So: Tonite Barack Obama promised to do whatever is necesary to end DADT

[BruceChris]

And he also spoke out against DOMA, and in favor of ENDA, at the Human Rights Campaign dinner.

The Forum is All Yours, Bruce Chris

[Alecto]

Not to be that guy, but...we've heard all this before. ::snore:: till he actually DOES something.

[BishopIoan]

That's my thought too. Obama is really good at talking the talk; now let' ssee some action. We have been hearing the same thing out of the White House since January and sorry, Mr President, I am waiting to see you ACT on those promises. Pretty words won't get us our civil rights.

[tdogg]

I was watching a commentary show on MSNBC and it was stated that it is expected the hate crimes bill will be on Obama's desk to sign end of this week or next week. He has promised to sign it. If it doesn't happen by end of next week, it will be our jobs to harass Congress & Obama's people until it gets done.

I've also heard from different sources (heard/read) that an ENDA is currently moving through Congress although I'm not sure if it's in the Senate or House currently. Not sure what the time line is but Obama has 'promised' to sign it when it reaches his desk. It does not appear to have enough opposition to lose. It is also reported to be a full ENDA.

Hearings are being held on DADT and that one will take a while. I believe Obama has some power to at least temporarily cease the discharges; however, he has not elected to do so yet (if ever). I'm not sure what the consequences are, or if he is worried about the opposition to the bill written to put an end to DADT, but seems like he could at least halt the discharges for now until a bill gets moving through Congress on that one.

In regards to DOMA, I'm was a little surprised to hear him even talk about that in his speech Saturday nite. I thought for sure he would skip that topic. I believe a bill, or multiple bills, are being drafted for presenting at a Committee hearing to see if it would get through Congress. My sources have been HRC (probably not 100% reliable), MSNBC, CNN - on line and on various commentary shows.

I feel slightly more hopeful after his speech than before. It seems as though some things are moving, although slower than we had hoped, but possibly faster than politicos anticipated. I think we need a little more patience, but not silent patience. This is the time to call, write, email and basically pile it on our representatives, senators and Obama's staff. I think if we inundate our voices will be heard slightly more than if we wait around and complain.

[Tallit]

Well it hasn't happened yet.

[Amy Gower]

OK, I guess I am looking for a little insight into the Don't Ask, Don't Tell issue. And to be clear, since I'm not gay I realize that my viewpoint may be somewhat ignorant or uninformed.

When I hear about DADT, I think about it as kind of a protection, rather than a sort of ban on gays in the military. Like your sexual orientation is not part of your mission/directive/purpose in the military, it is personal and therefore not relevant in a military capacity. I do know as well, that heterosexual relationships are not always condoned either in certain circumstances, as my brother and now sister-in-law were serving together in Iraq and essentially had to keep their relationship a secret because it was considered a no-no for them to "fraternize" in that way (I think my brother outranked his wife at the time.)

I really am interested in others' viewpoints on this issue, especially since the military is really its own society with rules that do not apply to the population at large. Does ending DADT mean eradicating a discriminatory practice? Does it mean that gay soldiers may be MORE susceptible to discrimination because their orientation is then subject to scrutiny? Does DADT attempt to eliminate questions that are irrelevant when enemy combatants are shooting missiles overhead, or is it restricting personal rights?

[SolApollo]

Time will tell what happens & I do support Obama, but hope he & Congress are able to repeal DADT & put in protections for all GLBT people. Luckily, I believe he did approve legislation (and passed to my knowledge) that prevent GLBT from being fired bec. of their sexual orientation in federal employment positions. My home state passed a similar bill (in Ohio) that prevents termination of employment based on sexual orientation @ the state government level. In 2006, I did not think this would happen, but Ohio (for now anyway) has become a blue state w/ Democrat governor & Congress. Law was passed in 2009, I believe as he was inaugurated in Jan. 2009 (the OH governor).

[offog]

Pardon my ignorance, but what are ENDA and DOMA?

Also, I hope that Obama really does something about DADT this time. Late last night I was watching TV news coverage about a top military man (I forget who) facing the Senate and saying that he, personally, favored repealing DADT. He said that people who defend their country shouldn't have to lie about who they are.

