And if we were talking about yet another old white guy president? I'd probably swallow that (as much as I'd hate it).

But him? He should look at those first 4 words you've typed there and feel ashamed if he's even thought it.

Civil rights aren't "convenient".

It is like saying, "I really wanted to do the right thing, but not enough people stopped me from burning crosses in that nice family's yard, so...."

Offensive and outright mind boggling. To me, anyway.

You do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Not because "the people made you".

_________________

Sadly, there's all sorts of varying opinions about what "the right thing to do" actually is, concerning just about any topic. The people making you do what the majority considers the right thing is as valid as any other impetus, I think.

That being said, I would like to see an executive order in this instance. I'd prefer to think that this is a no brainer and action needs to be taken by whoever is capable of taking it. It's rather long overdue.

If he hadn't made his personal stance on this so very clear going into the presidency....I would accept that.

So either he was lying before, or he's lost his balls now.

Either one is unacceptable. We elected him to lead the people. Not to be yet another poll chasing follower.

_________________

With a majority and super-majority in Congress, and an (outwardly) supportive President, the party has no excuse to fail to deliver on a promise that they campaign on.

If it is not passed this term, it is not because they can't; it's because they won't.

That's when you revert to your campaign promise to end DADT, repeated after the inauguration. I don't recall any of his statements during the campaign that said he would need a supportive Congress to get it done, either.

That's EXACTLY right. It's not a can't. It's a won't. The time will never be better politically, for the following reasons:

1) His approval ratings are through the roof.
2) There is a lot of press about Choi that is still top of mind for some people.
3) There are so many other bad things going on that even if this is the top story for a while, it won't be for long.
4) The Dems have all the power they're ever going to have. Seriously, maybe they can consolidate their majority, but the bigger risk is they lose their 60 vote majority in the senate in the midterms, and as everyone has pointed out, they're not going to try this during the midterm election cycle.

You're talking about a president and Congress that rushed through almost a TRILLION dollars in spending without even fully reading the bill. Is anyone really saying that they can't get this done quickly if they wanted to?

Will there be any backlash if there isn't anything done prior to the 2010 elections?

The time is right, correct this wrong now.

And this is the other part of it that is so incredibly frustrating to observe.

I think that lanys is a nice little representative sample of the US (and sometimes, world) at large. At least for our general age group. You'll find we have a wide range of differing opinions and political beliefs...so much so, that it is very rare that we all agree on ANYTHING.

Is there a single person here that thinks DADT should NOT be abolished? No one has spoken up so far.

If we, in our wide range of opinions, can all agree on this....it is certainly indicative of the large population's opinion on this matter to some degree.

And still....it stalls in congress for fear of backlash. Still, Obama worries about being seen as dictating this change....

I just want to beat my head in with a hammer watching this comedy of errors.

_________________

What steps are being taken right now? That's a fair enough question, and Obama does need to do more on the issue and now is preferrable. The question I think being asked in this thread is how to proceed, not whether or not Obama should take action now. He should take action, I just believe the legislative route is better.

If giving more people a say in the matter is "empowering" bigots, then we should do away with elections and representatives altogether.

As for the last part, again, I'm not in favor of delays. I know that Congress is inherently slow to act, but I believe that too is a problem that is not an absolutely inevitable part of our government. Even if we can't fix the inherent bureaucratic flaws, I think there have been occasions where Congress has been able to act quickly in part because of massive public pressure put on them.



There are plenty of people who are against things but do not resort to drastic measures because of their being against something in principle. Measured approaches are more common when people do not feel forced into a position. Treating someone fairly is more likely to get a slightly more reciprocal response.



The fact that executive orders are (somewhat) allowed by the Constitution does not make the act any less dictatorial. It's still one person deciding for everyone else. All of the people could get together and unanimously decide that Obama should have all of the powers of a king for all it matters; it'd still be dictatorial.



I actually think that after all is said and done and it fails to pass, Obama should then issue the executive order. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so interested in the issue of putting it to a fair vote as I am in seeing people believe it to be more fair(although it really wouldn't be any less fair if the vote succeeded, we would just know otherwise about future intentions). At some point, the minority must be protected regardless of what the majority thinks. It may be seen as going against the will of the people after such a vote, and hell it may even look worse than an executive order right off the bat, but I'm not sure I would suggest it if I didn't think it had a damned good chance of getting through Congress with proper effort. I think you have to at least give a real legitimate vote a shot before resorting to the executive order in this instance.

So how long before it's ok to do the executive order, Venen? You didn't answer that questions besides, "after all is said and done" which if about as vague as you can get.



I don't think we're a very representative sample of the US. I think we tilt a little more libertarian, and a little more anti-religion than the public as a whole.

