ummm, no where does that talk about Sexually orientation

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I think maybe you should read up on it, since you're unaware that sexual orientation isn't mentioned anywhere in that order. On top of that, laws passed by Congress supersede any policy declarations by the President. He can't just make shit up that directly contradicts federal law.

_________________

REGARDLESS!! I have no doubt somehow Obama is still responsible.

The Secretary of Defense could bring an end to every single member being discharged under DADT as outlined in § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces itself. It doesn't even require an executive order.

There's absolutely no reason that people are still being removed from the military for violating DADT other than political cowardice.

I cited that executive order as a precedent.

He can absolutely stop enforcement of it via executive order or other means. This is a generally held view by a lot of people.

So what you're saying is that the President can override federal laws passed by congress with just an executive order? I think I can see why you came to that conclusion, but the executive order you referred to didn't conflict with existing law. The president doesn't have the authority to countermand federal law. In fact, one of his primary duties is to uphold it.

I think you might be right here. There's a clause that specifically allows the Sec. of Defense to retain a soldier if "separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces." However, that clause specifically refers to regulations being prescribed by the Sec. of Defense for that, and I've no idea what the process for creating new regs entails.

_________________

New Study: Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/re ... tive+Order



Contributors:

It's about time you backed up your statements with facts. Thank you.

_________________

Happy to help.

Whether he can do it and whether it is the smart thing to do are two different things.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Why wouldn't it be the smart thing to do? We're already preventing the separation of soldiers because they have a short MOS.

_________________

1. If it is done be executive order, there could be conflicts created between the top brass and the administration. I think it better to go ahead once the brass is on board.

More importantly:
2. If Obama temporarily halts DADT, it puts the pressure off of Congress to do their part to overturn it legislatively, allowing future administrations to simply start reinforcing it again. It would be better to have it flow from Congress.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

But stopping the enforcement of DADT would take away one of the key reasons that idiots give for keeping it in place. It's hard to argue that gays serving openly in the military hurt combat readiness or morale when people can see that it has done no such thing.

The flipside, Bearne, is that the window for this is actually quite short, with midterm elections and then a presidential election looming. Like I said earlier, Obama's approval ratings will only go down.

At this point, I'd imagine that the people that support it are already supporting it, and the people who aren't probably won't. It will always come with political consequences. Always.

How many times do you think you'll have a president with astronomical approval ratings, a majority in both the house and the senate, and a 60 vote majority in the senate? The stars are aligned.

I don't see the old guard "brass" in the military changing their minds, and it will be years before we start seeing an attitude shift at that level due to turnover. Now's the time to address the issue. It doesn't matter if they like it, if the President gives the order, they follow it. End of story.

_________________

I'll concede point 1. But I still think it needs to be done legislatively, not from the executive.

Then again, I am generally very risk averse.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I don't understand how being risk averse makes you think that Obama should wait for Congress to act. Congress hasn't acted on it yet, nor do they seem inclined to do so. People are already being forced out, and it's not like the opposition can realistically crank up the penalty for being gay in the military in retribution.

Even a halt in the discharges for a while can only help. It allows time for people to get accustomed to the new way of things and allows proponents an opportunity to prove how big of a non-issue it is.

It also would allow the military to begin making necessary housing adjustments to accommodate gay service members if they feel it is necessary (personally, I don't think it's any more necessary than separating the genders is).

Because all Obama can do is halt discharges through executive order. It doesn't revoke the law or do anything to facilitate integration of gay and lesbian servicemembers. An executive order, IMO, would create a situation where the majority of people would assume that DADT was now a non-issue rather than a deferred issue.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

However, until he actually DOES something (and the chances of that grow politically less each day) it is all just lip service. I really don't see him doing anything other than what he has already done -- give a speech about it with no following action.

would you expect anything less from a puppet?

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

There's no need to "integrate" gay and lesbian servicemembers. They're already in, and most are unlikely to change how they present themselves. Those who are keeping it private are likely to continue doing so, for a number of reasons. There are service members who are already known by most in their unit as gay or lesbian, and any change to DADT is unlikely to affect them.

The real issue is keeping DADT on the books when it's obviously not in the best interests of the military and is no longer popular with the American public.

_________________

I'm really struggling with this one.

The issue: Halting DADT and allowing gays equal rights in the military
Side #1: Some outspoken liberals. Some Obama voters.
Side #2: Some outspoken conservatives. Some Obama bashers.

