Deconstructing the 'we are at war' excuse not repealing DADT this year

Don't get me wrong. I'm just as grateful and happy as the next LGBT American that we now have a memorandum from the White House to permit us to visit our partners in the hospital when they are sick or dying. What I don't understand, and can't seem to rationalize, is why one of these memorandums hasn't been issued to prevent gays and lesbians from being discharged from the military, or fired from their civilian jobs, simply for being gay?

Also hard to take is the media's suggestion that the hospital memo is a BOLD move by the Obama Administration. If the President wants to improve his relationship with the LGBT community there are a few things over at the "Don't Ask Don't Give" pledge he promised us that he could follow through on instead of the whole "one step forward two steps back, slow walking, incremental change" strategy that he's been following for the past 16 months.

One thing that disturbs me most is that it seems the Obama administration always tentatively steps into issues, shows its cards, and invites conservatives to whip up opposition while the administration takes it time moving forward. The administration either doesn't want the change it says it believes in, or it is too frightened by the consequences of change to do what it says it wants.

Change requires bold leadership. The kind of leadership that was exemplified by President Eisenhower during World War II. The kind of leadership that paved the way for an African-American to become Commander-in-Chief.

In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units--all of which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow Afro-American soldiers to pick up a gun and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time. This was the first step toward a desegregated United States military. Eisenhower's decision in this case was strongly opposed by his own army chief of staff, [[Lieutenent General Walter Bedell Smith. Indeed, it was stated that Bedell Smith was outraged by the decision and had said that the American public take offense at the integration of the military units.

In 1948, President Harry S Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress. Representatives of the Solid South, all white Democrats, would likely have stonewalled related legislation.

For instance, in May 1948, Richard B. Russell, Democratic Senator from Georgia, attached an amendment to the Selective Services bill then being debated in Congress. The Russell amendment would have granted draftees and new inductees an opportunity to choose whether or not they wanted to serve in segregated military units. Russell's amendment was defeated in committee. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948. In June 1950 when the Selective Services Law came up for renewal, Russell tried again to attach his segregation amendment, and again Congress defeated it.

Note that Eisenhower didn't check with his critics, and certainly did not issue a poll to the soldier's parents asking them, "Would it be okay if Johnny served alongside an African American soldier?" Nothing is stopping the Obama Administration from issuing an Executive Order ending DADT while the policy is being reviewed. Eisenhower didn't take small careful steps to end segregation, neither should Obama. It doesn't take much courage to check with all your potential critics and determine they don't mind the changes you are considering.

Around the same time, other officials began talking to hospitals with religious affiliations to gauge what the reaction might be. Josh Dubois, who is in charge of the president's outreach to the religious community, called Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association.

"They reached out to say this was a concern of some groups, and they wanted to know were there any obstacles," Keehan said.

It is too cute by half that the Obama Administration feels the need to check with the Catholics right now, considering their problems with child rape by their priests. I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some bold, unapologetic change, especially considering we are at war and can ill afford to be losing good soldiers simply because their sexual orientation happens to be gay. We are simply asking for the changes promised us instead of apologetic half measures for fear of upsetting the Tea Partier or conservative Catholic Bishop types. I'm waiting for Obama to show some fierce advocacy so we can continue to support him and his policies one hundred and ten percent. Read More...

Sarvis: 'Congress is on the brink of repealing this law. This is no time to stumble'

SLDN's Aubrey Sarvis has an op-ed in Roll Call laying out a path for the repeal of DAD that can meet the needs of all the key parties. The question is whether President Obama is going to show the leadership necessary to get it done:

The Senate DADT repeal leaders, Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and House champion Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) are all aware of the need to ensure that the recommendations coming from the Pentagon are carefully considered before DADT is changed. Here are some recommendations for the committee leaders to consider:

1. DADT investigations and discharges will not end until the recommendations of the Pentagon Working Group have been received and considered; Secretary Gates will retain authority over this process.

