Would a new president be able to break the Don't Ask Don't Tell wall?

[That creates more Q's than A's]

Bill Clinton thought he was going to be in charge and just open up the military with an executive order. He was quickly told not to attempt it, that the military is more independent than it appears in the constitution.
But he did make the first step.
Will the next winner have the nerve and/or support of the brass?
What do you think the chances are?

[dalej42]

The Don't ask don't tell issue was made a much bigger issue that it probably should have been. After 12 years of Republican control, the press thought that Clinton was going to unleash a liberal revolution.

Clinton's book mentions that it took so little of his time and yet it got all the media play. Don't ask, don't tell was a quick compromise to get it off the front page.

[Der Trihs]

Will the next winner have the nerve and/or support of the brass?
What do you think the chances are?No, no, and very small. America is getting more bigoted towards gays, not less; note all the anti-gay marriage laws passed recently. Gays in the military and out of it are going to be lucky to hold on to what they have, much less get anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if I see it outlawed to be gay again in my lifetime; I certainly don't ever expect them to be allowed to openly join the military; not for generations.

[Cat Fight]

So, so depressing. You think even the rightest wing would break a little after reading this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206).

The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is higher than previously reported, according to records obtained by a research group.

The group contends the records show that the military — at a time when it and U.S. intelligence agencies don’t have enough Arabic speakers — is putting its anti-gay stance ahead of national security.

Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military under a Freedom of Information Act request.

[Captain Amazing]

The problem is, "don't ask, don't tell" is a product of federal law, which means that, even if a president wanted to change the policy, he couldn't. It would take a law to get through Congress and signed by the president to change the policy now.

[John Mace]

America is getting more bigoted towards gays, not less; note all the anti-gay marriage laws passed recently. Gays in the military and out of it are going to be lucky to hold on to what they have, much less get anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if I see it outlawed to be gay again in my lifetime; I certainly don't ever expect them to be allowed to openly join the military; not for generations.
Complete and utter bullshit. The data shows that the US, like most countries, is becoming more accepting of gays, not less. And it will not be "outlawed to be gay" in any of our lifetimes. he anti-SSM laws were passed because it wasn't even an issue until recently. And more and more states are adopting civil unions or domestic partnerships. CA, with about 12% of the entire population has such a law concerning domestic partnerships.

As for the OP, I think the don't ask don't tell policy will be be around for some time. The military may have led the nation in the civil rights area concerning race, but it's masculine, conservative nature is going to make it lag in that area for sexual orientation.

[Fiver]

No, no, and very small. America is getting more bigoted towards gays, not less; note all the anti-gay marriage laws passed recently.
Yes, but note recent counter-examples in New Jersey and Arizona. I think you're wrong, although the path to the day when all Americans are treated fairly and decently irrespective of sexual orientation is admittedly going to be a long one.

[Marley23]

Complete and utter bullshit. The data shows that the US, like most countries, is becoming more accepting of gays, not less.
I second this. Younger people are more tolerant of gays and lesbians than their parents, who freak out, draw up and pass these laws.

[Der Trihs]

Complete and utter bullshit. The data shows that the US, like most countries, is becoming more accepting of gays, not less. And it will not be "outlawed to be gay" in any of our lifetimes. he anti-SSM laws were passed because it wasn't even an issue until recently. The laws passed because America is a nation devoted to bigotry, and always has been. As for the "data", the fact that those laws passed shows that the data is either wrong, or irrelevant.

I second this. Younger people are more tolerant of gays and lesbians than their parents, who freak out, draw up and pass these laws.And people are notorious for getting more conservative as they age. They may or may not be more tolerant now, but by they attain any kind of influence they'll be just another crop of bigots. Just as happened to their parents.

[Marley23]

And people are notorious for getting more conservative as they age. They may or may not be more tolerant now, but by they attain any kind of influence they'll be just another crop of bigots. Just as happened to their parents.
And they'd still be less bigoted than their parents. I don't think the religious right will ever go away, but I've been saying for a few years now it's past the apex of its power.