One side is arguing for urgency and doing something right now. The other is arguing for a slower approach and doing it "the right way. But today on the Lanys community forum, it's opposite day! The Obama bashers are arguing for urgency, while the liberal Obama supporters are actually defending a slow approach that they've even grudgingly admitted has serious drawbacks.

What the fuck?

I wonder if people who marched for civil rights were generally "risk averse". I'm also starting to wonder why I care so much about an issue that doesn't really affect me personally - when the people I'm supposedly trying to support don't have nearly the same sense of urgency that I do.

Somehow, I doubt MLK would have been very successful if his motto was "Civil Rights: Take Your Time".

Eh, I understand what you're getting at, but the problem facing the gay/lesbian community is that they are a much greater minority than blacks were in the 50's and 60's, and they're facing intolerance that is primarily religious in nature. It's much harder to overcome bigotry when it's being taught as "God's will."

_________________

I'm not sure that today is 'opposite day' on the forums. This topic came up a few weeks ago and I expressed the same opinion.

I'd rather fight smart than fight hard. For example, w/ DOMA. I don't expect a legislative change to repeal that. It will probably have to be declared unconstitutional by the courts. But to do that right - by building up a series of precedent cases through targeted appeals courts so that it becomes incremental, rather than radical, change - takes a few years. In the meantime, states will continue to follow the lead of Iowa, VT, Maine, etc.

Abortion activists jumped the gun 30+ years ago and Roe v Wade is still highly contentious and still considered by some pro-choice folks to be a bad decision. I'd rather have to wait ten years or so for everyone to have gay marriage and have it be accepted by a majority of society at large than to ram it down peoples throats and have another Roe situation.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

If you think that if Roe v. Wade would be any less controversial regardless of the reasoning behind the decision, I think you're deluding yourself. From an opponent's point of view, you're comparing state sanctioned killing to state sanctioned benefits from the same-gender person you're fucking.

If you look at a map abortion laws before Roe, there were only four states (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington) that allowed for abortion on request, while it was illegal under all circumstances in thirty states. In the remaining sixteen states, it was legal under one or more certain circumstances (incest, rape, medical exceptions). So it is not dissimilar to the current landscape for gay marriage, where you have a large number of states in which it is expressly forbidden, a small number of states where it is expressly allowed, and then a number of states that have some sort of variation on civil unions, domestic partnerships, and/or recognizing marriages performed in other states.

Moreover, in 1967 abortion was illegal in all states for all reasons, until Colorado changed its laws to allow for medical, incest, and rape exceptions. The twenty states with various exceptions and/or abortion on request, changed their laws between 1967 and the end of 1972, prior to Roe.

So my point in comparing the two is to show that in a fairly short period of time, there was an ongoing arc of legalisation. In the case of abortion, that incremental arc was abruptly terminated by Roe.

If you contrast that with anti-miscegenation laws, by the time Loving v Virgina was decided in 1967, only 17 states (concentrated in the South) still had laws forbidding interracial marriages. Basically, the fight was over and it was a matter of bringing the tail end of states in line with the overall law of the land.

Lacking the ability to view alternate timelines, we have no way of knowing what the abortion landscape would look like today if the states had been allowed to continue the progression of legalization started in 1967. However, I find it fascinating that it was many of the Bible Belt states that were the leaders in passing laws allowing restricted access to abortion, which leads me to believe that if Roe had been argued in the 80s rather than in the 70s, allowing for another decade of state legislative experimentation, it would be a much less contentious issue today.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

The situation is also a bit different from civil rights issues of the past in that we're talking about a military ingrained with a certain culture. If it were merely society ingrained with the culture, it might be easier in the sense that society is more open to these kinds of civil rights changes. With the multitude of strict rules and regulations within the military, changes like this probably become slightly more bureaucratic. It doesn't make the need for change any less urgent, however, it does call for a more cautious approach rather than taking a 2x4 and ramming it into the system.

Summary: Different times. Different situations. Different approach.

For what it is worth, Jox, I agree with you. The big changes aren't done slowly over time. Not when you're talking about a majority/minority battle over civil rights. The big changes are done like Brown vs. The Board of Education or Loving vs. Virginia and the rest of the country is brought up to speed with the more enlightened part of it's populace. Kicking and screaming in some cases, but they eventually get there.