2. Under the present schedule, the PWG will make its recommendations by Dec. 1, and 60 days later, DOD can issue directions and instructions to each service on how to proceed with open service.

3. An additional 60 days after that, each service can issue regulations.

4. Therefore, DADT would not be repealed until 180 days after the bill is signed.

5. And in early 2012, the committees can consider any additional recommendations from the Pentagon.

Congress is on the brink of repealing this law. This is no time to stumble over an arbitrary timeline and who should be waiting for whom. What is needed is a game change and sensible language that brings the Pentagon and the White House together with leaders on Capitol Hill to repeal DADT this year. Surely neither the White House nor the Pentagon want this historical change to happen without their imprint and leadership.

This shows that there is a way to make repeal happen -- if everyone involved is willing to work on it.

Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to repeal DADT. As President, he's repeated that promise. By now, everyone seems to know, that despite Obama's State of the Union promise to repeal DADT "this year," it's not happening. The President's team working on the issue, led by Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, have made a calculation that they can take the political hit if the repeal promise hasn't been kept. But, they're wrong -- unless the Obama operatives wants to start the 2012 campaign with a major gay problem on their hands.

For Messina and his White House colleagues, this is just another political issue. But, for the men and women who have been discharged or face discharge, it's about their lives. All they want to do is serve their country.

There is a path forward. But, it requires the President to lead. He needs to get this done. Read More...

Dear Mr. President: A letter to Obama from Capt. Joan Darrah on DADT

Here's the next open letter from SLDN's "Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama." This one is from Captain Joan Darrah, USN (Ret.). The Washington Post wrote about this campaign today:

Tapping into President Obama's interest in reading letters from ordinary Americans, a group opposed to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for at least the next month plans to publish letters sent to the president from people impacted by the gay ban.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will post the letters on its Web site each morning as it works to ensure that the Senate Armed Services Committee includes language repealing the military's ban in the annual Defense Appropriations Bill. The panel is expected to vote on the appropriations measure May 26.

SLDN is targeting six moderate senators -- Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) -- for their support in hopes of securing at least 15 committee votes for repeal.

The group also hopes that President Obama will also lobby lawmakers.

Let's hope Obama is reading these letters and follows through on his promise to get DADT repealed this year. Nothing else has worked yet.

Here's Capt. Darrah's letter:

April 27, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Joan Darrah and I served in silence under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) for almost two decades. I share my personal story with you as we’re at a critical point in the fight to repeal this discriminatory law.

We urgently need your voice and leadership as we lobby the Armed Services Committees and the full House and Senate to end DADT this year.

I’m sure, as I do, you remember exactly where you were on September 11, 2001.

At 8:30 a.m. that day, I went to a meeting in the Pentagon. At 9:30 a.m., I left that meeting. At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space I had left less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of my colleagues.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was a lesbian Navy captain who, at that time, had more than 28 years of dedicated military service. My partner, Lynne Kennedy, an openly gay reference librarian at the Library of Congress, and I had been together for more than 11 years. Each day, I went to work wondering if that would be the day I would be fired because someone had figured out I was gay.

In spite of that stress, somehow Lynne and I had learned to deal with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; we had made the requisite sacrifices. I had pretended to be straight and had played the games most gays in the military are all too familiar with.

But after Sept. 11 our perspective changed dramatically. In the days and weeks that followed, I went to at least seven funerals and memorial services for shipmates who had been killed in the Pentagon attack. As the numbness began to wear off, it hit me how incredibly alone Lynne would have been had I been killed.

The military is known for how it pulls together and helps people; we talk of the "military family" which is a way of saying we always look after each other, especially in times of need. But none of that support would have been available for Lynne, because under "don't ask, don't tell," she couldn't exist.

In fact, had I been killed, Lynne would have been one of the last people to know, because nowhere in my paperwork or emergency contact information had I dared to list Lynne's name. This realization caused us both to stop and reassess exactly what was most important in our lives. During that process we realized that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was causing us to make a much bigger sacrifice than either of us had ever admitted.

