Will “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Promise Be Restored To White House Web Site?
This is getting odd. The White House has yet to directly address a shift in language on its official Web site that seems to water down its previous commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and has yet to say whether it’s temporary or permanent.
The White House’s “civil rights” section originally said Obama supports a “repeal” of the politically dicey DADT policy, in keeping with his campaign promise. But the language now says he supports a “change” in the policy, a subtle but significant difference that was flagged by gay bloggers such as John Aravosis last night.
In response to the outburst the change triggered on gay blogs, the White House put out a statement late yesterday claiming that the change reflected an overhaul of the “issues section,” promising that “the President’s commitment on LGBT issues has not changed, and any suggestions to the contrary are false.”
But the statement didn’t specifically address the language change or directly reaffirm the White House’s commitment to “repealing” the measure. Here’s the current language on the White House Web site:
He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I asked a White House spokesperson more directly whether they could say whether the change was temporary or permanent, and I got the same statement back in response, so I’ve asked again. To be clear, the White House could very well be getting ready to restore the language. I’ll update you as soon as I hear one way or the other.
Update: White House Web site reaffirms commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg, darlin, think of it this way: The president doesn’t have 7 or 8 massive crises to deal with, he’s got 17 or 18. I can see how details could get a little lost and people say, running the web site, might be kind of in limbo, waiting for answers on some of this –
In other words, where is this on the president’s and the nations’ “to do” list?
A promise is a promise is a promise. To water down the context of the promise is not right. If he promised to end the DADT then that should be it. America, grow up already. Of course there are gay people in the military, and the sooner they can tell the better for all involved. No more shipmates getting lost at sea, no more hazing in the barracks, no more discrimination and denial of promotion.
Greg
.
Something to remember, if you simply repeal DADT then that means we go back to before DADT when the military could actively investigate someone’s sexual orientation in an effort to oust them from the military. The truth is, and I am not saying gay activists don’t realize but its something to keep in mind, repealing DADT alone won’t solve the problem. And changing DADT is probably a quicker way to go whenever they get around to addressing it. Right now as flawed as DADT is, its the only protection any gay persons in the military have.
interesting points SG. what’s interesting to me is whether this is actually a statement of a policy change. if it is, it’s an odd way to go about it…
For gay & lesbian Americans to serve requires both a repeal of DADT (or such a substantial aleration of the law that it amounted to the same thing), plus a policy change by the executive branch that required the DOD to be non-discriminatory towards gay & lesbian American soldiers.
The White House can say whatever it likes, but Obama promised to work to repeal DADT. Doing less than that is a betrayal of that promise.
Uhmm… some weeks ago TPM published this: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/gates-dadt-repeal-now-a-matter-of-if-not-when-1.php
Basically, Sec Def Gates were putting in doubt the repealling of DADT.
So, I am not holding my breadth on this. I don’t think Obama will buy a fight with the Armed Forces for this.
Greg
.
The people running the website for the WhiteHouse might have gotten in front of the WhiteHouse messaging on the issue. Either way in the end repealing DADT is not the end all be all. I don’t think there is any reason to believe that President Obama won’t change the policy. I think it comes down to a question of when and in what way.
It seems DADT is an issue for the administration’s (likely) second term.
The President cannot change the policy because the policy is a direct result of DADT. DADT is federal law and the executive is legally obligated to follow it. If gay & lesbian American soldiers are to serve openly DADT must be repealed.
@Nicole,
It seems DADT is an issue for the administration’s (likely) second term
Could be, could be, who knows, maybe it will go down in 2012 as way to throw a bone to the base, or when President Obama doesn’t need Gates anymore, or … Soon it will not.
Perhaps the present “disappearance” of any reference to DADT has something to do with the recent judicial rulings and legislative actions regarding the civil rights of **** and lesbians regarding marriage? While gay myself, I must admit that taking care of the economy and Iraq/Afghanistan directly affects more of my fellow citizens than DADT.
Doug,
Of course taking care of the economy and Af-Pak and Iran and all of that takes precedence over DADT. But I don’t see the relationship between what is happening in New England and DADT. As a matter of fact that and recent polls should encourage POTUS to push for the repealling of DADT.
Look, I like Obama a lot. I give him high marks for his performance so far. But he obviously doesn’t want to buy a fight over this for political reasons. It is all right, he is a politician and he has to look at the bigger picture and pick what to spend political capital on and all that. But there is a pattern for all to see here.
Obama is going to repeal one of the best decisions Bill Clinton made as President. By opening the door for **** to practice their homosexuality openly in the military it is going to discourage single heterosexuals from entering the military. If Obama changes the DADT policy he is going cause our proud military to go downhill from hereon and the makeup of the military will never be the same. This will in effect mean the destruction of our military from being the best and the brightest. He will be descriminating against the heterosexuals in the military and I will be in support of a military walkout if Obama changes the DADT policy.
Teresa,
The military already has rules against fraternization, and remember that there are already women in the military; around 20% of the armer forces are female. A change in policy would not allow people to “practice their homosexuality openly,” it would allow them to serve their country.