Obama needs to strike fast and hard or he will have failed what he's already admitted is a huge civil rights issue for this nation.

And the more I read incidents like what happened in Ft. Worth recently, the more angry and convinced I am that he needs to push the issue.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... -it-coming

_________________

I read about that on andrewsullivan:





http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... ttack.html

I should've called that. Bearne and Tyral make a couple of excellent rebuttals, and Joxur backs out entirely with another pic/link citation to maintain his continuity in the thread.

It's been suggested that a rash of hate crimes has resulted from the election of the first ever black president. That is the kind of backlash that can be expected from a large departure from the norm. The further the pendulum is set at one end, the further it will swing to the other end and the longer it will take for it to become settled. Slow and regular change is easier to digest and more likely to take hold. It might not be the best course of action to force anything with an executive order.

_________________

amen, Rugen. Amen.

Not to mention the "fierce urgency of now" and "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism". Though, we've already elaborated a bit on why this situation is different from what King faced.

Yep, and I think that "analysis" was simply wrong. I'm sure there were people making the same kinds of arguments about civil rights issues in the sixties, too.

So, you think you have a better idea of how it compares to what MLK faced, than say.....his wife?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/02/coretta_scott_king_on_gay_righ.php


Indeed it will.

Or maybe you think you have a better idea than one of his advisors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

_________________

Society as a whole with regard to gay equality? Yes, very much similar to the civil rights issues of that era. But, since we've been talking about DADT, I'd say a little bit different for the reasons I mentioned above.

I don't think Dr. King would be for a quick bandaid fix executive order, either. That doesn't mean we can't pass legislation with speed... but without any thought behind it, that would not solve much.

You don't really get to separate the two, as much as you'd like to.

We're not talking about giving access to people who have never been in the military before. We're talking about men and women who have served, have shown their commitment and their loyalty, who are let go for no reason other than who they love. This isn't a question of access. It is a question of irrational fear ruining people's lives through their bigotry and hatred. Lt. Dan Choi, to pick the most notable release in recent days, is not any different than he was a year ago when he was a fine soldier.

And yes, it needs to be terminated immediately. Anyone who doesn't like it? I'd be willing to wager that it isn't the first order they would have complied with that they disliked at first and came to understand later.

_________________

I think they are separable for the reasons I described above, and I'll repeat for convenience - the military having very strict rules, regulations, and a certain ingrained culture can make it more difficult to inflict lasting change if the civilian leadership simply forces it upon them with what - in their view at least - looks like occurred without proper due process and understanding.

Now, if you pass it through Congress, THEN it looks like a reasoned approach was taken and all sides had a fair shot with their arguments standing their own ground. And I am 100 percent for pushing it through as quickly as possible. But executive orders are not something that should be taken likely precisely because they appear dictatorial. Again, if it is done in a way which does not appear fair or forced upon people, we'll just have longer repeats of the stealth abuse that took place years after slaves were given freedom.

Much of the good legislation for gays, blacks, and other minorities has been passed entirely legitimately with little heavy-handedness. I think there are times when the government HAS to guarantee freedom and equality to at least maintain consistency and use forceful methods when practically necessary(as was the case to guarantee freedoms around the civil war era)... but if we are given the option to not take a bandaid fix for a rather large problem, I think we have a responsibility to see through a more appropriate fix.

Isn't the whole premise of the military "dictatorial?" You follow orders, period, blah blah blah. We hear about how cool it is all the time from some people here on the boards. That's exactly the culture you are talking about-- you know, those strict rules and regulations. This is simply another command to be followed, another strict rule or regulation. Fits right into the culture if you ask me. Follow the order and shut the fuck up, right?

So your entire justification that discrimination is ok is that it already exists and it would be hard to make them change their minds by telling them that they are wrong? And making the law clearly reflect that that they'd have to operate by?

You honestly seem to be arguing that DADT should remain in place until military leadership decides to undo it themselves.

Aside from an astonishing lack of understanding of how the military works, it's also an amazingly good white wash of the abhorrent behaviors they are displaying and ruining lives with.

The day we "civilians" stop telling the military what is and isn't ok....is a cold day in hell.



This is what you are defending, Venen. Just so we are clear. If you think that story is a rarity, you aren't doing your research.