One Republican Senator who is opposed to repealing DADT said something about not wanting to compromise "high standards". I'm seriously disturbed by the implication that GLBT people automatically make inferior soldiers.

[BenL]

Originally Posted by Amy Gower

I really am interested in others' viewpoints on this issue, especially since the military is really its own society with rules that do not apply to the population at large. Does ending DADT mean eradicating a discriminatory practice? Does it mean that gay soldiers may be MORE susceptible to discrimination because their orientation is then subject to scrutiny? Does DADT attempt to eliminate questions that are irrelevant when enemy combatants are shooting missiles overhead, or is it restricting personal rights?

The problem with DADT is that if service members who are LGBT are found out in ANY way, including off-base when not on duty, they are subject to dismissal, simply for being who they are. Indiscriminate, promiscuous sex while on leave is winked at, indeed expected, for heterosexual members of the service. Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell was passed ostensibly to preserve unity and morale in units. The big departure from tradition was to hear Chief of Staff Adm. Mullen say he personally thought the ban on openy gay people in the armed services should be repealed. British and Canadian forces, for instance, lifted the ban on gays years ago and seem to be functioning just fine.

Amy, DADT is not to protect gay service members but to subject them to a discrimination reserved just for them as a class.

[koneill08]

DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act. That is the law that many opposed to gay rights are stating that federal and state laws should define marriage as between one man and one woman. ENDA I believe is the Employment non discrimination act which deals with federal, state, and private employers being able to "dismiss" a person from employment based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

As far as DODT, one person said it. I was in the military at the time that DODT was put in place. Prior to that Gays, Lesbians, Transgender, etc. people could be dishonarbly discharged from the military just because of their sexual preferences. DODT was intended to be (albeit, a poor intention) a compromise to allow the military to keep unity, morale, etc. but still allow GLBT folks to serve, as long as their activities were kept quiet.

I remember being in a leadership training class where the question of allowing gays to openly serve came up. We were asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on our opinion of the subject. Very few (maybe only 2 or 3) stood up to say that gays should be allowed to openly serve. A debate then ensued that really fostered around very homophobic ideas. Since the military, especially in the enlisted (not officer) ranks, had barracks (dorm rooms) they had shared facilities such as showers. And the arguments really centered around the use of those facilities with those who were of same sex attraction. Statements such as "I don't want to be nake in a shower with someone who might jump my back when I turn around" or "don't bend over to pick up the soap." It was down right rude and often misunderstood assumptions about GLBT people, as if the only thing they think about is sex. The arguments continued into the whole idea that if we let GLBT people openly serve then maybe we should have co-ed showers too. It was really a very heated debate that didn't get anywhere, but to answer your question about whether DODT is protective or discriminatory, the answer is it's discriminatory. They say it's protective for, not of GLBT people, but rather of straight folks. It keeps them from being "attacked" by GLBT at the whim of the GLBT person. DODT really should be repealed, because there are already many professions where people have to share facilities that the homophobic fear was not realized when GLBT people were around and using those facilities at the same time.

[bnmoore]

I watched a little of the testimony on the Hill yesterday. I was pleased with what the gentlemen I heard was saying. It did support my own opinions.

Being closeted is psychologically harmful to the closeted whether by choice or design/job. It affects all areas of their/our/your lives. If you didn't love your country and your fellow humans you probably wouldn't want to serve to begin with.

I've never met a gay rapist or any other rapist that was aware of their own self worth. I do know that same sex rape has been used as a form of torture by many to all militaries throughout the ages. And I doubt if that tool would lose it's effectiveness.

[offog]

Thanks for the info, koneill08.

In Canada, we sort of have ENDA. For some years, many provinces have, one by one, been adding clauses to their human rights codes to outlaw discrimination based on sexual discrimination. We don't have anything like that in the federal Charter of Rights in the Canadian Constitution, but a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada basically ruled that discrimination is discrimination, even if it's based on something not specifically covered in the Charter. So that's why gay marriage is allowed.

Our next big frontier in GLBT rights is to protect people based on gender identification.

BTW, I too was very impressed with Adm. Mullen. And I was ticked off with that Republican Senator who accused Adm. Mullen of trying to exercise "undue influence". That's pretty funny coming from a Republican, given that Republicans are notorious for abusing power.