Senator Lieberman (I-CT) will introduce a bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- a statute that prohibits known gays and lesbians from participating in the armed forces. James Kirchick, writing for the New York Daily News, suggests that Lieberman could "frustrate and perplex" liberals by introducing "the most significant piece of socially progressive legislation that Congress will deal with this year." But Lieberman's position on DADT should not erase his bad standing with liberals.
According to recent polling data, 75 percent of the public -- including former Vice President Dick Cheney -- supports lifting the ban. Accordingly, Lieberman is not out of step with public opinion.
Furthermore, while repealing DADT is important for social justice, this topic is not as controversial as it once was. President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair of Staff Mullen all support the repeal of DADT -- as do many members of Congress. Although he probably opposes DADT, I suspect that Lieberman is also looking for some liberal credentials after losing points with the Left due to his moderate stance on healthcare reform and his support of John McCain during the 2008 presidential election.
Showing posts with label mike mullen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mike mullen. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Get Back to Us in a Year!
During the State of the Union Address, President Obama repeated an often-repeated promise to work to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. DADT is the name of the military policy, embodied in a federal statute, that discriminates against known gay, lesbian or bisexual members of the military.
Although Obama promised to get rid of the policy during his presidential campaign, many GLBT groups have complained that he has pushed this and other issues to the backburner. Accordingly, his recent statements promising yet again to end the policy have caused some observers to anticipate a shift in direction.
Today, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates held a press conference during which he indicated that the repeal of the policy would not take place in the near future -- unless, of course, Congress acts more rapidly than the timeline of the Obama administration. In the typical Obama style of announcing long "studies" before actually changing policies, Gates (and Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen) asked for eleven months to study "how" to end the policy before taking any concrete action.
Some civil rights activists will likely complain that the Obama administration is foot-dragging. Republicans, however, are upset that the administration's study proceeds with the understanding that the policy will end -- rather than questioning whether the military should abandon it.
Bottom line: Today's press conference represents the first time in history that a sitting Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs Chair have endorse an end of the policy. Accordingly, the meeting was historic. Although the statements of Gates and Mullen are historic, the announcement regarding the study is not. Exactly one year ago, the Boston Globe published an article which stated that President Obama would direct military officials to study the implications of lifting the ban. Today, the military will begin studying the implications of lifting the ban for yet another year. I suspect that many pro-GLBT activists will construe the recent move as constituting more delay.
Update: Yes -- at least one GLBT activist has described the recent announcement as more delay. See: 'Don't Ask' on slow road to repeal?
Other DISSENTING JUSTICE articles related to DADT:
Obama Administration's "Measured" Approach to Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Kinder, Gentler Discrimination: Obama Administration Trying to Make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" More "Humane"
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath
Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010
Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights
Legal Showdown Looming Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What Will the Obama Administration Do?
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Heats Up in Courts and in Congress
Although Obama promised to get rid of the policy during his presidential campaign, many GLBT groups have complained that he has pushed this and other issues to the backburner. Accordingly, his recent statements promising yet again to end the policy have caused some observers to anticipate a shift in direction.
Today, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates held a press conference during which he indicated that the repeal of the policy would not take place in the near future -- unless, of course, Congress acts more rapidly than the timeline of the Obama administration. In the typical Obama style of announcing long "studies" before actually changing policies, Gates (and Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen) asked for eleven months to study "how" to end the policy before taking any concrete action.
Some civil rights activists will likely complain that the Obama administration is foot-dragging. Republicans, however, are upset that the administration's study proceeds with the understanding that the policy will end -- rather than questioning whether the military should abandon it.
Bottom line: Today's press conference represents the first time in history that a sitting Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs Chair have endorse an end of the policy. Accordingly, the meeting was historic. Although the statements of Gates and Mullen are historic, the announcement regarding the study is not. Exactly one year ago, the Boston Globe published an article which stated that President Obama would direct military officials to study the implications of lifting the ban. Today, the military will begin studying the implications of lifting the ban for yet another year. I suspect that many pro-GLBT activists will construe the recent move as constituting more delay.
Update: Yes -- at least one GLBT activist has described the recent announcement as more delay. See: 'Don't Ask' on slow road to repeal?
Other DISSENTING JUSTICE articles related to DADT:
Obama Administration's "Measured" Approach to Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Kinder, Gentler Discrimination: Obama Administration Trying to Make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" More "Humane"
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath
Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010
Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights
Legal Showdown Looming Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What Will the Obama Administration Do?
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Heats Up in Courts and in Congress
Monday, July 6, 2009
Obama Administration's "Measured" Approach to Don't Ask, Don't Tell
During a recent interview with CNN, Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he believes that President Obama should "move in a measured way" towards ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Mullen also said that he told Obama that before he decides to end the policy, he should consider "the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times." Mullen, however, did not explain what he meant by "the impact" of DADT on "our people" and "their families" (and none of the possible meanings sounds good -- see below). Mullen's comments will probably add to the growing anxiety among GLBT activists concerning Obama's commitment to gay rights.
Mullen's "Measured" Stance Mirrors Position of Obama Administration
Mullen's guarded statements mirror positions that members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, have taken. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that rather than moving to repeal DADT, the Obama administration was studying ways to make the policy more "humane" (e.g. declining to discharge individuals who do not voluntarily disclose their sexual orientation to military officials). Also, during the Bush administration and earlier this year, Gates said that the Department of Defense had not moved on DADT because fighting the wars did not leave enough time to address the policy.
