While promises by President Obama have been made during the presidential election to gay and lesbian members serving in the military, recent events have given us the impression that this may be a longer time coming than expected. During the election, Obama stated that he would repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that bars openly gay and lesbian officers from serving, saying:
"We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need."
Now we find the first Arabic linguist is now being dismissed from the Army National Guard because he came out on television. He was back on the Rachel Maddow Show last night discussing his dismissal:
Pam's House Blend found a strong statement Choi made on the West Point LGBT Alumni Group KnightsOut web site:
My name is Dan Choi. I am a West Point graduate. I am a Lieutenant in the United States Army.I am gay.
I serve my country. I serve my country because I heard a leader say: "ASK NOT what your country can do for you... ASK what you can do for your country." But when I step up to serve our country, to put my life on the line to protect my community, to protect my neighbors, to protect my family, to protect America, I am ordered... DON'T ASK. I am ordered... DON'T TELL.
I serve with 65,000 selfless gay and lesbian Americans; we are ordered to deny who we are. We're ordered to HIDE. But I am not hiding anymore. I am not asking permission anymore. I am done ASKING. I am TELLING. I am gay.
According to story-breaker Aaron Belkin, a study about to be released by a bunch of miltary law experts says that Obama actually has the authority to suspend gay discharges until the repeal is made. (By simply ordering folks to stop investigating servicemembers' sexuality.)
So what gives? Why is Obama not pushing for this - or at least protecting people from being dismissed in the meantime - when it seems like it could be so simple? I hope this media attention results in some action on this issue.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Asked, Told and Dismissed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13601
I would love for Obama to order the military to stop investigating servicemembers' sexuality, but I wonder if that would actually help someone like Choi who came out on television. (That is, he wasn't investigated per se. I suppose it comes down to interpreting the word "investigate").
I mean, I still want him to make the executive order and I still want him to work on getting "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repealed. I wish there was more he could/would do NOW.
-Lilith
It would amuse me to no end if President Obama would assert that his powers as commander in chief gave him the power to ignore DADT during wartime, as the armed forces are his responsibility. Granted, that's probably a bad precedent to set, but after the Bush era it's hard to imagine certain congresscritters and pundits arguing against it.
well sure it would be nice if they stopped investigating it.........but either way it shouldn't matter if a servicemember comes out or not!
Of course it shouldn't matter.
What I don't get is, why?? Other than just pure hatred for gays, this serves no purpose. The layperson's, non-hating defense of such rules is always, "Well, if there are gay men all in the barracks and stuff, then a lot of sex is going to complicate things and distract the soldiers from their duties blah blah." Seriously, well-meaning people I know actually say things like this :\
But women are in the armed forces too, and according to my Staff Sergeant friend, there is a lot of normal expected drama between the males and females on base. It's pretty much unavoidable if you get large groups of people rooming together for extended periods. Gay people wouldn't cause any more "distraction" than what already happens anyway.
It must just be pure hate-filled bigotry.
Undoubtedly pure bigotry is most of it, but I'm not sure your example about women in the armed forces works, entirely. I wouldn't underestimate the amount of crossover there is between the 'doesn't want gays in the military' group and the 'doesn't think women should be in the military' group. Though it does certainly seem like the anti-gay side is larger.
I think the point is that the rationalization for keeping gays out of the military is that "fraternizing" would compromise missions. But the truth is that there is, apparently, a lot of "fraternizing" going on between men and women -- and unfortunately, a lot of harassment and assault too. So it's hard to argue that gay men in the military would "distract" each other when men and women are already, apparently, "distracting" each other.
There's definitely a pressing need for reform, both with respect to DADT and with respect to women in the military and the epidemic of sexual assault.
No, I got that. My point was that a lot (though not all) of the people who claim to worry about fraternization and distraction because of gays in the military are the same people who think women in the military are a distraction and don't belong there, and that we should stop allowing women as well as gays. Which makes them at least consistent in their bigotry.
The notion that the 'distracted' men should grow the hell up and cope doesn't occur to them, of course.
I don't think Obama is going to do anything because I really don't think he cares about gay and lesbian issues. If it'll make him less popular, he won't do it.
Agreed.
