Boehner are going to look very, very bad when historians examine this issue and sift through their statements.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Kudos to Obama for getting it done, if it happens. It's about time. But I think when you measure this against other civil rights advances it will be remembered as something relatively minor. Even Truman desegregating the army in the 40s (which had little or no impact on segregation societally) was a bigger deal, because the segregated armed forces were overt and something anyone with a set of eyes could see. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a "bury your head in the sand" kind of policy, not one that makes the discrimination overt in a way that people can easily see -- because it doesn't really affect the way the armed forces look to even a casual observer.

When we look back, if there are future things that give gays rights they haven't had or some pioneer gives us an iconic gay role model, such as a Federal marriage amendment giving gay couples rights equally to heterosexual couples, or something high profile, like a superstar athlete coming out of the closet, I think it will be a more major event. Ending "don't ask, don't tell" is a nice symbolic measure and a step in the right direction that can lead to bigger advances, but practically it doesn't affect that many people and I'm not sure it is going to open the floodgates for more rights for gays.

All of that said, good for Obama for pushing it.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Ragu, the thing is that there is no more "masculine" institution existing than the military. If the barriers fall down there, then it's tough to keep them up at all, anywhere. It's an enormous step. Symbolically, yes. But also as an indication that "social mores" and public opinion are moving this way, to, say, the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who are going to have less and less reasons to uphold state bans on gay marriage when the issue gets to them. There is no legitimate state interest being protected, and the fall of DADT is an enormous piece of evidence that this is the case.

 

[Ace]

The funny thing is that when they finally get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell they will find that it's no big deal at all and that all the fears and worries folks had over the years are stupid and unfounded.

 

[TrooperBari]

The funny thing is that when they finally get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell they will find that it's no big deal at all and that all the fears and worries folks had over the years are stupid and unfounded.

Shhhh ... you're gonna ruin the surprise!

 

[Boom_70]

Good for Obama. History will prove that this may be the single worst policy of the Bush Presidency.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Good for Obama. History will prove that this may be the single worst policy of the Bush Presidency.

Ha, ha. I saw what you did there. :

 

[Crash]

Waylon,

I agree with one of your original points:

In 15-20 years, when I have kids in school, they're going to look back at all this gay-hating **** and think we were so stupid for wasting so much time on it. It might not directly parallel to the Civil Rights Movement, but it's going to be looked upon that way. A generation of two from now, they'll look back and wonder what the big deal is. And the people who stood up for the status quo will regret it. At least I hope they will.

We've expended far more energy on DADT, gay marriage and the inclusion of homosexuals in hate crimes legislation than we should have had to.

 

[old_tony]

Kudos to Obama for getting it done, if it happens. It's about time. But I think when you measure this against other civil rights advances it will be remembered as something relatively minor. Even Truman desegregating the army in the 40s (which had little or no impact on segregation societally) was a bigger deal, because the segregated armed forces were overt and something anyone with a set of eyes could see. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a "bury your head in the sand" kind of policy, not one that makes the discrimination overt in a way that people can easily see -- because it doesn't really affect the way the armed forces look to even a casual observer.

When we look back, if there are future things that give gays rights they haven't had or some pioneer gives us an iconic gay role model, such as a Federal marriage amendment giving gay couples rights equally to heterosexual couples, or something high profile, like a superstar athlete coming out of the closet, I think it will be a more major event. Ending "don't ask, don't tell" is a nice symbolic measure and a step in the right direction that can lead to bigger advances, but practically it doesn't affect that many people and I'm not sure it is going to open the floodgates for more rights for gays.

All of that said, good for Obama for pushing it.

I agree with most of what you have here, but I would like to point out that serving in the military is not a "right" in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I have problem with gays serving in the military. I think they should be allowed. But it isn't a right.

 

[Ace]

Kudos to Obama for getting it done, if it happens. It's about time. But I think when you measure this against other civil rights advances it will be remembered as something relatively minor. Even Truman desegregating the army in the 40s (which had little or no impact on segregation societally) was a bigger deal, because the segregated armed forces were overt and something anyone with a set of eyes could see. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a "bury your head in the sand" kind of policy, not one that makes the discrimination overt in a way that people can easily see -- because it doesn't really affect the way the armed forces look to even a casual observer.