[Menocchio]

The laws passed because America is a nation devoted to bigotry, and always has been. As for the "data", the fact that those laws passed shows that the data is either wrong, or irrelevant.

And people are notorious for getting more conservative as they age. They may or may not be more tolerant now, but by they attain any kind of influence they'll be just another crop of bigots. Just as happened to their parents.
It must be very difficult to be you.

[John Mace]

The laws passed because America is a nation devoted to bigotry, and always has been. As for the "data", the fact that those laws passed shows that the data is either wrong, or irrelevant.
Yeah, because it doesn't conform to your cartoonish caricature of this country? :rolleyes:

[Renob]

The laws passed because America is a nation devoted to bigotry, and always has been. As for the "data", the fact that those laws passed shows that the data is either wrong, or irrelevant.
No, it shows that the bigoted attitude towards gays is in its last days. In the past, there was no need to pass these laws because the idea of gays getting married was so ridiculous it would never happen. Now, however, there is a sizable segment of the population that says gays should be allowed to marry. This would have never happened twenty years ago. In reaction to this, people want to codify their ideas about gay marriage.

And people are notorious for getting more conservative as they age. They may or may not be more tolerant now, but by they attain any kind of influence they'll be just another crop of bigots. Just as happened to their parents.
Yeah, just like all those kids from the 60's grew up, renounced the civil rights movement, and began passing laws mandating segregation and outlawing inter-racial marriages. :rolleyes:

[Baracus]

No, it shows that the bigoted attitude towards gays is in its last days. In the past, there was no need to pass these laws because the idea of gays getting married was so ridiculous it would never happen. Now, however, there is a sizable segment of the population that says gays should be allowed to marry. This would have never happened twenty years ago. In reaction to this, people want to codify their ideas about gay marriage.
While I don't think anti-gay bigotry will ever go away, but would say that it is definitely declining. That is not to say that there isn't a long ways to go, hence the anti-gay marriage laws/amendments, but I just don't see when homosexuality was any more acceptable in the past.

I think it is worth pointing out that former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili, an original proponent of "don't ask, don't tell", recently came out (no pun intended) against the policy.

[John Mace]

Yeah, just like all those kids from the 60's grew up, renounced the civil rights movement, and began passing laws mandating segregation and outlawing inter-racial marriages. :rolleyes:
Well, people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. What Der Trihs has done, as he often does, is conflate "conservative" with "bigot".

[Crotalus]

While I don't think anti-gay bigotry will ever go away, but would say that it is definitely declining. That is not to say that there isn't a long ways to go, hence the anti-gay marriage laws/amendments, but I just don't see when homosexuality was any more acceptable in the past.

I think it is worth pointing out that former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili, an original proponent of "don't ask, don't tell", recently came out (no pun intended) against the policy.
I read this article when it appeared on the Real Clear Politics site a few weeks ago. It originally appeared in the New York Times, which now has it archived so I can't get at it without paying. He defends don't ask don't tell as a necessary compromise in its day, and advocates a planned and deliberate change beginning now. I believe that gays will be able to serve in the military openly within a few years.

Der Trihs - How old are you, dude? Do you honestly believe that the US is moving away from acceptance of gay people? I mean , really?

[Marley23]

Der Trihs - How old are you, dude?
His profile says he's 38.

[Billdo]

I think that there is a good chance that if a Democratic President is elected, Don't Ask Don't Tell will be abolished, probably through some combination of executive order and Congressional action.

When Clinton implemented the policy in 1993, we were at peace and the military brass were pretty universally opposed to gays serving. In the ensuing decade and a half, gays have become much more visible and homosexuality has become much more socially acceptable. In 1997, when Ellen DeGeneres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Degeneres) came out of the closet, there was a serious question as to whether she had killed her then-sitcom and her showbiz career. This year, in addition to having a popular talk show, she's hosting the Oscars.

