Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces, which they can not do under the military's don't ask, don't tell (DADT) policy, which congress passed (thanks to former Sen. Sam Nunn, Sen. Robert Byrd and others) and Bill Clinton signed into law.
A new Washington Post-ABC poll says 75% of Americans now support allowing gays in the military-compared to 44 percent in 1993. That support cuts across party identification to include a majority of Republicans. Even 57% of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military.
Given the bigger majorities Democrats are certain to enjoy in the Congress that convenes in January 2009, failure to remove this discriminatory measure, which undermines America's ability to defend itself and wage the war on terrorism, is utterly unacceptable. But will a President Obama, coming into office with the poorest presidential relationship with the U.S. military brass since Bill Clinton, be willing to push for it?
11 Comments for “Military Gay Ban to Crumble?”
posted by Rob on
Sure. If he can’t improve relations with the top brass, he can have them all replaced. He would be commander in chief after all.
posted by Joel on
“coming into office with the poorest presidential relationship with the U.S. military brass since Bill Clinton”
Um, wtf? There’s only one president between Bush’s successor and Clinton — Bush himself. So all that’s saying is that Obama would likely have cooler relations with the brass than Bush, which isn’t saying a whole log.
posted by Jorge on
Why didn’t they just ask if they support a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
posted by Carl on
I don’t think the amount of resistance this would face among high-ranking military officials can be underestimated. If anything, they have probably become even more socially conservative and tilted towards an evangelical Christian viewpoint over the past 15 years. Obama automatically faces a reputation as not being pro-military enough, just because he’s a Democrat, has not served, and does not pander the way Bush did with the flight suit. I doubt he’s going to take the same risk Clinton did. I think 99% of the public could support lifting the ban, and it would still remain in place.
posted by Richard on
Despite what a GOP gay partisan might try and suggest; the ban existed long before any of the Democrats you mentioned were even born. Likewise most Republican politicians inherited the ban.
It has been around, in one form or another, since the American Revolutionary War. Although at least one of our major war heroes was probably gay.
DODT is an improvement over the original policy. I speak as some one who actually served in the armed forces during a great deal of the Carter-Reagan-Bush I years and some of the Clintin years.
Yes, it was not perfect but it was the best that could have possible gotten passed when opponents of lifting the ban had a much more organized presence in the early 1990s.
I would hope that the ban is entirely lifted, although I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon. I suspect that more minor reforms will come about over the initial years.
While it is good that a majority of polled Americans — tri-partisanship and all of that — favor lifting the ban, that actually matters very little in Washgington DC.
posted by LeBain on
I remind everyone who writes it that DADT is not a military “policy”. It is a federal law. If it were merely a policy, the military could change it at any time. Thanks to Clinton, now the military cannot change the law even if it wanted to. Now only Congress can change this law (or perhaps the courts could find it unconstitutional).
posted by jerry on
A minor correction to Richard’s comment about the ban being around in one form or another since the Revolution.
It was officially made policy near the end of WWII. Some years ago, I spoke to a lawyer who had been a Marine in the South Pacific theater who said the men all knew who the gay guys were and no one had any problems with them.
A cached article from the AP states that the ban was 50 years old when Clinton attempted to overturn it.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/military/1993/military.ban.update-7.15.93
posted by Richard on
DODT is Federal law — although there are also specific armed forces regulations on the topic, not to mention the sodomy law.
It is “military policy” in the broadest sense of being about the armed forces anti-gay polices.
President Clinton was the first sitting president to publicly endorse gay rights and make an effort to lift the ban. His successes were a mixed bag, as are most things in politics, but his failures had a lot to do with the opposition and the utter sillyness of the ‘gay movement’.
The anti-gay religious conservatives moblized a mass phone call/letter writing campaign to oppose lifting the military’s ban. The gay rights movement simply could not produce enough public voices in favor of lifting the ban.
DODT is a better policy then what had existed — in one form or another — since the American revolutionary war. Yes, their was a military sodomy law waay back them.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Despite what gay “independents” like Richard might like to believe, Jerry is correct in stating that the ban on gays serving in the military was 50+ years old when the “gay”President Bill Clinton willingly drove the bus over gay military personnel and signed the DADT law… but that doesn’t matter to the supposedly unaligned, “independent” gay types here who hide their true Democrat leanings… because Bill didn’t really mean it and, afterall, the bad GOPers made him do it.
Could you imagine if the “black”President Clinton had signed a bill ending affirmative action the black community would just roll over like gayDemocrats have done and shrug their collective shoulders because politics is just politics?
No way in Hell.
I hope DADT does get repealed -but it won’t come soon enough for many.
posted by Pat on
Could you imagine if the “black”President Clinton had signed a bill ending affirmative action the black community would just roll over like gayDemocrats have done and shrug their collective shoulders because politics is just politics?
Of course, MichiganMatt, but this is far from analogous. A more analogous situation would be a president in the 1860s signing a bill saying that Blacks can now vote, but still have to have separate water fountains, rest rooms, etc.
I was disappointed that Clinton only went halfway on DADT when he promised to go for full equality in the military. But at least it was an improvement. Something his successor if, he so chose, to repeal if he wanted to. But Bush chose to drive the same bus that Clinton drove.
I agree with your point about blind loyalty. But suppose there was a vote today on eliminating DADT and replacing it with full equality. How would the vote go along party lines? If it is as most suspect (similar to the FMA vote), most gay people are going to vote Democrat, and look the other way, even when the Democrats pull anti-gay shenanigans.
posted by Richard on
People seem to be a little off on their gay history. Their has been a ban — of one sort or other — on gays serving in the armed forces since the revolutionary war.
Yes, much of the modern day policies were more formalized in the 1940s, but the basic policy — via the sodomy law — was much, much older.
Unlike most of the people here, I have actually served in the armed forces. DODT is far from perfect or even ideal. But it is an improvement from the historic policies.
Gay Republicans need to believe that DODTA is evil, so that they can a Democrat, Gay Democrats need to believe t hat it is godsend, the reality is, alas, more complex.
DODTDH is certainly an improvement over past policies.
(1) It was also the only thing that could get passed as the supporters of the old ban were much more organized.
(2) Many Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate had little interest in lifting the ban and were getting lots of phone calls/faxes/etc urging them not to.
Your comparison between African Americans and gays, does not make any sense.
Far more people in this nation are black (such as myself) then are gay. Hence the number of people who could get greatly upset over a particular policy, i.e. ending affirmative action, is much higher then the number of people who care much about gay rights.
In fact, I know many black Americans who were upset with Clinton’s New Democratic cuts to welfare, affirmative action and other programs. They were also not too happy with certain apsects of his crime policy.
Yet, the electoral system is set up to limit meaningful choices to two major party candidates. Thus when you get upset with what a incumbent politician does, you have to look at what are your options.