Obama Opposes Gay Military Ban, but Repealing It Could Take a Year or Two

December 2, 2008 RSS Feed Print

When it comes to President-elect Barack Obama making good on his campaign promise to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," gays and lesbians—70 percent of whom voted for him—may have to be patient. Advocates of the repeal are warning that any action might take a year or more.

Given the host of issues on Obama's plate, they say that some delay is understandable. But it may not simply be a fiscal crisis and two wars that could put off reversing the military policy, which mandates discharge of gays or lesbians if they speak about their sexual orientation or engage in homosexual conduct.

Instead, the delay could be a result of the repeal strategy that many advocates are encouraging Obama to pursue—one that would focus on consensus building and securing the military's support.

"At the end of the day, it's not about getting it done in the first 180 days. It's not about the calendar. It's about getting the right results," says Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit dedicated to overturning the ban.

The president-elect stated his opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" during the long campaign, and he included its repeal on the transition website's agenda of issues. The fastest way to make good on his promise would be tacking a signing order onto a military appropriations bill, which President Bush has done in the past.

But Obama isn't planning on taking that route. "I want to make sure that when we revert 'don't ask, don't tell,' it has gone through a process and we've built a consensus or at least a clarity of that, of what my expectations are, so that it works," he said in a September interview. Such a process, he said, would include "getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be."

A spokesperson for Obama's transition team, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said only that decisions would not be made until the national security team is in place.

A slow approach to change, however, worries Aaron Belkin, a leading expert on the issue of gays in the military, who says it likely will prolong the process without ensuring success. In the 24 foreign countries that overturned similar bans, he says, not once was the process initiated by the military. An early Obama supporter, Gen. Merrill McPeak, has even cautioned against repeal in remarks that Obama declined to repudiate publicly.

"Even the most hardcore opponents in the military understand that repeal is inevitable," Belkin says. "But if you give them the option to weigh in, they will kick and scream for 50 years. Unless they are told what to do, the change will not happen."

In fact, he warns, giving the opposition time to mobilize could hurt the repeal's chances. That's what happened when President Clinton attempted to make good on his campaign promise to allow gays into the military, sparking the fight that led to the passage of "don't ask, don't tell" as a compromise bill.

Most advocates of repeal, however, downplay the probability of a strong opposition. They point out that an ABC poll this summer found 78 percent of Americans in favor of gays serving openly in the military. More than 100 retired admirals and generals signed a letter as of last week calling for repeal, while a bill seeking to overturn the ban in Congress has accumulated 149 cosponsors.

Plus, say experts, the negative effects of "don't ask, don't tell" are well understood by military authorities. Since 1994, the policy has forced the discharge of nearly 12,500 servicemembers, including, since 2003, at least 59 Arabic speakers. A Government Accountability Office report estimated that it cost $180 million to recruit and train replacements for those discharged through 2003 alone.

Even so, establishing consensus will take time, and repeal supporters say that overturning the ban might not happen until the end of 2009 or 2010. 

Tags:
Barack Obama,
military,
national security terrorism and the military,
gay rights

Reader Comments Read all comments (27)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans who are military fighting men and women is so anachronistic as to be no more than a vestigial limb on the body of the American military.

Unlike President Obama, who never served a day in the military, President Harry S Truman WAS an American fighting man who displayed qualities of leadership, bravery, and courage under fire. President Truman desegrated the military in 1948...20 years before the rest of (racist) American society caught up--and President Truman was NO social liberal; he just realized that American fighting manpower was stronger WITH Blacks integrated than segregated.

It is difficult for President Obama to stand up to the neanderthals under his command because the president lacks military experience…and credibility. That is why he often looks to be bumbling, stumbling, unsure, and clueless. That is why the idiots under his command treat him like a naive sissy who can be routinely pimp-slapped.

After President Obama finishes his first (and only) term, it would seem as though the next president will have the military cred to completely dismantle the archaic practice of discrimination against gay military members.

When fighting two simulaneous wars, every able and ready fighting man and fighting woman is gratefully welcomed by all liberty-loving Americans who realize that freedom is not free…and that freedom costs blood.

Scrivener5 of NY 8:42AM April 02, 2010

Here's from an article published on February 14, 2010:

Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the policy "has to evolve with the social norms of what is acceptable and what is not."

It is precisely this type of ignorance of history--this type of ignorance of how President Truman DEFIED the existing "social norms" of racist 1950s American society--this type of ignorance that so characteristically defines the bumbling, stumbling, and clueless Obama administration. Sad state of affairs.

President Obama, enough is enough. Put up or shut up. Dilly-dally is only going to end up with you being shown the door when your first term is up. Then, the collective American public will bid you goodbye and advise you--in the old Southern saying--to not let the door knob hit you where the good Lord split you.

Scrivener5 of NY 8:28AM February 19, 2010

I feel if you are not a soldier ,or have not served ,you should not have a say.

I am a vet,(12 years service),and I know how it feels to have to shower,bunk and change in front of other females,however I felt comfort in knowing that they were heterosexual. I understand, that some of them may have been gay,but I did not know that. SO ,if someone was "looking" at me I did not think anything of it. However, if I knew that they were gay,that "look" would have been taken differently,by me.And ,that is the problem.

The military separates females,and males for a reason.It is not right to force someone whom is heterosexual to have to shower with a known homosexual. Thousands of gays have "signed up" and joined the military since the DADT poilcy took effect ,so apparently it is not all that bad of a policy.The military is not a social club,if you don't like the rules and regulations ...then don't sign up.

By the way, I am a black woman and I wish peole would stop comparing being black and/or being a woman to being gay. I cannot hide may race and with open showers, my sex .

diane of TX 10:52PM February 06, 2010

Photo Galleries

Wildfires

Erratic wildfires move through the western states.

advertisement

Latest Video