Dem Rep: Time To “Tear Down” Barrier Blocking Gays From Military Service
Uh oh — this could be a bit of a test for President Obama: The office of Dem Rep. Ellen Tauscher confirms that she will introduce legislation today ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — a barrier she says we need to “tear down” so that the military can be “better.”
Tauscher will formally announce her plans at a speech she’s giving later today at the Center for American Progress, and her office sends over an excerpt of her prepared remarks.
“We have a military that is truly the finest in the world but we can be better,” Tauscher will say. “There is one last, final barrier that we need to tear down. We need to end the `Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ policy.”
Politico quoted an anonymous Tauscher aide this morning saying she’d be introducing the measure, and Politico opined that such a move could bedevil Obama — as it did Bill Clinton — at a time he’s trying to push through a range of enormous initiatives that will consume a great deal of his political capital.
Tauscher’s office tells me she will address this criticism today.
“Many have asked me why now and I have always said that there is no right time to right a wrong,” Tauscher will say. “So, today, I am introducing the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. This bill will once and for all end the discriminatory practices of the Department of Defense. It will allow the men and women who have been administratively discharged to have the opportunity to serve again if they want.”
The administration is on record saying that Obama will eventually follow through on this policy, and public discussion of it right now will be grabbed onto by the right, could reveal differences on the issue between Obama and uniformed military and put pressure on the Obama administration to reaffirm his commitment to it.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
Its about time!
I dunno. I think the real issue is whether Democrats, after two powerful election victories in 2006 and 2008, can summon among themselves enough vertebrae to stand up to the religious right and their Republican minions in Congress.
Obama keeps telling us: changes made via congress are lasting changes, while changes made via fiat are not.
This is right in keeping with that.
I see no reason to wait. I’m tired of balking based on depleted “political capital.” That kind of talk just perpetuates the partisan game playing we all want to see less of. ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has to go and the time is NOW.
I wonder why she opposes allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages? That is just wrong. We can bail out the banks but not the mortgage holders? Could it be once a banker always a banker? I wonder who she really represents?
Is this just a ruse to distract our attention from her sellout to the banks and to hell with the voters who elected her and are losing their homes? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/mortgage-write-downs-why_b_170773.html – Mortgage Write-Downs: Why Does Ellen Tauscher Value Banks Over Constituents?
More on this from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/2/92759/26925/203/703571
Let’s first talk about this sentence:
“The administration is on record saying that Obama will eventually follow through on this policy, and public discussion of it right now will be grabbed onto by the right, could reveal differences on the issue between Obama and uniformed military and put pressure on the Obama administration to reaffirm his commitment to it.”
And then let’s revise it.
This is just selfish. I’m tired of this ****. The ****-in-the-military thing will be dealt with LATER. We WILL NOT lose the once-in-a-lifetime momentum we currently have on health care, energy, economy, education, etc. over this — CAPICE??? Say you’ll address it down the road (which he will), President Obama, and get on with the business at hand. NO DETOURS, NO ROADBLOCKS, NO NEW TALKING POINTS FOR THE WINGNUT IMBECILES!!!
Lets get a deal done in the back room to bring this legislation forward at a future date following the fights over the budget and healthcare. It is an important bill that needs to be passed but lets learn from the past and recognize that in politics timing does matter. There are bigger issues that need to be solved and that should take priority. Despite the righteousness of this issue it is contentious and now is not the time to fight this fight. We can push this one through congress anytime we want in the next two years.
How about she just title it the “Let **** in the Military” bill, rather than hide behind some fiction that mere sexual preference will take us from an exceptional force to a *super exceptional* force? Readiness is and always will be fine regardless of who you’re buggering…let’s make it a loud declaration that **** are entitled to serve their country, too, with the dignity of allowing them to be open.
Here is the thing, President Obama doesn’t have to be affected much by this. I know its a phucked up thing to say, but poltically he can just stay in the weeds on it since it wasn’t his bill and let Congress fight over it. For all we know it might sail through both houses. But I have a feeling that if there is significant pushback Pelosi will make sure it dies in the House one way or another.
In the 1950s during the McCarthy era members of the Armed Forces were discharged for “associating with homosexuals.” Now we have “don’t ask, don’t tell” assuming you can associate but not “ask or tell.” It’s time to stop this farce once and for all and “end the discriminatory practices of the Department of Defense.” It will also allow the men and women who have been administratively discharged with General Discharges to be upgraded to Honorable.
