by Mark Silva
Lately, advocates for gay rights have been asking about one of those campaign promises that President Barack Obama made to do away with the military's policy of ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' in the handling of gays and lesbians in uniform.
The case of Dan Choi, one of 38 West Point graduates who "came out of the closet" in March with an offer to help the military recognize the contributions of gay members -- drawing the discharge that comes with telling -- has raised questions anew about shedding a serviceman who is a fluent speaker of Arabic and served an extended combat deployment in Iraq.
"I think that case, in fact, shows why the president, why former members of the Joint Chiefs and why the administration believe that the policy isn't working for our national interests,'' White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today, fielding questions on this and other fronts.
"Now, in terms of keeping his promise,'' he said of the president, "I would note that many of the questions that have been asked here require more than the snapping of one's fingers.
"To get fundamental reform in this instance requires a legislative vehicle,'' Gibbs said. "The president made a promise to change this policy. He will work with the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the administration and with Congress to ensure that we have a policy that works for our national interests.''
(Photo of Robert Gibbs today by Ron Edmonds / AP)
Comments
Don't ask, don't tell" has to be repealed by Congress if we want it to be permanent.
If President Obama repeals it it could easily be overturned the next time we have another mouth-breathing Republican president (god forbid).
Posted by: Kathy | May 12, 2009 5:09 PM
An issue that has not been addressed is to ask the troops if they support the elimination of this law! After all it is an all voluntary armed forces and the troops will be the ones to choose whether or not they will accept gays into the military. If you don't like it, don't volunteer to serve!
Posted by: Bill | May 12, 2009 6:28 PM
Expect thousands of our bravest fighting men and women to NOT re-enlist! The military is not a "social experiment."
Posted by: Joe | May 12, 2009 8:21 PM
After all it is an all voluntary armed forces and the troops will be the ones to choose whether or not they will accept gays into the military. If you don't like it, don't volunteer to serve!
Posted by: Bill | May 12, 2009 6:28 PM
*************
Yes, let's let the troops decide! That's the ticket!
We can be just like a tin pot South American dictatorship and let the military run things!
That would be great!.....not
Posted by: former Republican | May 12, 2009 8:31 PM
Let's not be toooooo hasty about integrating that high school in Little Rock......
Looks like that campaign talk was a little premature.
Anyway, military is letting in ex felons on waivers.
I'd rather live at close quarters with a gay than someone convicted of aggravated assault or worse.
Posted by: ornery | May 12, 2009 11:52 PM
Our military are professionals. They can behave like adults and accept that the gay men and women around them are valued members of society. It's a disgrace that Obama is allowing even one more gay or lesbian American to be discharged. These witch hunts must stop and Obama has the power to suspend the firings until Congress enacts legislation to overthrow DADT.
Posted by: Patrick Yaeger | May 13, 2009 1:58 AM
Beggers can't be choosey. If a gay person choose to enlist then I say let them enlist. They have much of a right as anyone else
Posted by: Tynicia Parker | May 13, 2009 1:38 PM
Let homosexuals serve openly. Toss out all the hate filled bigots who have a problem with gays serving openly.
Posted by: Common sense | May 13, 2009 1:54 PM
This is an integrity and rights issue. Currently, gays and lesbians can't even tell their parents about their orientation under the policy. The military values integrity, yet are asking gays and lesbians in uniform to hide their relationships even from family, with whom there shouldn't have to be secrets.
Posted by: Chris | May 13, 2009 8:26 PM
There doesn't need to be a law passed to let gays, and everyone else, serv in the military. What we need is some of those "strict constructionalist" judges on the Supreme Court to interpret the following words as the founders meant them to be interpreted::
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The phrase "bear arms", per the Oxford English dictionary, means "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This is the meaning of the phrase that the Founders knew.
Everyone has a Constitutional right to partake in the armed defense of the country.
Posted by: Nick | May 14, 2009 2:43 PM
If the policy is repealed, it offers a win-win solution to both sides of the political aisle. For conservatives concerned about trends in shrinking military, diminishing recruiting numbers and lower quality of recruits, the repeal would help keep service members in the military, broaden the recruit pool, and strengthen the quality of recruits. For liberals concerned about equal rights, the repeal would represent a win in breaking down homophobic barriers and allow the opportunity to demonstrate that a gay-inclusive military would not “create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability”.
Find out why some civil liberties groups may not support an appeal: http://tinyurl.com/qwf7ww
Posted by: bevoost | May 14, 2009 7:09 PM