I didn't say our percentages would be the same as the world at large for each group. Just that we have the same voices and all of those voices seem to be in agreement for the first time on a single topic. :p

_________________

I agree in regards to most issues, but not in this one. Opposing gays serving openly in the military under any circumstance is not a reasoned position. There's no reason to think that people would react in anything other than an unreasonable fashion regardless of how DADT is changed, especially when you take into account that it will largely be changed along party lines. They're either going to complain about the 'dictatorial' fashion that it was passed by, or they're going to complain about how it wasn't passed with bipartisan support. Either way, they're going to whine, cry, bitch and moan.

By that standard, anything Obama does is dictatorial, including doing his constitutionally mandated duty.

I would completely agree if Congress had shown any inclination to address the subject. They haven't, and it's not ok to wait until they do.

Borrowing from a prior administration strategy, what would you all think about Obama issuing an executive order on DADT while Congress is out for the summer?

It's somewhat subjective, and I think you'd have to account for how long it would typically take for Congress to pass a bill of this magnitude, but I would say something along the lines of 3-4 weeks. Every action should be made beyond say... 2-3 weeks to get it put to a yes or no vote. If it doesn't or fails, then do it. A month would be an upsetting period to have to wait for such basic rights, but if it leads to a more stable and accepting system without as much upheavel, I'm for it.



Sadly though there are plenty of people that do see it as a reasoned position, else we probably wouldn't see so many reports of gays being ousted from the military. I guess you could argue that they're being very strict with regard to orders, but there are always a number that are willing to bend or re-interpret when something is downright wrong. Still, there is no shortage of stories regarding gays being discriminated against in the news. Racism wasn't a reasoned position either, but people still managed it.

Let me be clear - doing this in a fair way will not do away with anti-LGBT any more than the old anti-discrimination laws did away with racism, however, I believe it would give them fewer excuses to act on it. And that's what I'm looking for - fewer ways for people to justify their own actions, and that would apply to the few(but still sizable enough to make a difference) people with at least some semblence of a conscience that might change their mind if things were done fairly.



No dispute here =) By definition many of his duties are. I would like to limit it where possible, especially in contentious cases like this where there is a viable alternative.



Already addressed this. If Obama actually makes an effort to get Congress to act in a speedily way, and they do not, then there is no other option but to use executive power IMO. As of yet though, Obama has not really even placed the issue on the table. He needs to address the issue one way or another, I am merely suggesting which course he should take when he finally DOES act.



I'd actually like to see this if Congress refused to act on it after pressure. Doing it like that would sum up the point that it is unacceptable for Congress to continue to sit on its hands, and if they're actively refusing to do something upon being engaged, then someone will do something.

So, since it's been far more than 4 weeks since Obama took office, we can do it now?

That is a simplistic view and I am not at all surprised you wrote it. While we live in a democracy and we should be able to write laws as we see fit - there are some things that should be incontrovertible. Chief among those are liberties and civil rights. If we followed the will of the majority in every case we would still be living in a segregated society and I somehow doubt womens rights would be where they are today.

That's exactly right, and that's why the apologists such as yourself and Bearne are actually hurting the cause by accepting the delay as Obama taking the long view and acting towards some sort of secret plan that only he knows. People like you refusing to hold them to the fire and show any urgency - in fact arguing AGAINST those of us who are ON THE SAME SIDE AS YOU merely emboldens them to either not do it at all or simply wait until it's politically expedient - for them - not for the LBGT community whose rights are being trampled on.

And yet the executive order I cited - desegregating the military and allowing blacks to serve equally - is a clear and established precedent that can be cited as evidence that it's not nearly as unreasonable as you claim. It's been done before, for fuck's sake.

Here's the order itself. I hope you can see just how stupid you are for thinking this is anything other than a straightforward executive order.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

It is EXACTLY THE SAME. All he has to do, hell, is simply re-issue the executive order with the words "sexual orientation" in the fucking sentence.

Wait a second. Your argument against unilateral action by Obama is so to not appear "dictatorial". Yet you want our elected representatives in Congress to act, fail, and then have Obama overrule a vote by Congress? You realize that if the vote fails, it looks significantly worse for Obama to overrule a fair vote by Congress than if he had simply jump started the process and allowed Congress to follow through?

Let's examine that logic for a second.

1) Obama has extremely high approval ratings. Cover, if you will.
2) Congress has extremely low approval ratings and Pelosi/Reid have had no success in pulling together their people for controversial votes.
3) Congress is facing a midterm election - 2 years before Obama is up for re-election. Who do you think faces the greater risk?
4) The build-up to this vote allows the conservative press to do as much fear mongering as they possibly can. Allies begin to turn away from this extremely risky vote before midterms.

Is it easier or harder to get the votes you need after an executive order has been signed? It's easier - far easier. Obama will have taken the brunt of any political consequences and all Congress has to do is include it in some random bill that the GOP wants signed and voila, you're done.

