The repeal of the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that banned gay military personnel from serving openly (or, really, even if they kept in the closet, given the escalation of witch hunts that preyed into emails, followed up hearsay, and tracked service members’ off-duty socializing) went into effect today, although opposition by the socially reactionary right continues.
The repeal measure was passed at the very end of the last Congress, just before the Democrats gave up control of the House, due in no small measure to this.
More. On Tuesday night, I attended a celebration by the National Log Cabin Republicans in D.C. marking the end of the ban. Addressing the gathering and speaking movingly about its meaning, with many references to individual liberty and liberty for all (that is, Republican language), were Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Scott Brown, Rep. Richard Hanna, and Rep. Nan Hayworth. Also in attendance: former Reps. Jim Kolbe and Tom Davis.
As noted above, I believe that Log Cabin, with a national staff of three (yes, three!) played a critical role. Moreover, the true congressional heroes of the repeal were Sen. Collins and Sen. Joe Lieberman.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, it should be noted, never pushed for repeal or any other pro-gay equality legislation, but his role with “don’t ask, don’t tell” was particularly egregious. In late 2010, he insisted that the repeal bill be combined with an appropriations measure that the GOP was determined to block, and did with its filibuster. Reid then declared it was the GOP’s fault that the repeal failed. An incensed Sen. Collins and Sen. Lieberman demanded that a separate, stand-alone “don’t ask” repeal bill be brought forward, and the media glare forced Sen. Reid to capitulate. The stand-alone repeal was brought up for a vote and easily passed with the support of many senators, including Sen. Brown, who had voted against the combined appropriations/repeal bill.
Tonight, Sen. Collins shared that she simply couldn’t, at first, believe what Sen. Reid was doing (and then charged to the podium to protest the maneuver and its foregone conclusion—to no avail). It’s all politics, boys and girls. It’s all politics.
The history of “don’t ask” is full of the treacherous and soul-dead (during the Clinton era, then-Sen. Sam Nunn and Secretary of State Colin Powell stand out). And the heroes, especially the thousands of honorable gay and lesbian service members, many of whom had their careers—and in some instances their actual lives—destroyed. But there were political heroes, too, and Sen. Collins and Sen. Lieberman were at the forefront.
Furthermore. Reflections by commenter “another steve” hit the mark:
The Republicans are terrible, but the Democrats are often duplicitious. Some of the LGBT activists are so caught up in pro-party partisanship that you end up with HRC being silent on the non-movement of ENDA, which I believe could have passed (and if it failed with gender identity, it would most certainly have passed, with some GOP support, as a sexual orientation protection bill).
As for Reid, it is not just inaction. If only. Reid did not want DADT repeal to pass — too controversial, too much of a risk of backlash. But he realized that having failed to do anything about ENDA or DOMA, he would have to do something for the LGBT lobby (not that HRC would mind, but others were starting to make angry observations about what all that gay money and support was actually getting). So Reid devised a brilliant ploy — bring it up tied to a measure that Republicans were clearly going to kill, and then blame the GOP for killing DADT repeal. That way, no DADT repeal to be blamed on Obama and the Democrats, and the LGBT lobby is primed to give Democrats even more money and support for zip in return.
And it ALMOST WORKED. Much of the LGBT media and many Democratic activists were selling the line that Reid TRIED and the GOP killed repeal. It was duplicitious, dishonest, and dreadful, as Miller suggests. Fortunatley, some non-HRC progressives, along with Log Cabin and leaders such as Collins and Lieberman, wouldn’t buy the lie and forced Reid to send out the clean bill, which then (surprise, suprise) easily passed.
It is this sort of mendacity that Miller rails against. And it is the blind partisanship of some on the Democratic side that makes it possible.
26 Comments for “DADT Is Ended”
posted by Houndentenor on
A salute to everyone who worked to overturn DADT (and as you point out, that list would include, but not be limited to, HRC).
posted by Jorge on
But… the Defense of Marriage Act creates wackiness in the military. There is still so much to do and it will never all get done.
