425
(0 votes, average 0 out of 5)
Written by Paul Varnell
Feb 11, 2010
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama made it clear that he favored repealing the onerous “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military.
But during his first year in office, Obama was virtually silent about the
issue, spending his time and energy instead on healthcare reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial crisis.
Finally, the president has held several strategy sessions on DADT with leading military personnel, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. He has announced that repealing the law would be a priority for his administration in 2010.
That was good news for those of us who had doubted Obama’s commitment to the issue.
Obama’s announcement was followed by hearings before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, during which Mullen called repealing the gay ban “the right thing to do.” Those words were perhaps an unconscious echo of the language former President Bill Clinton used in 1993 to describe the DADT “compromise.”
Meanwhile, Gates said, the military would probably abandon expelling gay and lesbian servicemembers whose sexual orientation was revealed by vengeful ex-partners or third parties. It is not clear how much effect that will have on the policy. No data appears to exist on how many such incidents there are, but it is a good faith move in the right direction.
When repeal will take place is not clear. It depends on Congress’ timetable. But my sense is that repeal had better be managed this year, because the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate from heavily Democratic Massachusetts suggests that the Democrats will lose seats in both houses in the fall 2010 election. And most Republicans seem to oppose ending DADT. In combination with social conservative Democrats, Republicans could defeat repeal.
Sen. John McCain, for instance, cited wholly imaginary “vast complexities” in ending the gay ban. He did not cite examples.
Georgia Republican Sen. Saxbe Chamblis suggested that the inclusion of gays would lead to a moral breakdown in the military. If one restriction were loosened, he claimed, it would open the way to alcoholism, adultery and tattooing. Conservative congressmen, like conservatives generally, have largely given up attacking gays directly, and instead express their opposition by raising supposedly related issues. That is a gain, I suppose.
According to The New York Times, pressures to change the law have grown since Clinton first signed it into law. Contributing to those pressures are the growing influence of gay leaders, who are regarded as a critical “interest group,” a change in the “climate” at the Pentagon, a perception that the rank and file in the military are comfortable around gay and lesbian personnel, and a need for the talents and skills of (current and prospective) gay servicemembers, including computer and linguistic skills.
But perhaps most important is the change in American public opinion about gays. As more gays, including younger gays, have come out,
Americans have unlearned their discomfort about gays. The military is not directly responsive to influence from the general population, but in the long run it is not immune to it.