I am really impressed at what Dan Choi did. His statement was so brave. God bless him for standing up not only for himself but for anyone else who identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual. What he is saying is what everyone should already know. You cannot define a person on the basis of their sexual preference, gender or identity. We can't just pretend that we live in a straight only society, because we don't. There's nothing wrong with being gay and there's nothing wrong with being gay in the military. Personally, I am equally thankful to each man or woman in the military, whether they are gay, straight, or bisexual, for the sacrifices they have personally made. No one should ever be asked to pretend that they do not exist.
This guy's quite a renegade, isn't he? Bravo! I really hope the rest of this country can be as mature about this as he says the men in his unit were. Damn, how's that for wishful thinking....
Unfortunately it's not really in Obama's hands. He can do something about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but it takes an act of congress to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice which says sodomy is a crime. In reality I believe the discharges are designed to prevent the soldiers from being prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 125). Either way Obama is going to have to get this through congress.
And while it's a Democratic Congress and effectively filibuster-proof in the Senate, Congressional Democratic leaders have tended to be rather slow in taking initiatives and GLBT is one of those issues where the math gets nonlinear.
Hrm...
I'm sorry Obama has 50 million things to do so he can't just snap to at some ill thought out media stunt. He's is President not King and this is Congressional. And quite frankly there really are other issues in the universe than what gays want.
so..."gays" (as you so disrespectfully put it) need to just sit back and be patient because the needs of the straighties are more important. yes?
there is no need to create a hierarchy of important issues - at least not on this forum here. your experience might lead you to believe that gay rights aren't of utmost importance but there are plenty of us who live a life where we HAVE to care about gay rights.
if you use your logic, there will always be something "more important" than the rights that queer people are being denied - because (regardless of your sexual identity) you are coming at this from a straight person's very privileged perspective.
I would normally go along with your line of thought (though, I object to you calling us "gays") except we were used as specific campaigning tools by the Obama team. Everyone else has gotten their attention and I don't think it's going to take a lot to push our, already angry community, over the edge and make a REAL problem.
The tide is shifting in regards to gay rights and identity in the body politic; Obama needs to recognize he needs to do something or he's going to have a major problem. Pushing gay rights aside because he's got "bigger" issues is not a real argument. What makes women's rights more important than gay rights when they stem from the same oppressive thought patterns?
Completely aside from the disrespect of your statements, it's not just about us gays. Everyone in the military is affected, especially when the one removed is a translator.
The president made a promise. It's time for him to keep it.
It's not just what "the gays" (yeesh at that terminology) want - I'm straight, but I want DODT to be abolished, too.
I wasn't going to respond to you, because I've come to associate your screenname with the inevitable negative comment, but that one bothered me too much to let it go. I (we, feminists, ideally) care about human rights, not just the ones that affect me personally.
Of course Obama isn't going to *order* the armed forces to stop enforcing DADT. That would be a very, very unwise move for him to make. He's supposed to be the change for the better, remember? Haven't you ever heard "A benevolent dictator is still a dictator"? Barack is going to do this the right way, with patience and due process of law. He's trying to abolish DADT completely, not just move it to the back of everyone's minds, and he can only do that by making the much needed transition from bigotry to acceptance hard, cold, and OFFICIAL.
"He's trying to abolish DADT completely"
I'm pretty sure Obama is not taking any steps to abolish DADT completely. I don't see any reason to believe it is even still on his agenda.
I'm with you there. Aside from some "leaked" memos about meeting with the Chiefs of Staff, they've been mum on the entire DADT issue and other gay rights issues. It's going to be a big problem for him soon enough, especially as he tackles all these other issues at the same time.
He's proven he's a multitasker; he needs to multitask in gay rights.
Agreed. While I believe that the outrage on this post is fully justified, it is the power vested in the LEGISLATURE to raise and support armies, and provide for the defense. This is not within the constitutional powers of the Executive to do. DADT was not enacted by a president, it was passed through Congress at the urging of Pres. Clinton to reform the military's policy regarding the LGBT community....and we got this bullshit. DADT is bullshit, no doubt; but it is not up to Obama to repeal it. It must be done through Congress.
So, everyone, contact your Senators and Representatives and TELL THEM TO REPEAL DONT ASK DONT TELL!