Something got done. Today is a good day.
posted by Houndentenor on
No one thinks the work is all done. But let’s celebrate this victory. They are too few and far between not to revel for a day when we actually get one.
posted by Jorge on
To each his own.
posted by BobN on
It’s a great day, and I think that “wackiness” you mention will be the demise of DOMA. The military may have resisted seeing us, but once they change their minds and we become part of the military “family”, they will take up that fight.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Finally. Finally. This is a day that almost all of us who have served have long awaited. Leave the complications for tomorrow. Today, celebrate and honor the men and women who serve, in freedom.
posted by BobN on
Your ugly partisanship cannot even be put aside at a moment of triumph. Pathetic.
posted by another steve on
Those who won’t learn from history are most certainly doomed to repeat it. We can celebrate the victory but not close our eyes to how our political process works — ugly as it often is.
The Democrats take their gay voters for granted, otherwise they would have moved ENDA at least out of committee and would not have all but killed DADT repeal the way Reid did. Sorry if that’s an inconvenient truth, BobN. But is is YOU who are intent on, always, making partisan points. It is YOU who is the ultra partisan around here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, while we are discussing partisanship, let’s not forget that “the socially reactionary right” Stephen refers to includes the Republican presidential candidates who have pledged to reinstate DADT by executive order, to applause from the faithful.
The Democrats aren’t much — we have to kick them in the ass more or less constantly to get anything done — but so far, President Obama has not vowed to reinstate DADT repeal and he is likely to be faced by a Republican candidate who has. That is also an inconvenient truth.
LCR — and the “activist judges” who consistently ruled that DADT was unconstitutional — were critical forces in the repeal effort. Both deserve our thanks, as do the Republicans who crossed over and voted for repeal. Harry Reid deserves no thanks whatsoever, as we all know.
But while we are mentioning heroes, let’s not forget Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, a decorated Iraq veteran, who played a pivotal role in pushing repeal from beginning to end, and paid for it with his seat in Congress.
posted by BobN on
No, steve, I am not the hyper partisan on here OR in real life. In more than one discussion of the repeal of DADT with gay people and straight people, Dems and Republicans and unknowns, I have made sure to mention the work of LCR in applying pressure on the issue from the courts.
There is not a single mention of a Dem in Miller’s celebratory post. And he goes so far as to say that Scott Brown spoke “movingly” of individual freedom. Scott Brown’s vote was an unknown until hours before the vote was taken. He was on the record in OPPOSITION to the repeal FOR YEARS.
To mention him and to fail to mention the DEMS who have fought this fight for DECADES is an insult to them, to the troops, and to the intelligence of his readers, including you.
As for ENDA, I’m sure it will pass someday, and when it does I am also sure that Stephen Miller will fail to thank anyone except the handful of members of his party who will make that day possible.
posted by Jorge on
No, steve, I am not the hyper partisan on here OR in real life.
…..
I think you fall into the trap of disdaining people for no other reason than because they do not take your side, without taking into account where they are coming from or giving the benefit of the doubt that their motives are sincere.
posted by BobN on
I do not “disdain” LCR, Jorge, I praise them for what they have done.
Miller disdains and insult by omission. You’re Catholic, you understand omission, right?
posted by Houndentenor on
HRC has accomplished virtually nothing in all these years and all these millions spent. It’s a pathetic excuse for an advocacy group. We deserve better.
posted by Houndentenor on
Why attach an addendum longer than the original post? Why not just post something new?
I’m not a fan of Harry Reid (or Pelosi either for that matter). He’s far too milquetoast for the job he has. He didn’t fight for DADT? Of course not. He hasn’t fought for anything that I can remember since he because majority leader. Yes, we have to press the Democrats to do anything for gay rights. But under pressure he got the bill up for a vote. Would McConnell have even allowed a vote?
You are right to applaud the Republcians who voted to repeal DADT. There were a few and they will probably need your support when the Tea Party runs challengers against them in the primaries of their next elections. (The same is definitely true of the 4 GOPers who voted for gay marriage in New York. You have so far mentioned that HRC is holding a fundraiser for those four state senators without whom the bill would not have passed.)
posted by another steve on
Yes, we have to press the Democrats to do anything for gay rights. But under pressure he got the bill up for a vote. Would McConnell have even allowed a vote?
Most assuredly McConnell would not have. The Republicans are terrible, but the Democrats are often duplicitious. Some of the LGBT activists are so caught up in pro-party partisanship that you end up with HRC being silent on the non-movement of ENDA, which I believe could have passed (and if it failed with gender identity, it would most certainly have passed, with some GOP support, as a sexual orientation protection bill).
