Will Obama Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ?

[Okie Medicvet]

This is going to stir up the old hornets nest, but it is widely believed that Obama once sworn in will work towards repealing the 15 year old policy of the military started by President Clinton of "don't ask, don't tell".

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177723

Does this mean TiM will enlist???

[Morfin]

I hope so, "Don't ask, don't tell" was a ridiculous "compromise" by Clinton, who was afraid to politically take an unpopular stand against discrimination.

[WET HOT MESS]

He can't. It takes a long time for people to adapt to changes. Just because he repeals it, doesn't mean people will no longer discriminate. And then he'll be jeopardizing the safety of these openly gay folks.

[Hanover Fist]

If he does, it most likely won't happen for a few years. His advisors stated that 2009 he should concentrate on getting a consensus with the JCS on an acceptable policy and then submit that policy in 2010. The latest report I saw showed that they estimate a loss of 10% in retention if they ended the ban on gays right now. I don't exactly see the JCS willing to let 10% of the trained military workforce slip away in war time. It will be a tricky position to find common ground on, my guess is that they will not come to an agreement any time soon.

The demographics of the military with respects to liberalism/conservatism are nowhere near the same as they are in the general public. While this may have large support in the general public it would be extremely unpopular in the military.


Although in their defense I have heard that a gay soldier will never leave his buddies behind.

[Okie Medicvet]

It is pretty unpopular with the military and family etc crowd. Estimates are that a large majority of the population approves of the repeal..but that the numbers are switched when the polls ask those that were or are in the service.

I am torn on this. On the one hand, it is about time we stop discriminating. Desegragatoin of the military in 1948 wasn't popular at all at the time, but it went through a lot more smoothly than people thought it would, and became accepted practice in the service long before it was in many parts of the country.

Also, many 'modern industrialized' nations already have gays in their military.

Then again, anything that decreases retention at this point and time could end up requiring another draft to keep the minimum standard level of forces in the service, which would not be a good thing at all.

But I am pretty sure it will happen sometime during his term though.

[Yelram]

I'm definitely in support of more homos in combat situations.

[Phil Theehor]

This is trickier than it looks on paper. Yes, where a man puts his peen has no bearing on his ability to fight. And, I am certainly against discrimination of any kind. But in this case, it's not that simple.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell might not be good policy, but its also not that bad an idea for the gays to follow it voluntarily. An individual's private life is no concern of his employer, certainly, but military service can require some awfully close contact. I have trouble calling Private Hayseed a bigot if he doesn't like showering with a homo.

I was serving when this was implemented and, at the time, didn't think it was a bad idea. Your private life was your business. No longer did veterans fear that a malicious "outing" would cost them their career-- providing they didn't try to integrate tunes from La Cage Aux Folles into the marching cadence.

Further, if you read the policy itself, just about all of the activities prohibited for gays (public displays of affection on base, etc.) were likewise prohibited for heterosexuals. Loudly declaring a love for cock (other than your own) was just frowned upon.

Do we need to move beyond this? Yes, we do. We'll all be better off when Private Hayseed can live comfortably with homos in the barracks. But that will take time. I guess that there is no better time than the present, but it will be bumpy. People will test the new limits.

But I do give Clinton credit for starting us down this path-- even if the policy looks like it lacked courage in hindsight.

[Whiffleball]

I really doubt there will be problems with retention. You basically have all these soldiers, sailors and airmen with a big green parent taking care of them, and I don't think it's a stretch that a lot of them are there because they want to serve their country, get assistance for school/technical training or some combination of all that. Is having to serve with someone is openly gay going to trump public service and establishing a career?

Moreover, I would have thought it'd be common knowledge among those serving that there are already homosexuals in the service. They're not just putting it out there.

Frankly, if someone is such a bigot they can't serve because of "the gays", I really think we should question if we want that person wearing a U.S. uniform, representing our country.