The best and the brightest in the military will continue to work hard and do their job — they’re not going to walk out over petty prejudices. And the military will only be strengthened by allowing many more of the best and brightest to serve.
As a straight 65 y/o person, I can’t begin to know all the ramifications of DADT, but without a doubt, I know there have been many **** and lesbians who have served in the military throughout history and done an outstanding job for the citizens of this country. Therefore, I hope Obama will NOT backtrack on his promise to do away with DADT. **** and lesbians have every right to serve and we, the people of this country should be grateful to all of them along with straight people in service. **** and lesbians are in the military to do a job; please stop discriminating against them.
If Obama changes the DADT policy he is going cause our proud military to go downhill from hereon and the makeup of the military will never be the same.
Standard homophobic bullshit. None of this has happened to any of our allies who all used to uniformly ban homosexuals just as vigorously as we did.
It’s sheer unreasoning panic, wrapped in a miasma that refuses to contemplate how icky it must be to have *** with someone of the same gender as yourself.
Grow up. No one’s asking you to have ***, and there are already polls demonstrating that today’s American soldiers mostly have no problem with the thought of serving with a gay soldier.
Go educate yourself before blabbing a bunch of hateful nonsense.
There’s no excuse. Obama has not followed through on a SINGLE promise to the LGBT community. Hate Crimes legislation, while pretty-sounding, is very weak tea.
DADT has been studied to death, and Obama could have issued an executive order on Day 1 announcing a change in policy, despite the fact that Congress has to act to change the law once and for all. A vote could be scheduled in five minutes.
It’s not just DADT, it’s ENDA, repeal of DOMA, etc.
WHERE THE F is Obama?
These aren’t just little fun political games for the media to discuss whether Obama is “throwing a bone to the base” or “overreaching” or their standard playground narratives. This is about real peoples’ lives, civil rights, and who we are as a country.
ENOUGH EXCUSES.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
To Jamie and Oddjob,
First, Teresa is right about the increased troubles this will cause the different Armed Service and branches. People attitudes will change about their fellow service member being openly gay in military. It’s not standard homophobic bull- just a fact. While they may not be able to berate them in the open; these people will get mocked on a covert level.
Does the military need more headaches dealing with these kinds of issues when these gay service members can just get their mouth shut about their orientation.
Second, I don’t understand how they can serve anyway when their sexual conduct is a psycho-social defect with these people anyway. If the military is able to deny service to a pyromaniac, pedophile, people with drug records, and other social dysfunctions; how can they allow screwed-up minded people who can’t identify sexually with an opposite *** person.
This is why no one really believes all the glorious talk about the Armed Services any more. And when did the Armed Service fraternization policies keep all service members from getting together to have *** behind closed doors or in the training field or certain op’s.
Let’s be for real, what the Armed Services will be doing is opening Pandora’s box on this issues that will create under the radar horror for subordinate women, men, and young recruits. Homosexuals in the Armed Services not only don’t want to be called out or put out of the military for their abnormal sexual orientation; but they want a bigger playground to exercise their homosexual preferences without scrutiny or for being in the closet- kind of like when pedophiles like to be on a playground full of children. If you say it’s OK to practice or be that way in the Army then they will become more bold no matter what fraternization rules you impose. You just gave them an operator license to be gay and to pursue their sexual interests in the Army.
How can you prosecute, punish, or discharge them; if you just gave them the permission to express the sexual interest or sexual orientation in a fraternization case. The repeal of DADT will increases the number of sexual harrassment cases, which are hell to prove by three-fold(woman-woman complaints, man-woman complaints, and man-man complaints) and it will increases ghost sexual discrimination complaints.
I don’t think leaders of the military units would want to have or need these kind of issues on their plate. And indeed, this will affect unit cohesion, morale, and attitudes. Can you see a soldier being covertly harassed or pursued by a gay superior when they think they have full ranged rights to be gay in the military and the investigation lets them off the hook because of the repeal of DADT or changes to allow homosexuality in the military. A catrotrophic blow to that sevice member and fear generated in the other soldiers in the company or command.
If the Armed Service repeal DADT, they create more headaches for themselves than they think they will resolve.
As Teresa said earlier that it will diminish the morale and integral fabric of the Armed Services overall. I liken the repeal of DADT to the fabric of a parachute- the more rifts and rips you have in the fabric; the more likely you are to have a failure of the item to do its’ job or purpose. So, Teresa is right and this is no homophobic b.s.
I think the Army needs to do some serious research or social studies(blind, double blind, etc, etc..) on this issues before implementing a change or repeal to DADT. For the sake of a strong military and not for the sake of people who wants the military to validate their sexual preference as a normal behavior or increase and open a new playground for their sick habit and addiction.
Second, I don’t understand how they can serve anyway when their sexual conduct is a psycho-social defect with these people anyway.
Except psychiatrists and psychologists completely disagree with that. This “psycho-social” defect is a fiction, and was demonstrated to be so back in the 1950’s.
Thanks for playing. Next time go do some research before you bray your prejudices for all the world to see.