I am a Vietnam Era Vet. I am straight. I think this ban was stupid to begin with. There are and always have been gay military personnel and they do their jobs as well as or better that “straight” personnel. I have served with gay soldiers and there is no problem with moral or anything else. The problem is the bigotry and narrow-minded people both in the service and outside it. Also note that the loudest opposition on **** in the military comes from right wing conservatives who have never served.
It does need to be dropped, however, I have to agree that maybe we need to get the economy problems dealt with first. Perhaps next year would be a good time to have this fight.
Hey who **** out that word.? The word was ****!
The word is gay. What is going on. Its accepted in the second sentence.
Oh how so very convienient. I guess Jane at FireDogLake pressure helped Tausher find her liberal cred. While this is a great step to ending discrimination in the military Tausher still is on the hook for the oppostion to cramdown.
@ P.E. Rich
“It will also allow the men and women who have been administratively discharged with General Discharges to be upgraded to Honorable.”
That would be a relief to a lot of people. Do you have a source for that? I keep looking for the text of this thing, and all I’ve found so far are multiple instances of the 2005 and 2007 versions.
Well, maybe they might want to think that through. It didn’t work for Clinton, and it won’t work for this guy. Have you thought about the danger of having **** (openly) in AFGAN. Terrorists don’t respect anyone’s rights, much less ****. They behead them. In case you haven’t been paying attention, there are other elements in the military, small segment, but there, who do not accept the life style and will put an openly gay person in jeapordy. Look, if you’ve been there and done that, you might understand. What’s the freaking big deal? Look up the stats on discharge. It is a very, very small minority for ****. When I worked in the Legal office, it was not uncommon for someone to try and prove they were gay, even when they weren’t, so they would be put out. People, get a grip. It’s the economy stupid. I don’t agree with spending your way out of debt. This is way too much money, way too fast. It’s fine to throw these numbers out, but how about when it comes time to pay the piper.
Rose Colored Glasses: By your reasoning, Truman shouldn’t have integrated the military because of the racists.
I hope that her bill will have protections for **** in the military, not just revoke DADT. Odd that people who decry DADT are unaware of the history behind it and that it served as an imperfect layer of protection for **** in service for a number of years.
Why all the asterisks in these comments? Do they stand for gay, ****, ***, ****, (which if these are bleeped out spell gee, aye, why and eff, aye, gee respectively), or some other 4-letter word? I’m pretty sure minors have better things to read than The Plum Line, so why the prudery? We’re all adults, and censorship just feeds bigotry. Cockroaches hate sunlight, so enough of the ****. We can handle the truth.
Or the lie, which we can’t begin to oppose until we hear it clearly and uncensored.
It’s about time. If not now, when? Let’s see if Obama doesn’t turn wuss in the face of republican opposition. It’s bad enough he doesn’t support same-*** marriage (civil unions are not marriage), so let’s hope he keeps his word about DADT and doesn’t try to disuade Tauscher from going through with this.
I remember when I was drafted during the Vietnam War. It was the most humiliating experience of my life and something I will never forget or forgive. I was told to go to the shrink when I checked off a box that asked if you had “homosexual tendencies” (they could never believe that someone was a homosexual but just tended to be one). The shrink said they would take me in the army if I underwent psychiatric counseling so I asked him, “Are you telling me I have to be nuts to go into the army?” I left and never looked back but it was a terrible experience and not only having been asked what I was aked but the silly and stupid questions they asked me on a form to fill out e.g., “What’s a bull ****, name 3 homosexual bars in NY etc”. If Obama doesn’t follow through with his promises wth overtunring DADT, don’t bother to ask for our votes come 2012.
I don’t understand why gay marriage is not approved of let alone why gay individuals are not allowed in the army. We say that America is the land of the free without segregation or limitations. If we don’t accept everyone no matter their race, ethnicity or sexual preference, then we are making a mockery of everything we stand for.
Seems to me this is poor timing on her part to distract away from her efforts to torpedo the Cramdown Legislation that is trying to move through Congress. It will be interesting to see if this thing even makes it out of committee. I suspect it will be read twice and forwarded to committee to be discussed at some later date.