I don't even think it'd be that tricky. Granted, there was a draft on at the time, but Truman signed the official order in '48 to integrate (although FDR started integrating the defense industry in '41, and military units were integrated at a high level during the war). Under Eisenhower, the last all-black unit was gone by '54, and it would have been sooner if there hadn't been a huge war going on, although you could also argue that having the war helped hasten it along. By the time '62 or '63 rolled around, Robert McNamara had issued a directive that would allow base commanders to declare local businesses off limits to soldiers if they discriminated against black soldiers.

You had full integration from start to finish in 6 years, years before the Civil Rights movement really got going, and during a major war. Within another 10 years, you had the military threatening local business not to discriminate against black soldiers or there were would be economic sanctions against them. Compare that to how long and drawn out the civilian Civil Rights movement was.

I'm sure there were a substantial number of white troops who said they were opposed to integration, and that was when the lines were drawn -- you had white units and black units. I'm sure it'll less of a problem considering you already have straight and gay soldiers serving side-by-side.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Hasn't it already been repealed...? I have a friend who is in the military who went to a military Christmas party in which everyone showed up in drag because of the ending of the law.

[Claydon]

who cares what they suck or screw as long as they can shoot straight.............wait!

[Okie Medicvet]

Hasn't it already been repealed...? I have a friend who is in the military who went to a military Christmas party in which everyone showed up in drag because of the ending of the law.

Maybe in Oz, but not here. And have to say to everyone concerned that even with don't ask don't tell, there were some gays who were outed or it was publicly known they were gay that were kicked out of the service. Among them was some Arabic translators, making them especially missed when kicked out.

[Morfin]

I'm with Whiffle. I fail to see how this is any different than the integration of the services with blacks. There were many whites uncomfortable serving alongside blacks. They had to get over it. And it is likely that there is still a percentage of white servicemen who don't like serving next to blacks.

This change has to be forced down the services' throat (so to speak) because there is no other way for people to move beyond caring about it. Continuing "Don't ask, Don't tell" is merely avoiding making the tough decision. Choosing not to decide is to decide.

[BIG PIZZLE]

People still care about this?

[freegood]

He will, and it will be fabulous

[Stax]

I'm with Whiffle. I fail to see how this is any different than the integration of the services with blacks. There were many whites uncomfortable serving alongside blacks. They had to get over it. And it is likely that there is still a percentage of white servicemen who don't like serving next to blacks.

This change has to be forced down the services' throat (so to speak) because there is no other way for people to move beyond caring about it. Continuing "Don't ask, Don't tell" is merely avoiding making the tough decision. Choosing not to decide is to decide.

Precisely. At the end of the day you have two choices:

Choice 1. Maintain some level of a ban on gays (whether outright or "Don't Ask Don't Tell" style). Maintain troops levels of those who couldn't/wouldn't serve with gays, lose many gay soldiers.
Choice 2. Eliminate said bans. Loose troops who can't/won't serve with gays, gain many gay soldiers.

The group that helps make Choice 1 look good (the heavily homophobic) are shrinking. Tying yourself to that group is like investing in yarn instead of new-age polymers.

[gillkonam]

You know, they are probably still working on making us all pay for 3000 dollar gaydars courtesy of our friends at Lockheed-Martin. ***obligatory friendly fire joke*** Seriously though, I happen to live in a town that has a high ratio of gays-per-square-foot. Know a few as friends myself, few dykes as well. Good people. I also teach on the community college at the local Marine base. Its a bit like stepping into two different worlds, but the acceptance level is even better than it was back in Clinton's time. Because all kinds of topics come up in the classroom, we have talked about the subject indirectly, and I have gotten a strong response of ambivalence. Maybe its the old "wartime" idea of not giving a shit, as long as your flank is covered; it may be that the guys and girls that have been in Iraq have been exposed to such crazy shit that whatever homophobia they felt is no longer on the table. I think the time may be right, although I think that sexuality should probably be restrained no matter what form it take. With an integrated force, I don't see the sexes fraternizing too much, even when I have a married couple in class.

[CrzyMarcX]

It was a dumb policy to begin with, they might as well repeal it. I seriously doubt it change any enlisted person behavior.