When we look back, if there are future things that give gays rights they haven't had or some pioneer gives us an iconic gay role model, such as a Federal marriage amendment giving gay couples rights equally to heterosexual couples, or something high profile, like a superstar athlete coming out of the closet, I think it will be a more major event. Ending "don't ask, don't tell" is a nice symbolic measure and a step in the right direction that can lead to bigger advances, but practically it doesn't affect that many people and I'm not sure it is going to open the floodgates for more rights for gays.

All of that said, good for Obama for pushing it.

I agree with most of what you have here, but I would like to point out that serving in the military is not a "right" in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I have problem with gays serving in the military. I think they should be allowed. But it isn't a right.

It's semantics. It's an opportunity that they are being denied. Just like being denied the chance to buy a house, rent an apartment, get a specific job, etc.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Kudos to Obama for getting it done, if it happens. It's about time. But I think when you measure this against other civil rights advances it will be remembered as something relatively minor. Even Truman desegregating the army in the 40s (which had little or no impact on segregation societally) was a bigger deal, because the segregated armed forces were overt and something anyone with a set of eyes could see. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a "bury your head in the sand" kind of policy, not one that makes the discrimination overt in a way that people can easily see -- because it doesn't really affect the way the armed forces look to even a casual observer.

When we look back, if there are future things that give gays rights they haven't had or some pioneer gives us an iconic gay role model, such as a Federal marriage amendment giving gay couples rights equally to heterosexual couples, or something high profile, like a superstar athlete coming out of the closet, I think it will be a more major event. Ending "don't ask, don't tell" is a nice symbolic measure and a step in the right direction that can lead to bigger advances, but practically it doesn't affect that many people and I'm not sure it is going to open the floodgates for more rights for gays.

All of that said, good for Obama for pushing it.

I agree with most of what you have here, but I would like to point out that serving in the military is not a "right" in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I have problem with gays serving in the military. I think they should be allowed. But it isn't a right.

It's semantics. It's an opportunity that they are being denied. Just like being denied the chance to buy a house, rent an apartment, get a specific job, etc.

It may not be a "right," but eventually it'll be considered against the constitution to discriminate specifically on that basis, like marriage.

 

[zagoshe]

I see Obama has now taken a page from Clinton's failed playbook -- delve into a fringe issue to appease a fringe group while the economy sucks, we're still in an idiotic war and we're still looking for jobs and stability in our markets and in our health care system.....

Of course, as Clinton found out, most voters don't take to kindly to this kind of idiocy in a first term when the economic world around us is falling down and that led to the rise of Newt and company.

These kinds of fringe issues are the kinds of things a president should take on late in his second term when he has helped put an end to the problems he was sent to Washington to fix.......

 

[The Big Ragu]

Well, heck, if serving in the military isn't a right, can we just exclude the Jews and blacks too, while we're at it?

The point about rights was that we shouldn't have government-sanctioned policies of discriminating against people based on things like race, religion and I'd add, their sexual preference, which is a private matter. No matter how you parse it and whatever semantics anyone tries to use, it's simply bigotry that serves no purpose beyond the same old tried-and-true ritual of a majority singling out a minority for discrimination.

 

[Football_Bat]

When the Armed Forces Chief of Staff favors removing it, the days of DADT are numbered. It's just a matter of when Pelosi will let it go to the floor.

If we were using a civil rights parallel as a measuring stick (and only as such), we'd be at 1946 sr so, before the armed forces integrated. It took another eight years for Brown vs. Board and another decade after Brown for the Civil Rights Act, and pockets of racism remained long afterward. So the gay rights movement still has a long ways to go. But this is a big one for them.

 

[WaylonJennings]

I see Obama has now taken a page from Clinton's failed playbook -- delve into a fringe issue to appease a fringe group while the economy sucks, we're still in an idiotic war and we're still looking for jobs and stability in our markets and in our health care system.....

Of course, as Clinton found out, most voters don't take to kindly to this kind of idiocy in a first term when the economic world around us is falling down and that led to the rise of Newt and company.

These kinds of fringe issues are the kinds of things a president should take on late in his second term when he has helped put an end to the problems he was sent to Washington to fix.......

From the guy who was ranting yesterday about how Obama hadn't accomplished anything he promised to do in office.

And from the guy who makes posts with 30 exclamation marks with all caps about how the government should stay out of our lives.

For being a big libertarian, you sure do like to bash The Gay when opportunity knocks.