Not to say Obama shouldn't be urging Congress to repeal, by the way....he should. And, personally, I believe DADT is unconstitutional-- it violates the fundamental right to private, consensual sexual intimacy established by Lawrence v. Texas. BUT I also don't think DADT should be struck down through the judiciary- when issues of social discourse are solved by our unelected branch of government, there is backlash. We need to force Congress to overturn this destructive policy legislatively, because the people of this country believe in equality.
A handwritten note is cool and all, but doesn't do anything to solve problems.
Obama promised LGBT Americans that he'd do things to make them be more equal as American citizens. What has he done? ABSOLUTELY nothing.
Not statements on the changes within the states, no word on adoption, federal domestic partner registries, anything at all.
He's done stuff for the economy, the budget, and women's health. He's acted on behalf of the veteran's.
But not LGBT Americans.
I feel like I'm watching Bill Clinton all over again and I.am.not.amused.
this is a difficult one for me. on one hand, i absolutely want equal rights for queer people (myself included), in all respects.
on the other hand, im fiercly anti-military and very much against all united states occupations around the world, most notably in the middle east.
so do i want queer people to be dismissed from their jobs just because they are openly queer? do i want them to be hiding their identities to the point of desperation and misery? hellll no.
but do i want ANYONE to be a part of a violent, imperialistic, fear-mongering machine that is doing so much harm to my fellow muslims and human beings around the world? absolutely not.
so yeah. its a difficult one for me.
I feel the same way.
I've thought about this too.
Also, this might be a silly thing to consider, but isn't the current DADT policy one of the easiest ways to get out of the military if you decide you don't want to be there anymore? Announce you're gay and they can't really disprove it, can they? Even if they find evidence of you having hetero sex you can still say you're bi. And then you get to leave.
Not that that's a good reason to keep it, but I wonder what other effects abolishing it could have.
actually, they can and do ignore it. Some commanders will not initiate discharge procedures. If they decide they need you...
Isn't the federal government going to nationalize the banks soon? We have to face the facts that the economy is the number one issue. I wish it wasn't. I wish Congress and the President would move on this issue, but I'm not surprised that they haven't. Let's hope Rep. Sestack is right and Congress moves on this issue this year. We should all email him a word of support . . .
The number one issue to whom?
And what kind of terrible administration have we elected if they can only address one issue at a time, you know?
Lots of Obama campaign rhetoric- FISA, stem cell ban lifting (only partially lifted), lobbyists in government, getting out of Iraq by date certain, earmarks- for goodness sake- even the shelter dog - When rhetoric hits reality - there seems to be a problem.
When anger is expressed towards President Clinton and his don't ask don't tell policy- please remember the facts at the time.
This was the first issue Bill Clinton took on as President-the attempt was to ban completely any discrimination in the military. Clinton was soundly rapped by the Republican party-in fact it was the beginning of a major misinformation campaign against both Clintons using millions and millions of dollars and it obviously worked since most people still believe that Bill Clinton purpose was to discriminate when the truth is that he used his political capital right off his election win to ban discrimination and suffered greatly in the press and in public opinion for doing so. Many forget that since 1992 the public has come a long way in their view of homosexuality- and Bill Clinton was partially responsible for the positive movement.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military_history.html
"In 1981, the DOD formulated a new policy which stated unequivocally that homosexuality is incompatible with military service (DOD Directive 1332.14, January 28, 1982, Part 1, Section H). According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged under the category of homosexuality in the 1980s. The Navy was disproportionately represented, accounting for 51% of the discharges even though it comprised only 27% of the active force during this time period. Statistical breakdowns by gender and race revealed that, for all services, White women were discharged at a rate disproportionate to their representation. Overall, White females represented 6.4% of personnel but 20.2% of those discharged for homosexuality.
By the end of the 1980s, reversing the military's policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the armed services came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system. In 1992, legislation to overturn the ban was introduced in the U.S. Congress. By that time, grassroots civilian opposition to the DOD’s policy appeared to be increasing. Many national organizations had officially condemned the policy and many colleges and universities had banned military recruiters and Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses in protest of the policy.
By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in implementing a new policy. Clinton's proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public.