Gosh, you're right...I mean, if you look at:



There's no unilateral action there enforcing a military culture to embrace doing the right thing in the military services at least 6 years before such racial discrimination would start to be ended in the nation itself.

Then again, you fail to grasp "American doesn't torture", so I guess I am not entirely surprised. You seem terribly full of apologist behavior for the worst elements of our nation these days.

_________________

And there'd be a good number of good servicepeople who would do exactly that. But keep in mind what happened to blacks who joined in WWII and beyond - regardless of the fact that they were granted equality as far as the law was concerned, there were still countless instances of abuse right on up the chain of command. And that's the thing - it makes it more difficult when it's so systematically ingrained that even as you go up that chain of command, bias still exists and there's little accountability. No one can follow the order and shut the fuck up if they're not told to do it in the first place by their commanding officers. Though yes it would be a rule, it's tricky when it's not enforced or encouraged.



No, what I said was that it should be put into law by fair means. This includes passing it through Congress rather than the heavy-handed approach of executive order. There would be no waiting, outside of the time it takes to pass a bill. If there's something to criticize there, it's the time it takes Congress to act, and the willingness of the people's representatives to go along with the idea. The main problem I suspect is gathering enough votes, but it still seems plenty doable given that many people are coming around on this issue. Effort needs to be made on Obama's part to get a bill through, but an executive order is a rash action that will only end in further discrimination.



Nope, if you read what I wrote I would like to see it done away with as soon as a bill can be passed.



And look at what resulted - some 40+ years of continued discrimination by the military. And even if that were a good thing(which I'm not sure I completely buy... seems like it would have been possible, even in 1948, to pass a bill to grant equality and opportunity) note that I said "Much", not "all".



Can I assume there's a rebuttal on the way in said thread where the argument was constructed?

Well said btw, Bearne. I'm not sure I agree with waiting 10 years to get everything done, but certainly fighting smart instead of hard is a motto I can agree with. Hard-lining everything is a recipe for continued conflict, not resolution.

Damn straight it is. Those who don't like it can face the court martial just like every other idiot who shouldn't have been allowed to put on a uniform in the first place.

Abuse is going to happen, it doesn't matter how DADT is removed. It won't be nearly as bad as what blacks faced, but it's going to be there.

I'd like someone to explain to me why it is that you think a legislative repeal of DADT is going to be taken any differently than an executive order by the military.

And how has this differed from ANY civil rights matter at all? You legislate the dinosaurs and the fanatics into observance, while the rest of the world gets to enjoy the fruits of their enlightened efforts, until everyone is on the same page X years down the road.

If you want to wait until everyone decides that homosexuality is a-ok? They will never see equal treatment.

I'll refer you again to the Dr. King quote. Wait = Never.



This would be the same no matter how the law was passed, be it signed into existence by Obama similar to Truman, or if Congress passed it. You'd still have dinosaurs/fanatics that would refuse to give equal treatment to gay/lesbian soldiers....and be punished for it. Unlike what is happening now, where their behavior is reinforced as ok and wholesale approved by our government.

_________________

I'm thinking no, not really, not to this degree.

It is less dictatorial and the decision is made by more than one individual elected by the people, and is therefore a bit more representative of the general populace(as opposed to, for example, the significant percentage of people who did not pick Obama, or just in general those who have more faith in something that is ruled upon by a broader number of people from more areas of the country). I believe the more genuine a law is, the less likely people are to oppose it. That doesn't mean EVERYONE is going to go right along with it, but I believe that number is fewer if it is indeed more genuine and done in an honest way.



It did not differ, for the most part. If we were to go back and give it a try, maybe we'd know how it would have differed from other civil rights issues.

Again from what I said - no waiting involved. No "never". Get the legislation through asap.



Yes, you would still have people who disagree with this even after proper legislation, but I believe you would have significantly fewer. Per what I said above, people have always responded better to rules and laws when they are brought about in a fair manner. Dictatorial methods only add fuel to a fire.

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere on that last point, think we'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that fewer or an equal number of people would respond negatively to a more fairly-passed law.

Even if the slow way were better - and it's not - what steps are being taken right now to advance DADT "the right way"? If getting everyone on board is the key issue, how are those steps going to accomplish that?

And, by doing it the slow way, to get as many people to buy in as you can - don't you empower the bigots? Why give them so much control over the situation? As has already been pointed out, you're talking about a caste that has to follow orders. Yet in this one area, they are allowed to dictate the terms of the engagement on what should be a fundamental civil right.