This is completely uncontroversial. Gates is on board. Mullen is on board. It's not a fringe issue. We are fighting wars on two fronts and dismissing Arabic linguists because of who they sleep with. That's insane. And dangerous.

On the same topic, I hope Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy are thinking long and hard about what is going to be coming across their bench at some point soon. Because they are going to get to choose their legacy. I think Roberts is too smart to end up on the wrong side of history.

 

[Boom_70]

Waylon,

I agree with one of your original points:

In 15-20 years, when I have kids in school, they're going to look back at all this gay-hating **** and think we were so stupid for wasting so much time on it. It might not directly parallel to the Civil Rights Movement, but it's going to be looked upon that way. A generation of two from now, they'll look back and wonder what the big deal is. And the people who stood up for the status quo will regret it. At least I hope they will.

We've expended far more energy on DADT, gay marriage and the inclusion of homosexuals in hate crimes legislation than we should have had to.

Imagine the money saved if we elimananted litigation on these "special interests " and war on drugs. It would be billions that could be put to better use.

20 years from now our kids will be able to stop into 7/11 for a gram and their dating choices will have expanded by 50%

 

[Ace]

I see Obama has now taken a page from Clinton's failed playbook -- delve into a fringe issue to appease a fringe group while the economy sucks, we're still in an idiotic war and we're still looking for jobs and stability in our markets and in our health care system.....

Of course, as Clinton found out, most voters don't take to kindly to this kind of idiocy in a first term when the economic world around us is falling down and that led to the rise of Newt and company.

These kinds of fringe issues are the kinds of things a president should take on late in his second term when he has helped put an end to the problems he was sent to Washington to fix.......

I take it you're not much of a multitasker. How much time do you think Obama really needs to spend on this issue?

 

[zagoshe]

I see Obama has now taken a page from Clinton's failed playbook -- delve into a fringe issue to appease a fringe group while the economy sucks, we're still in an idiotic war and we're still looking for jobs and stability in our markets and in our health care system.....

Of course, as Clinton found out, most voters don't take to kindly to this kind of idiocy in a first term when the economic world around us is falling down and that led to the rise of Newt and company.

These kinds of fringe issues are the kinds of things a president should take on late in his second term when he has helped put an end to the problems he was sent to Washington to fix.......

From the guy who was ranting yesterday about how Obama hadn't accomplished anything he promised to do in office.

And from the guy who makes posts with 30 exclamation marks with all caps about how the government should stay out of our lives.

For being a big libertarian, you sure do like to bash The Gay when opportunity knocks.

This is completely uncontroversial. Gates is on board. Mullen is on board. It's not a fringe issue. We are fighting wars on two fronts and dismissing Arabic linguists because of who they sleep with. That's insane. And dangerous.

On the same topic, I hope Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy are thinking long and hard about what is going to be coming across their bench at some point soon. Because they are going to get to choose their legacy. I think Roberts is too smart to end up on the wrong side of history.

When have I ever bashed homosexuals?

Ever?

I've consistently said that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and frankly if homosexuals want to tell the world who they are, I don't give a **** about that either.

I thought don't ask don't tell was a stupid - and typical bull**** tap dance -- by Slick Willy when it started and still do. There was no reason for it in the first place.

But Obama's "promise" to end this policy was nothing more than placating a left-wing group that helped get him elected.

Don't make it more than that and don't celebrate it like he's done some grand sweeping thing to make America better.

There are far, far bigger problems and issues he has to occupy his time -- this is something that wasn't or isn't pressing.

The fact that he's made a total abortion out of the healthcare reform, well, that IS pressing.

 

[zagoshe]

I see Obama has now taken a page from Clinton's failed playbook -- delve into a fringe issue to appease a fringe group while the economy sucks, we're still in an idiotic war and we're still looking for jobs and stability in our markets and in our health care system.....

Of course, as Clinton found out, most voters don't take to kindly to this kind of idiocy in a first term when the economic world around us is falling down and that led to the rise of Newt and company.

These kinds of fringe issues are the kinds of things a president should take on late in his second term when he has helped put an end to the problems he was sent to Washington to fix.......

I take it you're not much of a multitasker. How much time do you think Obama really needs to spend on this issue?

If he's spending more than five minutes on it -- and that includes two minutes for the press conference - it is too much time.

We have serious problems facing this country and this isn't one of them.

 

[The Big Ragu]

The Dr. Seuss school of Libertarianism.