I’m not a huge news junkie, so apologies if there’s an obvious answer to this, but why hasn’t Obama repealed that odious law? If I recall correctly, he made it a campaign issue and has the power to do so. The armed forces aren’t exactly swimming in recruits, of course, and I would think the type of people who would not vote for him just for getting rid of DADT wouldn’t vote for him in the first place.
It’s a question of timing. Obama has a lot on his plate right now and his focus is on health care and global warming which are far more important issues than DADT. Some time later, perhaps next year when things are quieter he will take the plunge and repeal DADT. And there are lots of people who voted Obama who would opposing repealing it. For example this pollindicates that 23% of Democrats oppose any legal recognition for gay couples; their other choices being gay marriage and civil union. It’s a fair bet that many of them would oppose gays serving openly in the military as well.
Pusillanimity. Or he has a lot going on and one has to wisely choose to where to expend one’s capital.
But better to get it done and over with and spend 4 years showing that it hasn’t done poorly than do it later on I’d guess.
Because there are much more important things in the US and around the world to fix first.
Oh, right. Global warming is more pressing. So, we can expect Lord Obama to be fixing that right up any day now?
Yes, Obama has a lot on his plate.
But issuing an executive order takes a second. He could have done it any time, and WOULD have done it if he really cared about it. Hell, I’m a conservative Catholic, and even I would have given the order to allow gays to serve openly.
The Left has to accept that Obama is either
-
A coward, or
-
A BS artist.
I think far too many people on the Left have been way too quick to assume that Obama shares their values completely. When Obama stated publicly that he opposed gay marriage, most liberals nudged each other and snickered, “He doesn’t really mean it. He’s just saying that to get votes from the rubes, and then he’ll support us after he’s in office.”
Well… what if the LIBERALS were the rubes? What if THEY were the ones who tricked themselves into seeing what they wanted to see?
What if Obama was on the level, and really ISN’T wholly on their side?
He can’t. It’s a law and has to be repealed by Congress. He could issue an executive order ordering that it not be enforced, but then there’d be a mandamus issue, and it’s generally considered a bad and frightening thing when the President refuses to enforce the laws.
Or he realizes that since it’s federal law, he can’t issue that executive order.
The most, I think, he could do is restrict any commander inferior to him in rank from discharging people, rather reserving that power to himself or the relevant Secretary to act on personally.
That would surely take tons of time for a discharge to make its way all the way up the chain to relevant secretary or president. And then they’d have to review it and so on and so forth.
Not for the gay people in the military.
At London Pride at the weekend, the parade was led by Gordon Brown’s wife, directly followed by gay representatives, marching in full uniform, from the Army, the RAF, the Navy, the Police, the Ambulance Service and the Fire Brigade. Got the biggest cheers of the day.
Come on USA, keep up!
I just can’t see how allowing gays in the military could be an issue so complex as to put the economy/the war/whatever on the back burner. Couldn’t he pass something like Executive order 9981, which ended segregation in the military, or talk to congressmen, military leaders, or the public to pressure a law to be drafted? There are big issues happening right now, but it’s not like farm bills, transportation bills, etc. don’t get passed. What am I missing here?
Segregation in the military wasn’t a law, it was army policy, so Truman could issue an executive order changing it. Don’t ask, don’t tell is a law, so only a law could change it. Obama could talk to congressmen, military leaders and the public to pressure a law to be drafted, but it’s not an issue that’s all that important to him, and their are other things he wants to do that he cares more about.
And I just found this article dated last Wednesday:
While it’s a very serious matter for some, and a matter of principle (on both sides) to many others, it’s not really as critical as say, the economy, when considered in terms of the sheer numbers of people affected by it.
My guess is that he will address the issue to a small degree in his second year, after the main issues have been addressed, and far enough from the election that it will seem old hat come 2011. That, or it might seem to him and his advisors that it’s an issue best left for a second term, when there’s nothing standing in the way of his rocking the boat, electorally speaking.
The fact that is of apparently such trivial importance all of the sudden makes now the perfect time to do it, and be done with it. It surely will be the simplest, quickest thing he ever does, seeing how trivial an unimportant it is now compared to everything else on Earth.
I saw that too; it was incredible. Here’s a picture for those who are wondering what it looked like.
My guess is since this needs Congress to repeal it Obama does not want to waste political capital getting it done. Capital he’d rather spend on the economic issues and so on.
It just amazes me that this is even an issue for the political conservatives. I always thought high regard for the men and women serving in the military was a firm aspect of their political outlook. The homosexual men and women serving in the military have given excellent service to this country, same as most other service members. Why should what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom change any of that? It is appalling really.
I have seen the military suggest that homosexuals undermine unit cohesion and some other buzz-terms of military life. Has that ever been shown? I know I have seen decorated service members who spent 15 or more years in the military getting drummed out despite those they work with universally proclaiming a high regard for that individual. Far from undermining anything they were a proven asset.
As such one would think, especially at a time when the military really needs people (not to mention qualified people), Congress would be happy to see this stupid law end in the dustbin where it belongs. No bickering, no need to expend political capital. Just put it up for a vote and let the Congresscritters show where they stand.
But … but … then we’d all be marrying our pets or garden furniture and making the Baby Jesus cry.
Do at least attempt to keep up.
Well you can’t have a draft or institute required military service with out repealing this law.
So I say repeal it, and institute required 2-yr minimum military service for every citizen 18 and over, no exceptions for politicians or their children.
Why not? We’ve had drafts before while gays weren’t allowed in the military. In fact, during the Vietnam War, anti-draft/anti-war groups suggested that people say they were gay so they wouldn’t be drafted. Most notably, that’s how Chevy Chase got out of serving in 1967; by falsely claiming he was gay.
Cool! We can expect you at the barricaides leading the charge for gay rights.