More significantly, we are currently in two wars and the military is having to stretch to meet recruiting goals. There have been well-publicized cases where critically needed Arabic translators were kicked out of the military because of the policy and several ranking officers have come out in opposition to the policy. And national polls (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273) show that a strong majority favors allowing gays to serve.

If a Democratic President is elected, and Congress retains its Democratic majority in both houses, I'd say it is very likely that the ban on gays in the military will be eliminated.

[Mr. Moto]

I'm all for that happening, however I'm far from thinking it will be sunshine and roses for everyone if it does.

Fact is, the fears some people in the military have of gay sexual relations creating a breakdown in discipline is a genuine one, and it has a basis in reality.

Sexual relations pursued without regard to command structure, rank, personal hygiene, birth control, personal privacy, or consent is a major problem for the military. And I don't think the brass mentioned above want to invite more problems in the name of making things more equal.

Right now, the majority of problems caused are heterosexual in nature, which will always be the case, obviously. Even so, IMHO, this change cannot be made without cracking down on sexual misconduct broadly across the military

[BrainGlutton]

Well, people do tend to get more conservative as they get older.

Only if we define "conservative" as "resistant to change" as opposed to denominating a specific range of the ideological spectrum. (In Russia, the oldest folks are the likeliest to pine for Communism, from what I've read.)

[John Mace]

More significantly, we are currently in two wars and the military is having to stretch to meet recruiting goals. There have been well-publicized cases where critically needed Arabic translators were kicked out of the military because of the policy and several ranking officers have come out in opposition to the policy. And national polls (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273) show that a strong majority favors allowing gays to serve.

If a Democratic President is elected, and Congress retains its Democratic majority in both houses, I'd say it is very likely that the ban on gays in the military will be eliminated.
Well, if a Dem is elected to the WH, I hope we won't be in 2 wars very long. But after doing some googling on polling data, it does appear that a significant majority of Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly, so you might very well be right.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm all for that happening, however I'm far from thinking it will be sunshine and roses for everyone if it does.

Fact is, the fears some people in the military have of gay sexual relations creating a breakdown in discipline is a genuine one, and it has a basis in reality.

Sexual relations pursued without regard to command structure, rank, personal hygiene, birth control, personal privacy, or consent is a major problem for the military. And I don't think the brass mentioned above want to invite more problems in the name of making things more equal.

Right now, the majority of problems caused are heterosexual in nature, which will always be the case, obviously. Even so, IMHO, this change cannot be made without cracking down on sexual misconduct broadly across the military
This carries an assumption that openly gay people in the military would be more likely to engage in fraternization or sexual misconduct than heteros or closeted gays.

[Mr. Moto]

Nope. In fact, the opposite was true in my experience, at least by raw numbers. Lesbian military members also aren't burdened quite so much by single parenthood, and that is a major problem that the military has to deal with among its single female members quite a lot.

However, I did see quite a bit of sexual misconduct of both the heterosexual and homosexual variety during my military enlistment, and saw how both can cause major morale and readiness problems.

The military needs to get serious about fixing these (and, indeed, is making steps in this area. It is treated much more seriously than when I was in.) Only in an environment where all sexual misconduct isn't tolerated can gays and lesbians openly serve.

They didn't cause this problem, by and large, but they damn sure have to be part of the solution if it is to work.

[levdrakon]

I just hope it doesn't become a hot button issue during the next elections. Americans have given the House and Senate back to the Democrats. We've made our statement, and we're under much less pressure to give the White House to the Dems too.

All we need is to pin Hillary or Barack to the gays in the military issue and we could easily see a Republican slide right back into the WH.

[Slypork]

When I served in the Army I knew a gay man and a lesbian. The lesbian was our unit’s soldier of the year. The man was a good friend. Most of us knew their orientations and didn’t give a shit because they were good at their jobs.
When the man told me I already had my suspicions. He said he wouldn’t try to hit on me. I told him I appreciated the fact that he understood I was completely straight. He said, “Nope. It’s because I think you’re uglier than shit!”
It’s too bad that soldiers like these can’t be open about their orientations because of this half-assed policy.