As Teresa said earlier that it will diminish the morale and integral fabric of the Armed Services overall
As oddjob said earlier this is a fiction, and has been demonstrated to be so by our allies.
He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way — It was a good thing that Lincoln did not support repealing slavery in a sensible way otherwise we might have various conditions of slavery.
So long as it’s – in fact – repeal, I agree with you.
To oddjob,
O.K. Mister Oddjob. You want to talk research and studies; list and discuss the reports that you say psychologists and psychiatrists say homosexuality is not a psycho-social defect. So, you are saying that psychiatrists and psychologists are saying that this behavior have nothing to do with the psychi(mind) or the state of the mind(emotions) and social conditions such as abuse, dating problems, acceptance problems, popular fads, or paid services such as the pornography business and internet porn; which can be the gateway and enabling item to the perverted behavior like marijuana is the gateway drug to crack, heroine, and cocaine. I believe you are the one who needs to get real and do some real research and stop cherry picking gay psychiatrists works and their studies who supports this sick sexual attraction. Are you also saying that these people in this profession have also said that this is not an abnormal sexual behavior? I am sure whatever reports or research you are describing have left some serious factors out of their equations; but we(the world) would love to see what you are talking about. Please post these studies and I will ripped them apart as biased, self-interested, non-reality based reports. We(the world) will be waiting, Mr. Oddjob.
And please Mr. oddjob, stop comparing our nations morals, family values, principles, and religious beliefs to those of other nations and our allies. If we wanted to be live as those nations did we would not have seceded from the British continent and colonized America with more pure christine value. Now, even that is at stakes with the indignation of the sinful practice of homosexuality that is being spewed by the sick-minded aristocracy that is slowly spreading to the clean minded and clean living people in America where it is confusing them on what is appropriate sexual relations and conduct to follow or practice. You all spread the idealism to achieve selfish sexual pleasures even if it is abnormal, sick, or perverted. A person who stands on moral principles is not a bigot. This is such a sad defense for people like you and the supporters and practitioners of this perverted homosexual behavior.
To Eva,
The inability of not being able to select gender or race at birth and brutal treatment and discrimination as is the case with slavery is not the same moral argument as homosexuality in DOMA or DADT. If you must ask for equality ask for it under different avenues and grounds. Don’t ask the world to throw their moral beliefs and accept these people immoral sexual practices. Just because some people want to conduct immoral acts in a society doesn’t mean that we as americans or a society should condone and approve it with laws and allow it to be imposed upon us. I am sorrow but this(DOMA and DADT) doesn’t fall upon the same case argument as slavery. This is a moral argument that should be handled and dealt with by “Moral Laws” as all indecent and immoral behaviors in society are dealt with. So Eva, I hope u got this; Same-*** issues are moral issues not racial issues. However, the two can be inter-twined to make either one or both more difficult to deal with.
Allow them to serve openly & proudly. This is America. The military will adapt to it and move on – it’s what they do.
But- why is the president against Gay marriage?
To: Bob,
Accepting or supporting civil unions or same-*** marriages is a blasphemy to God, Jesus Christ, and the christian religion and all of it’s doctrines. Your question of why is Pres. Obama is against Gay marriage? Because and I am just guessing here, is that religiously that is where his christian beliefs leads him to stand for- but politically he has to back civil unions as a President for all people. My take on his political position is that he’s caught up in the mis-interpretation or interpretation of the discrimination position and the moral law position for society on the same-*** marriage and civil unions issues. If I had to save political capital and stand on the side of caution, I believe he doing the right thing by staying neutral and letting the people, not the legislature, of each state decide. Pres. Obama understands that the majority of people will frown upon anyone trying to redefine what moral values that they should have. Religious wars have been started over christian beliefs and morality; and I am sure the President understand how that can shape the political landscape. There are people in America, including me, that will take a moral President over an immoral one. As, Mrs California did, there are voters who will not sell the moral beliefs that make them and what they stand for over economic prosperity. They will just make do until a moral situation or person is in their moral corner. Morality, as a quality attribute and likable chracter trait wins over immoral pandering for a sinful cause or behavior most of the time. Pres. Obama should know and probably does know that the new car smell or new excitement generated by the youth vote in the 2008 election will not be there in 2012-even with voter turn-out drives. The 2012 election year will rest heavily the domestic agenda in the area of morals and family values which is in the minds of the most reliable middle-age voter, older voters, and the grass rooted christian voter- independent, republican, and democratic alike. So, President Obama is being smart and taking the moral side or the neutral side of this issue by leaving it in the hands of the states and the people in each state. By all means, this is just my opinion. Everyone that really want to know the answer to your question should listen to what the President has already said “He believes marriage is between and man and a woman”…..end of story.
It appears that you have placed a lot of effort into your article and I require more of these on the net these days. I sincerely got a kick out of your post. I don’t really have much to say in response, I only wanted to comment to reply wonderful work.
When the United States wake up and allow gay & lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military, they will be overwhelmed with the huge number of new recruits waiting in line to join the military. I know a lot of Gay men who would love to serve their country; they have been reluctant to join in fear of being a target of discrimination.