As for Reid, it is not just inaction. If only. Reid did not want DADT repeal to pass — too controversial, too much of a risk of backlash. But he realized that having failed to do anything about ENDA or DOMA, he would have to do something for the LGBT lobby (not that HRC would mind, but others were starting to make angry observations about what all that gay money and support was actually getting). So Reid devised a brilliant ploy — bring it up tied to a measure that Republicans were clearly going to kill, and then blame the GOP for killing DADT repeal. That way, no DADT repeal to be blamed on Obama and the Democrats, and the LGBT lobby is primed to give Democrats even more money and support for zip in return.
And it ALMOST WORKED. Much of the LGBT media and many Democratic activists were selling the line that Reid TRIED and the GOP killed repeal. It was duplicitious, dishonest, and dreadful, as Miller suggests. Fortunatley, some non-HRC progressives, along with Log Cabin and leaders such as Collins and Lieberman, wouldn’t buy the lie and forced Reid to send out the clean bill, which then (surprise, suprise) easily passed.
It is this sort of mendacity that Miller rails against. And it is the blind partisanship of some on the Democratic side that makes it possible.
posted by BobN on
You see mendacity in Reid. Fine. Attack it. [obscenity deleted] it. [obscenity deleted] it all you want.
But while you praise the truly duplicitous like Scott Brown (look up duplicitous, for crying out loud), find some tiny crumb of thanks for those Senators who started cosponsoring repeal years before any Republican joined them.
posted by BobN on
[obscenity deleted]
I beg your pardon? A libertarian blog with censorship?
This place is ridiculous.
posted by another steve on
A libertarian blog with censorship? This place is ridiculous.
Guess the meaning of libertarian is something else you’re foggy about. Libertarianism defends property rights. It’s IGF’s blog. If they are willing to tolerate your coming in and commenting, that’s up to them. It’s their blog, and they get to set the terms. It is not a public accommodation.
If they are willing to let you in but don’t want you spewing your obscenities, that’s up to them. Libertarianism most certainly does not mean that you get to come to their blog and do whatever you want — that sounds more like collectivism, or the denial of the owner’s rights to his own property.
posted by BobN on
You’re on a real disagree-with-BobN-no-matter-how-stupid-I-make-myself-look jag.
http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech
As for their right to set the terms, you’re absolutely correct. Pity they’re not posted somewhere.
posted by Houndentenor on
I feel that often gay conservatives use the strawman that all gays who vote for Democrats think that the Democratic party has a perfect record on gay issues. That does not describe anyone that I know. (I realize there are plenty of idiot liberals, so I don’t know people know such individuals.) We are well aware that Democrats have to have their arms twisted to stand up for us. But the people they have to stand up against are conservatives. There’s no getting around that.
posted by John D on
A while ago I set myself to the task of finding a Republican with a better HRC score than a Democrat. It wasn’t tough. My first thought: find a blue-state Republican. I found a Representative from New Jersey with an HRC score of 19%. Okay, now find the red-state Democrat. Ouch. 10% for a member of Congress from Arkansas.
Now, honestly, voting in agreement with a gay-rights group 19% of the time doesn’t exactly make you a supporter. Going against them 90% of the time certainly doesn’t. I kinda wish the straw man were real and that the Democrats as a whole supported gay rights. Not the world we currently live in.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I kinda wish the straw man were real and that the Democrats as a whole supported gay rights. Not the world we currently live in.
I do, too. But reality is reality, and a few politicians in each party will be exceptions to the rule.
I took the HRC 110th Congressional Scorecard and sampled the Democrat and Republican caucus scores in the House in a number of states, geographically disbursed, just out of curiousity.