Der Trihs made this same absurd comment in a different thread a few months ago. I was hoping it was a massive whoosh but it seems he genuinely believes the government is going to start slapping pink triangles on him and his friends and shipping them off to re-education camps where they will be forced to watch American Chopper, WWE and Walker, Texas Ranger while drinking Bud, eating chili and having farting contests.

[alphaboi867]

The problem is, "don't ask, don't tell" is a product of federal law, which means that, even if a president wanted to change the policy, he couldn't. It would take a law to get through Congress and signed by the president to change the policy now.
True, but all the President need do is issue and executive order halting discharges, forbidding courts-martial, and instructing COs not to discriminate and DADT would dead for practical purposes (though the next POTUS could reverse it just as easy).

[BrainGlutton]

Would a new president be able to break the Don't Ask Don't Tell wall?

Wellll . . . which of the current crop of announced or potential candidates might be gay?

[Miller]

No, no, and very small. America is getting more bigoted towards gays, not less; note all the anti-gay marriage laws passed recently. Gays in the military and out of it are going to be lucky to hold on to what they have, much less get anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if I see it outlawed to be gay again in my lifetime; I certainly don't ever expect them to be allowed to openly join the military; not for generations.

Utter nonsense. A number of states in which it was previously illegal for gays to get married, passed laws saying that it was illegal for gays to get married. Meanwhile, one state has already legalized gay marriage, another state has passed a civil union bill that's marriage-in-all-but-name, and a third state actually passed a law mandating recognition of gay marriage, only to have it vetoed by the governer. In dozens of other states, gay rights and protections are expanding. And look at the popular media. There are whole shows about gays now. Hell, there are whole networks about gays now. Will and Grace was a succesful, long-running sitcom. It wasn't just gays watching it. Hell, from personal experience, there weren't any gays watching it. All the queers I know hated that fucking show, myself included.

Yes, America is still overwhelmingly homophobic. But we're less homophobic now than we have been at any previous point in our history. And we're getting better every day. I expect to see gay marriage in my lifetime (although not until pretty late in my lifetime), and gays in the military within the next decade. Sooner, depending on how long Iraq stretches out.

[John Mace]

Yes, America is still overwhelmingly homophobic. But we're less homophobic now than we have been at any previous point in our history. And we're getting better every day. I expect to see gay marriage in my lifetime (although not until pretty late in my lifetime), and gays in the military within the next decade. Sooner, depending on how long Iraq stretches out.
I think it will be legal in CA, whre we both live, within 5 years. Ten at the most. Arnold will be succeeded by a Democrat most likely, and (s)he won't veto the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if we could pass a ballot measure at this point overturning prop 22.

[Billdo]

Wellll . . . which of the current crop of announced or potential candidates might be gay?

As I recall, when you get the most rabid right-wingers frothing at the mouth about Hillary Clinton, they'll sometimes toss in lesbian among her real and imagined crimes against decency, humanity and The God-Given American Way.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I think it will be legal in CA, whre we both live, within 5 years. Ten at the most. Arnold will be succeeded by a Democrat most likely, and (s)he won't veto the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if we could pass a ballot measure at this point overturning prop 22.I'd like to believe that, but I don't share your optimism. Even if the legislature passes the bill, the courts should rightly strike it down as trying to undo the initiative. As much as I'm not a fan of Arnold, he did the right thing in vetoing a blatantly unconstitutional law.

I think it's more likely to take at least 20 years (barring a Supreme Court decision, which is not out of the question).

[Miller]

I think it will be legal in CA, whre we both live, within 5 years. Ten at the most. Arnold will be succeeded by a Democrat most likely, and (s)he won't veto the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if we could pass a ballot measure at this point overturning prop 22.

Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking on the national level. Individual states will legalize it at a much faster rate, of course.