Step by Step

From the right-wing Washington Times: After demise of ‘don’t ask,’ activists call for end to military ban on transgenders:

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which pushed to end the military’s gay ban, is urging President Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity.” . . .

A White House spokesman declined to provide Mr. Obama’s position on transgenders in the military, referring a reporter to the Pentagon. “Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the military services,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez.

Leaving aside the fairness or unfairness of the military policy, there’s little doubt, politically, that if certain leading LGBT lobbies had insisted that the “LGBT community” oppose repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” until transgendered people were also included, then repeal would have failed to get out of committee, blocked by Democrats and Republicans, just as was the case with the gender-identity-inclusive Employee Non-Discrimination Act. We can be thankful, in this instance, for the arbitrariness of political correctness. (And, I suspect, that L&G servicemembers weren’t going to let the “all at once or nothing at all” crowd call the shots on this one, although SLDN seems now to have found a new mission.)

7 Comments for “Step by Step”

  1. posted by BobN on

    We can be thankful, in this instance, for the arbitrariness of political correctness. (And, I suspect, that L&G servicemembers weren’t going to let the “all at once or nothing at all” crowd call the shots on this one, although SLDN seems now to have found a new mission.)

    The only arbitrariness on exhibit is yours, Mr. Miller. Equality for some, not for others. And on what basis? Try and come up with something non-arbitrary.

    As to why the issues were not dealt with together, they don’t stem from the same law or, as in the case of ENDA, the same lack of law.

    I can’t say I’m shocked that Miller opposes rights for the transgendered.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Leaving aside the fairness or unfairness of the military policy, there’s little doubt, politically, that if certain leading LGBT lobbies had insisted that the “LGBT community” oppose repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” until transgendered people were also included, then repeal would have failed to get out of committee, blocked by Democrats and Republicans …

    This is like reading “Through the Looking Glass”.

    The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010” struck (removed) Section 654 from Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, and that is all it did.

    Section 654 (DADT) never dealt with issues of the transgendered. It dealt with service members (a) who “engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts” (with enumerated exceptions), or (b) who “stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect”, or (c) who “married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex”.

    DADT had nothing to do with transgendered service personnel, and DADT repeal, therefore, could not logically “include” transgendered service personnel.

    To quote “Through the Looking Glass”: “Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, ‘if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.

  3. posted by another steve on

    Nice try, Tom, but you evade the blogger’s point. If the principle is that sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimation must advance in lock step, then the legislation repealing the sexual orientation ban could have included the ban on gender identity discrimination that is now being advocated. Yes, it wouldn’t have passed, but neither will ENDA and that’s not stopping the advocates of moving in lock step.

    The big question: No one has yet answered why it was so necessary that ENDA only advance if sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination were tied together, but it was ok to move military non-discrimination forward first with sexual orientation alone. As Miller correctly notes, politically speaking neither would have advanced with gender identity nondiscrimination, at this time. And that’s because the case has not sufficiently been made for federal repeal of discrimination based on gender identity in the private sector or the military.

    So, dear lefty liberal progressive seers of all things correct, why one and not the other?

    • posted by BobN on

      So, dear lefty liberal progressive seers of all things correct, why one and not the other?

      Better question: So, dear tighty righty conservative seers of all things correct, why neither?

      • posted by another steve on

        Better question: So, dear tighty righty conservative seers of all things correct, why neither?

        Not sure what point you are trying to make. DADT repeal passed limited to sexual orientaiton. ENDA could have passed if it had been limited to sexual orientation, but progressive activists demanded it also include gender identity, even if that meant it would die in committee.

        So, BobN, do you favor only passing ENDA if it includes gender indentity (which means passing nothing)? Answer that question.

        • posted by BobN on

          I do not believe in jettisoning your allies in order to accommodate the bigotry of the party which has opposed both you and your allies for decades.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      No one has yet answered why it was so necessary that ENDA only advance if sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination were tied together, but it was ok to move military non-discrimination forward first with sexual orientation alone.

      Its real simple.

      The battle over DADT was a battle over whether to strike an existing, onerous law, which had nothing to do with the transgender issue, from the US Code. The battle over ENDA was a battle over whether to enact new legislation protecting citizens in the civilian workplace. The transgender issue had no logical or legal connection to DADT repeal, but is a relevant question, wise or not, in terms of the civilian workplace.

      I know that you think that analysis evades the issue Stephen is trying to raise, but I think that it defines a material difference that was operative in the two battles, and I think that Stephen is dead wrong to suggested that apples are oranges.

Comments are closed.