After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay."
Precisely. Clinton tried to allow LGB to serve openly and had to battle military leaders and congress, which came up with this "compromise." I am no Clinton fan but think he is overly demonized for this. Repealing DADT won't allow LGB to serve openly, but only lead back to investigations unless another law is passed.
Does anyone really think Obama is going to use his political capital to enter into a circus that will put him against military leaders when he already looks soft on terror? He can probally see the headlines now: "Military leaders say allowing open homosexuals will imped the war effort, lower morale, endanger lives, and lower efficiency of US military, Obama pushes ahead anyway."
At the base of all this is a matter of funding/logistics for living facilities vrs a rights issue.
Currently Women are serving in our armed services, quite admirably I might add, however this led to a facilities issue which for the most part has been resolved.
Separate living/showering quarters for each sex.
Women and men both "should" have the right to privacy while showering/using the restroom without someone ogling them. They also "should" have the right to sleep in someplace they "feel" secure (as much as is possible in deployed location).
Sex itself, while we all know its stress relieving properties when with the right person, is not "technically" allowed when in a deployed location due to the lack of focus on the mission that often results from such activities. Yes it still happens as we all know. Sometimes it is punished and sometimes it gets washed over dependent upon the need for personnel and the good old buddy system. (I hate that system)Rape is quite honestly a different issue altogether and quite often punished far more vehemently.
That being said the Department of Defense has really only 2 options when facing the implementation of open homosexuals in the military.
Co-ed living across the board or huge expenses in separate living facilities.
Co-ed living is not really an option as much as one would like to think. Sure all military members are supposedly made of sterner stuff but one must remember that most members joined right out of high school. My speculation is that rape statistics would go through the roof for some time.
Which leads us to new facilities. Remember that the military is strongly against sex (of any nature) while in a deployed location.
Therefore how do they handle those of a homosexual nature? I understand as well as most of you that being homosexual does not mean any and all persons of the same sex cause one to be aroused. However does not every individual deserve those "rights" listed previously? If so that would mean separate shower facilities for each individual and separate living quarters for the same. I really don't want to be worrying every time I take a shower that someone is trying to take a peek at me. I also don't want a fellow soldier who's job it is to watch my back in battle to be sleep deprived the night prior because they are scared they are going to get beat to a pulp at night by Jim Bob in the opposite bunk who has a huge case of homophobia.
This is the dilemma at the heart of it. I am not saying I agree with it but that is one of the major issues the military is facing.
Bullshit. Just look at all the other countries that allow LGB to openly serve and follow their lead. England does and we have no problem including them in our coalition of the willing. I'm sure we can work with the numerous countries that allow LGB to serve openly and see how they've worked things out. Not to mention you are assuming LGBs don't already serve, which they do.
I already know LGB's serve in the military I work in it thank you.
I am not saying it doesn't work with other militaries from other countries. I am saying that one of the largest "physical" obstacles is the issue of facilities. We have the largest "deployable" force in the world. Therefore we also have the largest facilities cost in the world for deploying those forces to forward locations. The issue of "who sleeps where" can easily double that cost if they decided that everyone should have their own tent. That's a fact.
I think you have a very good idea. We should look to other countries and see how they have worked things but remember we are behind on the societal power curve on this issue and it will take time to reconcile.
It would be helpful if you would point out what your referring to as BS unless you just trying to rant. Which is understood of course. (We all need to occasionally)
I myself would prefer that the military quit kicking out qualified personnel just because of their sexual identity. The personnel turnaround rate is scary. Its hard, very hard to keep doing the jobs required if you keep losing personnel who are already trained and very good at their jobs.
I was replying to the issue of separate facilities as BS. That's why I pointed out the example of other militaries. Other militaries have introduced openly LGB people to ships and submarines without having to provide separate facilities based on sexual orientation. I am very aware of the power curve but that is why people need to show some political courage, after all, there is data to support them. America is way behind the curve in what it allows for LGB and women in terms of service opportunities. Not only do other countries allow LGB to serve openly, but they allow women in combat roles and on submarines (Norway has even had a female sub commander), so these BS arguments meant to sidetrack issues of equality can no longer be allowed to serve as an excuse for lack of political courage.