Last but not least, if you point out violence against gays as one reason why it's best to go it slow - don't you encourage that behavior? You're rewarding their actions with more delays in a vain attempt to get those very people to accept something that they will never accept.

I wonder sometimes if you say stupid shit deliberately just to irritate.

_________________

More:

Mullen advises 'measured' approach to gay policy
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 548D34.DTL

The language being used should give you a huge hint in the direction the administration is going to go. No more talk about ending it - it's all about changing the law. Making it "more humane" (an outright offensive term, as if you can make discrimination more humane. Is that like putting the Jews to sleep before you gas them?).

That's two of the top military people right there - Gates and Mullen. Ending DADT is now a 2nd term issue.

People are by and large for or against homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military openly. Whether it is done through executive order or legislatively, people are going to approve or disapprove along those lines with very few exceptions.

There is nothing dictatorial about removing DADT through executive means. The legislature is the one who made it so that the DoD could set the conditions, and the Constitution allows for the President to issue orders to the military. Anyone who cried about the method would be doing so only because they're looking for a reason to bitch about gays serving openly in the military while leaving themselves room to say "I'm not a homophobe, I have a gay friend!"

I hate when you're right.

That's not what's being discussed. People are concerned that an executive order is just going around the law, not removing it. That means in 3.5 years, if a Republican wins the election, we could see it implemented all over again. The best route would be to legislatively repeal it so that it can't be brought back later.

_________________

It is what's being discussed though. No one is arguing that Obama should issue an executive order and call it good...at least I hope no one is arguing that. I'm arguing that he should do whatever it takes to end DADT immediately (executive order, or forcing Gates to bring it to an end), and then to push Congress to do their jobs to make it permanent.

In the end though, even if the worst did happen and Congress failed to follow up, I think it's unlikely that we'll have a situation where Presidents are willing to play tug of war with the military like that. It would be too damaging.

Let's say that we all buy in that it should be done legislatively, and not through an executive order.

What timetable do you give Congress to get it done? If that passes with no DADT repeal legislatively.. do you sanction an executive order?

If you are waiting on Congress to do anything about this, you will be waiting a LONG time. This needs to be started with an Executive Order then followed up by legislation.

They could either use it to mask another more controversial bill -or- they could push it behind a more popular bill.

I don't see Congress doing anything on DADT. Legislation like this is usually presented/passed in the summertime or early fall so it can be enacted the first part of the following year. With Congress now on another summer recess and with the current news cycle don't count on anything from them until fall. At that time there will be another "crisis" that needs attention and this will get pushed back yet again.

After this fall next year will be a campaign year and you know that politicians won't push anything that can be thought as a controversial issue. That means you won't see anything from Congress on this next year (unless there is an Executive Order to give them "cover").

The concern others have stated is that if he does issue an executive order on the issue, actually changing the law becomes a non-issue for many people and it won't be pursued as aggressively. If people aren't being actively kicked from the military under DADT, Congress has less of an impetus to repeal it (assuming they have one at all in the first place).

_________________

Full interview:
http://wockner.blogspot.com/2009/07/ste ... ns-to.html

_________________

Every post since my last one has contributed in turning me around on the subject of executive action. That includes the ones arguing against executive action. That is unusual.

So at what point does someone with the power of the presidency (ie, Commander in Chief) stop letting it just slide and actually take an action that congress can not ignore? How long do we have to sit twiddling our thumbs while the military destroys lives with their "lawful" prejudice? If all congress wants is someone to "blame" so their hands are "clean", when it comes to a matter of civil rights....I know I'm sure as hell willing to be the one that takes the blame for that one. Why isn't he? Why SHOULDN'T he?

Again, it comes down to this whole stalemate. Congress doesn't want to move on it for fear of some imaginary backlash. The president doesn't want to move on it because he wants it to appear to come from the legislative body rather than a decree from on high. And in the meantime, lives continue to be ruined and military jackasses get to use coy phrasing about "changing" the law rather than doing away with it, because they know they are the ones that ultimately win in this stalemate.

Fuck that. Obama needs to sign the order terminating the release of soldiers under DADT pending review by congress and then turn around and tell congress that they have X days to get off their asses and fix this law.

_________________

For political reasons maybe, the people may need to push him to do it.