Nine months later, in June 2002, I retired after 29 years in the U.S. Navy, an organization I will always love and respect.

Today, nine years after that fateful day at the Pentagon, I am now committed to doing everything I possibly can to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so our military can finally be open to all qualified and motivated individuals who want to serve their country. This is the right step for our country, for our military, and for all gay men and lesbians.

As a veteran, and as a witness to the 14,000 men and women who have been discharged, I thank you for your bold words in your State of The Union address: “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.”

I have great love and respect for our country, and I know that we will be a stronger and better country when we repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

With great respect,

Capt. Joan Darrah
United States Navy (Ret.)

Read More...

Thank you, GetEQUAL

GetEQUAL has been getting some flak for its direct actions from Barney Frank, among others. But I, for one, am grateful they interrupted President Obama's speech the other day. With their direct action, they were were able to do something that Barney Frank was unable to do -- they managed to pin the administration down and get a public statement about how the President intends to proceed on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

We may not have gotten the answer we all wanted, but knowing where we stand is valuable. Now we know that President Obama has no intention of pushing for repeal this year despite his promise during the State of the Union. In fact, it looks like he’s obstructing the efforts of others in Congress to push repeal this year.

We must keep holding the administration accountable. If it takes direct action to do so, so be it. Read More...

Incident answers why Oklahoma needs a federal hate crimes law

In March, John documented Oklahoma's attempt to opt out of the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I personally lobbied my state legislators to prevent passage in late March. Fortunately, the bill was killed in committee.

Now why in the world would Oklahoma need to ensure they are forced to comply with a Federal Hate Crimes law? No one has to make me a believer because I experienced first hand how my attackers were not prosecuted properly when I was a hate crimes victim but it is still happening. Conservatives have not changed their stripes. They still want to bash gays in Oklahoma with impunity as seen by this latest disgusting example:

Phillip Nelson, who lives in Claremore, a small town about half an hour north of Tulsa, said three men screamed "faggot" and "You’re going to die!" as they beat him while he took the trash out in his apartment complex late last month. Nelson’s assailants left him with cuts and bruises on his face and body. And he said they broke into his apartment a few days later, ransacked it and scrawled "fag" across the wall.

"Right now I feel drained," Nelson told EDGE, sighing.. "I keep praying and I keep praying but things just get worse. I feel like my prayers are not being heard."

Yes, he keeps calling the police but nothing is done for him.

"I keep calling them and leaving voice mails but I never hear anything back," Nelson said. "No one ever returns my calls, which has me wondering if they’re kind of trying to let this thing die out and go away, or if they are going to do anything about it."

God forbid Oklahoma should have to follow a Federal Hate Crimes law and send a message that this kind of Hate Crime will no longer be tolerated! The conservative apologists against the law try to claim this kind of thing is an infringement of their right to freedom of speech until, of course, one of their churches is burned down due to arson, and then they quickly employ the federal church arson act to take care of that particular hateful message sent to people of certain faiths. Read More...

Excellent DADT update from Kerry Eleveld

Advocate:

As Obama tried to quiet the protesters at one point during the speech, he noted that both he and Senator Boxer support repeal of DADT and added, “It would make more sense to holler that at the people who oppose it.”

But the president employs some specious logic here. Achieving repeal is so close now that it’s not about the opposition anymore, it’s about the people in power.

All the lobbyists working on this issue agree that the Senate Armed Services Committee is within 2-3 votes of attaching a repeal measure to the defense authorization bill. And the ability to sway those last few senators comes down to a question of the resolve of our president and the Democratic lawmakers who control Congress.

Let me be clear, this president and this Congress are within two or three votes of making the greatest civil rights advancement on behalf of LGBT Americans in the history of this country. That’s the good news.

The bad news is, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs signaled this week that the resolve doesn’t actually exist to capitalize on that extraordinary opportunity.

[I]t appears that President Obama and his political team have yet to get the message that LGBT Americans don’t want to watch in silence while Washington squanders the best opportunity in 17 years to right an unjust law.

Read More...