As I said - try the fair way, if it doesn't work, then use executive order.



Nay, simplistic is suggesting that by allowing voices to be heard - however unconstitutional it may be - you are somehow empowering them more than if you take forceful action to their martyrdom. If anything, you severely limit their power by shutting them down in a vote by representatives of the people. That is as big of a "fuck no" as I can think of.

Are you suggesting that every time something is unconstitutional, we have the President use executive order? There's already significant debate over the true extent of a President's power granted by the constitution, to allow wanton executive orders to this degree would only serve to prove my point here. If every time a constitutional inconsistency came up we had historically used the President's executive order to stop it, maybe I'd see your point.. but we've had plenty of cases where Congress passed laws instead, and for good reason.



I've already stated that Obama needs to stop waiting to take some sort of action. I maintain that waiting a month for a greater justice to the LBGT community is better than artificially applying a bandaid solution. That's still holding his feet to the fire, even if it's not the endorsed position of the anti-Obama crowd.



I didn't say there was no precedent, nor did I say it wasn't a straightforward executive order. Just because it's been done is not reason to go through with it again. Not sure what your point is here, as the quote in question there is about how people respond to dictatorial action. Maybe you're trying to say it's not "drastic"? Same point - On the contrary, just because something has precedent doesn't make it any less drastic.



First, no, I want Congress to act and then *succeed*. I believe that to be the far most likely outcome, especially consider how feelings have changed about DADT a lot since it was instituted 16-ish years ago. It wouldn't be hard to garner all the Democratic support, and even a few Republicans would likely join the cause(as an example, Colin Powell suggested it wasn't the right policy to have anymore).

But yes, if you read what I said in the post you quoted from, it will most definitely look worse for Obama. That is what I hope it doesn't come to, but I do hope that the people will understand the logic behind why he did what he did. I doubt your fourth point because I believe it's MORE of a risk for Republicans to further alienate themselves by fear-mongering about DADT being removed. Most of the country is moving progressive on this particular issue, so really it would only hurt them in their already-damaged state. Risky for Democrats to vote yes on repeal of DADT? I really don't see how. If it were about gay marriage, MAYBE, but DADT is not a sweeping change in that sense. I highly doubt this would make or break the vote for conservative Democrats from red states.

It is easier with an executive order already on the table, but that sort of defeats the purpose =)

And yet. It's. already. been. done. And not even by the president.

DHS Establishes Interim Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1244578412501.shtm

Secretary Napolitano also directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to suspend adjudication of visa petitions and adjustment applications filed for widow(er)s where the sole reason for reassessment of immigration status was the death of a U.S. citizen spouse prior to the second anniversary of the marriage.

Where's your evidence that anything is being done on a 30 day timeframe? Wishes don't make reality. You can't argue against one theory by insisting your unrealistic hope and desire is actually going to happen. It's not. nothing is being done, by anyone, Congress or otherwise. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out - top military leaders are drafting CHANGES to the law. Does this jive with your 30 day timetable?

The intense irony of all this is that you have no problem with Obama suspending the legal rights of detainees and torturing captured citizens of both our government and others with no due process. What could be more "dictatorial" than that?

I dunno, Jox. I hate to be an "apologist" as you put it, but have you noticed that there's an awful lot going on in the world at the moment?

I see all these threads where you're bashing Obama for not doing this (relatively) small thing and that small thing and etc etc but...you know....there's an awful lot going on right now.

Again, what does it being done some of the time have to do with my point that it's bad to increase the frequency of its use, especially in these contentious cases, when there is a viable alternative?



Military leaders actively changing the law here is certainly concerning, no question =) I have no evidence that anything is being done - which is precisely why I am asking that Obama do something *now* rather than later, preferrably my option. He has yet to take serious action on the issue, and that is the point that I'm driving at - if he's GOING to take action, which he should, then he should it this way.

Assuming there is no further debate point from the other thread in my argument for torture in certain circumstances(not holding my breath!), I am not purely against dictatorial action and I believe it is necessary in certain cases.

Though really I'm not sure what you're getting at, since in theory such action could certainly be mandated by Congress as well if they were to allow those types of powers, say, to a group of senior officials who were then able to vote on the action taken. I'd tend to prefer something like that, but then again I understand situations may arise where the President should probably be able to make the call - much like executive orders.

To use my favorite torture example, if 10,000 people were to die tomorrow if we don't get rid of DADT today, you'd probably find me in favor of the executive order bit =)

If I might be so bold as to interject, Mr. President and Dr. King:

"Haste makes waste." - Man whose face was blown off after using a rocket launcher to destroy a rat's nest.

Ven, how long will you wait for Congress to do anything?

The issue isn't that it won't pass in Congress, the issue is that Congress won't even touch the issue.