Here’s what I found:
COLORADO
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 90
DeGette, Diana (D) 100
Udall, Mark (D) 100
Salazar, John (D) 80
Perlmutter, Ed (D) 80
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 0
Musgrave, Marilyn (R) 0
Lamborn, Doug (R) 0
Tancredo, Tom (R) 0
FLORIDA
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 88.5
Brown, Corrine (D) 100
Castor, Kathy (D) 100
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie (D) 100
Wexler, Robert (D) 100
Hastings, Alcee (D) 100
Meek, Kendrick (D) 95
Klein, Ron (D) 90
Boyd, Allen (D) 67
Mahoney, Tim (D) 45
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 9.2
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R) 70
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R) 30
Diaz-Balart, Mario (R) 30
Miller, Jeff (R) 0
Crenshaw, Ander (R) 0
Brown-Waite, Virginia (R) 0
Stearns, Cliff (R) 0
Mica, John (R) 0
Keller, Ric (R) 0
Bilirakis, Gus (R) 0
Young, C.W. Bill (R) 0
Putnam, Adam (R) 0
Buchanan, Vern (R) 0
Mack, Connie (R) 0
Weldon, Dave (R) 0
Feeney, Tom (R) 0
MISSOURI
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 81.2
Clay Jr., William “Lacy” (D) 100
Carnahan, Russ (D) 95
Cleaver, Emanuel (D) 85
Skelton, Ike (D) 45
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 0
Akin, Todd (R) 0
Graves, Sam (R) 0
Blunt, Roy (R) 0
Emerson, Jo Ann (R) 0
Hulshof, Kenny (R) 0
NEW JERSEY
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 96.4
Andrews, Robert (D) 100
Pascrell Jr., Bill (D) 100
Rothman, Steven (D) 100
Sires, Albio (D) 100
Payne, Donald (D) 95
Holt, Rush (D) 90
Pallone Jr., Frank (D) 90
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 21.6
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R) 45
LoBiondo, Frank (R) 30
Saxton, Jim (R) 30
Ferguson, Michael (R) 20
Smith, Chris (R) 5
Garrett, Scott (R) 0
TEXAS
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 71.5
Jackson Lee, Sheila (D) 100
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D) 100
Gonzalez, Charlie (D) 85
Doggett, Lloyd (D) 85
Green, Al (D) 80
Hinojosa, Rubén (D) 80
Reyes, Silvestre (D) 80
Green, Gene (D) 75
Cuellar, Henry (D) 70
Rodriguez, Ciro (D) 65
Edwards, Chet (D) 60
Ortiz, Solomon (D) 50
Lampson, Nick (D) 0
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 2.3
Paul, Ron (R) 44
Gohmert, Louie (R) 0
Poe, Ted (R) 0
Johnson, Sam (R) 0
Hall, Ralph (R) 0
Hensarling, Jeb (R) 0
Barton, Joe (R) 0
Culberson, John (R) 0
Brady, Kevin (R) 0
McCaul, Michael (R) 0
Conaway, K. Michael (R) 0
Granger, Kay (R) 0
Thornberry, Mac (R) 0
Neugebauer, Randy (R) 0
Smith, Lamar (R) 0
Marchant, Kenny (R) 0
Burgess, Michael (R) 0
Carter, John (R) 0
Sessions, Pete (R) 6
WASHINGTON
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 95
Smith, Adam (D) 100
Inslee, Jay (D) 100
McDermott, Jim (D) 100
Dicks, Norman (D) 95
Baird, Brian (D) 90
Larsen, Rick (D) 85
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 8.3
Reichert, David (R) 25
Hastings, Doc (R) 0
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (R) 0
WISCONSIN
DEMOCRAT CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 84
Baldwin, Tammy (D) 100
Moore, Gwen (D) 95
Kind, Ron (D) 85
Obey, David (D) 70
Kagen, Steve (D) 70
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MEAN SCORE 0
Sensenbrenner, F. James (R) 0
Petri, Thomas (R) 0
Ryan, Paul (R) 0
I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that we’ll find the wide caucus differential pattern nationwide.
posted by Jorge on
It’s all politics, boys and girls. It’s all politics.
…
Your ugly partisanship cannot even be put aside at a moment of triumph. Pathetic.
…
It is YOU…
Okay, I’ve learned my lesson. Next time I’ll shut up and celebrate while I still have a chance.
posted by BobN on
You can read bipartisan commentary on the bipartisan fight to repeal DADT all over the web. But not here.
The lesson here is that IGF never fails.
posted by another steve on
You can read bipartisan commentary on the bipartisan fight to repeal DADT all over the web. But not here.
The supposed bipartisan coverage that BobN thinks permeates the LGBT blogosphere (except for here) seems to have failed to note Reid’s political antics, or voice any other criticism of the noble party of the left. I guess that’s BobN’s view of bipartisanship.
posted by BobN on
My view of bipartisanship says that if you’re celebrating a victory, you acknowledge and thank everyone who played a role in the victory, starting with those who did the most work.
My view of bipartisanship says that if you’re lamenting how long and hard and infuriating the battle was, you call out the opponents, again starting with those who did the most harm.