Well, If I were gay, I wouldn’t trust the military to protect my rights. A gay person would probably be purposely killed by friendly fire (murdered by some nut case) and the military would probably cover it up. Why would anyone think that straight people are not crazy hypocritical idiots.
I get sick and tired of liberal bed wetters whining about being “homosexual, bisexual, trans-sexual, transvestites, etc., etc.” There is no such thing as homosexuality or other “alternative” forms of sexuality. Some people just don’t get *** right, that’s all. I don’t care if you have *** with a fire plug. Your “*** life” doesn’t give you any special rights whether you are having *** with your wife or the tail pipe of your Harley-Davidson.
If “gay” men and women really do want to get married wouldn’t it make more sense for homosexual men to marry lesbian women? After all, they’d still end up, ‘er, find themselves married to a person of the same sexual persuasion as they were, wouldn’t they? Besides, if they so chose they could even have their own children without having to bother with finding sperm donors or surrogates. Sounds like a “win-win” policy to me.
I can say from still being active duty in the military, that I for one, would love for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to be rescinded. Maybe then, I and other Marines I know, would be able to come out of the closet about it, and stop living a lie that is tearing us up inside. It would make us a better military overall.
Mr. Thayer, the heterosexual relationships I have been in were like rape to me. Are you a proponent of domestic rape, sir? If so, I truly pity your wife….
I’d love to be able to be with my girlfriend and not feel ashamed and scared whenever we’re out in public together. I’m a soldier. Don’t I deserve to stand tall?
Also, we don’t ask for special rights. We ask for basic rights. The United States boasts of freedom and justice and equality. Let’s live true to our creed at last!
For those of you who say “wait”, please keep in mind that this is a “faceless” policy simply because a face cannot be given to it until the servicemember has already been thrown out.
I have been serving for 17 years, waiting for the day when I can quit lying or avoiding conversations where my personal my come up. For those of you who think that is easy, think about how many times a day at work you discuss or mention your spouse, family, girlfriend/boyfriend, or even a date you went on the night before. Now imagine that if you mentioned any of the above, you would be fired.
It may be selfish, but I can honestly say “screw political capitol”. This issue is my, and many others, lives. Politics is too fickle. A republican take over in 2010 pretty much guarantees that I will retire from the military the same way I served, beholden to the personal moral code of others who I will never meet. I’d like to retire knowing that I did serve honorably, with the country who I have offered my life to awknowledging that I was worthy of that honor.
As far as my understanding goes, there are legitimate reasons for the policy. First off, you must understand that the Army does not and CANNOT follow an entirely free or democratic system. As a soldier I have to maintain a certain standard of behavior. The Army also regulates my appearance and physique. And we are also restricted as to who we can have close relations with, (fraternization, etc).
The issue is keeping sexual preferences separated. If **** openly display their preference, its the equivalent of a woman walking into a man’s locker room. This is legitimate because of the lack of personal space soldiers have. The tension can disrupt unit cohesion. The law does NOT keep LGBT soldiers from serving, it merely asks them to regulate their behavior in a similar fashion to straight soldiers in order to maintain unit cohesion. I personally have no problem with ****, but I would prefer that this, or similar legislation remain in place.
Being a retired military man, let me relate an experience from my service in Vietnam(3 tours) a small unit I was in had two **** in it. We did not know this until one accused the other of being involved with a straight man. It put our little unit’s effectiveness in jeopardy with the disruption it caused. A military unit is like a chain it is no stronger than its weakest link. It has no place for petty jealouslies, that is why it is a rare occurance for a husband and wife to be assigned to the same unit. A small 65 man unit that I was in while in Germany(front line communications highly mobile) was severely hampered by 2 couples(husbands andwives) they were eventually separated into 2 different units to preserve the effectiveness of our unit.As for as sharing stories about my social life with a gay person,why should I since we do not have common interest. I do not wear my sexuality on my shirt sleeve and neither should you.
I completely agree with Virgil, it’s about unit cohesion and effectiveness. And I really like how those who have never served feel the need to impose their liberal agenda on to those of us who have served and those that continue to serve. I see nothing wrong with the current policy, as a leader I can’t ask, so I don’t. Since when has a persons sexual preference given them any more rights than anyone else? If you sign up for the military your aware of the regulations so why is it that they want to challenge the system. I truly beleive this would cause more problems across the services than it would solve.