In May 2009, White House staff edited WhiteHouse.Gov to indicate that President Obama supports repealing DADT in a "sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." Previously, the website contained a much longer statement explaining Obama's opposition to DADT. Furthermore, White House staff initially amended the language to state that Obama supported "changing" DADT. After complaints from GLBT activists, however, White House staff edited the website once again to state that Obama supports "repealing" rather than "changing" DADT.
Furthermore, during a recent meeting with GLBT rights activists at the White House, President Obama expressed his own support for a measured path:
What Does Mullen Mean By "Impact on our people and their families"?
Although Mullen's comments generally echo the sentiment of the Obama administration, it is unclear how he believes repealing DADT will "impact. . .our people and their families." If Mullen is referring to military personnel, then he is probably only thinking of heterosexual personnel. It is probably safe to assume that most "family members" of gay and lesbian personnel do not support them losing their jobs and therefore favor the repeal of DADT.
But if Mullen truly believes that repealing DADT could negatively impact heterosexuals and their families, then his thinking suffers in three major ways. First, Mullen seems to hold heterosexual soldiers and their families in low esteem. If troops have the fortitude to put their lives at risk, then repealing DADT should not cause them to have a meltdown. They are already serving with closeted gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Simply "knowing" the identity of those individuals who are brave enough to come out, will not imperil servicemembers or their families.
Second, Gates seems to discount the ability of the military to enforce its own rules. The military is a highly regulated machine, and its members' lives are subject to controls that are undesirable and even illegal in civilian settings. Despite the highly regimented nature of military life, Mullen repeats the standard position by DADT supporters which contends that having openly gay, lesbian or bisexual military personnel will overwhelm heterosexuals, rendering them unable to obey rules. It is unclear why Mullen and other military officials should not trust their own enforcement mechanisms on this issue. Once DADT is repealed, military personnel who cannot accept the change should face reprimand (and possible discharge). Those are the rules.
Finally, Mullen's comments place the well being of heterosexuals and their families above the constitutional rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military. Mullen's suggestion that repealing DADT will significantly impact military personnel and (especially their families) is baseless. Even if Mullen could prove "some" impact, it is not immediately clear why the comfort of antigay heterosexuals should have priority over the Equal Protection Clause. Certainly, the concerns of these individuals' family members cannot trump the Constitution. If Obama embraces this portion of Mullen's comments, he will do serious damage to his already shaky reputation among GLBT activists.
Mullen's "Measured" Stance Mirrors Position of Obama Administration
Mullen's guarded statements mirror positions that members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, have taken. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that rather than moving to repeal DADT, the Obama administration was studying ways to make the policy more "humane" (e.g. declining to discharge individuals who do not voluntarily disclose their sexual orientation to military officials). Also, during the Bush administration and earlier this year, Gates said that the Department of Defense had not moved on DADT because fighting the wars did not leave enough time to address the policy.
In May 2009, White House staff edited WhiteHouse.Gov to indicate that President Obama supports repealing DADT in a "sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." Previously, the website contained a much longer statement explaining Obama's opposition to DADT. Furthermore, White House staff initially amended the language to state that Obama supported "changing" DADT. After complaints from GLBT activists, however, White House staff edited the website once again to state that Obama supports "repealing" rather than "changing" DADT.
Furthermore, during a recent meeting with GLBT rights activists at the White House, President Obama expressed his own support for a measured path:
[A]s Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.Obama comments are basically identical to the position that Mullen has espoused.
What Does Mullen Mean By "Impact on our people and their families"?
Although Mullen's comments generally echo the sentiment of the Obama administration, it is unclear how he believes repealing DADT will "impact. . .our people and their families." If Mullen is referring to military personnel, then he is probably only thinking of heterosexual personnel. It is probably safe to assume that most "family members" of gay and lesbian personnel do not support them losing their jobs and therefore favor the repeal of DADT.
But if Mullen truly believes that repealing DADT could negatively impact heterosexuals and their families, then his thinking suffers in three major ways. First, Mullen seems to hold heterosexual soldiers and their families in low esteem. If troops have the fortitude to put their lives at risk, then repealing DADT should not cause them to have a meltdown. They are already serving with closeted gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Simply "knowing" the identity of those individuals who are brave enough to come out, will not imperil servicemembers or their families.
Second, Gates seems to discount the ability of the military to enforce its own rules. The military is a highly regulated machine, and its members' lives are subject to controls that are undesirable and even illegal in civilian settings. Despite the highly regimented nature of military life, Mullen repeats the standard position by DADT supporters which contends that having openly gay, lesbian or bisexual military personnel will overwhelm heterosexuals, rendering them unable to obey rules. It is unclear why Mullen and other military officials should not trust their own enforcement mechanisms on this issue. Once DADT is repealed, military personnel who cannot accept the change should face reprimand (and possible discharge). Those are the rules.
Finally, Mullen's comments place the well being of heterosexuals and their families above the constitutional rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military. Mullen's suggestion that repealing DADT will significantly impact military personnel and (especially their families) is baseless. Even if Mullen could prove "some" impact, it is not immediately clear why the comfort of antigay heterosexuals should have priority over the Equal Protection Clause. Certainly, the concerns of these individuals' family members cannot trump the Constitution. If Obama embraces this portion of Mullen's comments, he will do serious damage to his already shaky reputation among GLBT activists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)