Arguably more practically meaningful than any Nobel Prize

[major_clanger]

I'm very pleased to see that President Obama has done the decent and right thing and pledged to end the ban on gays serving openly in the US military.

For the first half of my service in the RAF it was illegal to be gay. Suspected homosexuals were investigated by the RAF Police (a degrading process for all involved, as well as a gross waste of time and effort) and summarily discharged if found out. The policy was not only offensive but was counter-productive on a range of levels, not least in terms of inducing gay service personnel into the worst behaviour possible in anyone with a security clearance - hiding an aspect of one's life.

Then a combination of Labour winning power and an ECHR ruling brought not just the end of the ban but an enforced positive duty on the chain of command to foster tolerance and tackle discrimination. And, the military being comprised largely of people trained to do as they are told, it worked. I served alongside openly gay personnel, including fairly senior officers, and in a step unthinkable fifteen years ago the MOD sponsored personnel in uniform to take part in Gay Pride.

The US Armed Forces like to think that they are the best in the world. So presumably if the Limeys can make this work, so can they. I just hope it's not spun out or done via half-measures; the British experience is that a quick about-turn - pardon the pun - is the way to make it work.

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

He's just reiterating a campaign promise, isn't he?

[tregenza.livejournal.com]

It was a campaign promise but they had been dodging the issue since coming to power. John Stewart / The Daily Show did something on this just the other day.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

And they need to do it early so everyone has forgotten all about it in three years time.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I saw. I guess what I mean is, I'm not very impressed with him just reiterating what he's already said - like everyone else, I'd like to see a timetable.

[nojay.livejournal.com]

I think Nobel Laureate President Barack Hussein Obama (that's a fun assembly of identifiers to string together, isn't it?) wanted Congress to get rid of DADT rather than copy the Cheney/Bush Imperial Presidency's methods and issue unquestionable edicts from on high. If he could get some hard legislation down on the books then any future Executive couldn't simply reverse the previous White House stance on this; they would have to make a loud public fight about it in the Legislature.

Right now he's pushing to get some kind of healthcare reform through the Legislature and DADT is lower on his list of priorities than the other hand-grenades he's juggling right now. For many people affected by it DADT is the most important thing in the world, but it's personal and as President he's got other things to do first. Worst case he pulls a repeal of DADT out of the hat as an Executive order but doing it that way means he will be attacked for doing so. Signing off on a piece of legislation that enshrines the right of gays, TS and others to serve in the armed forces as Federal law is a much more powerful statement.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

That's Nobel Laureate President Barack Hussein Obama II to you :-)

Couldn't they do both? Won't it be easier to get the legislation passed when the executive order has been in effect for a while and the sky has manifestly not fallen?

[nojay.livejournal.com]

Nobel Laureate President Barack Hussein Obama II waves his Magic Presidential Wand, repeals DADT and instructs the US military, the National Guard and all the other forces affected to accept gays, TS etc. The forces then enact lacklustre and piecemeal reforms independently, sexual preference not being a priority to the upper echelons when there's a war on (and in the case of the United States Christian Fundamentalist Air Force it might never happen in any substantive manner at all). With a signed bill from the Legislature backing it up, with the fine details properly thrashed out in debate, the loopholes closed then it's a different matter. It's also looks a lot more democratic, not just one guy who wants this to happen.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

With a signed bill from the Legislature backing it up, with the fine details properly thrashed out in debate, the loopholes closed then it's a different matter.

I'm not sure I see why, help me out?

Edit: also, isn't it hard to not implement? How do they discharge someone for being gay without contravening a direct order from the highest office?

It's also looks a lot more democratic, not just one guy who wants this to happen.

I don't think there's a democracy problem wrt the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces giving them an order which was one of his campaign promises, is there?

[nojay.livejournal.com]

What is the exact wording of the Executive Order that Obama will issue to prevent discrimination in the Armed Forces? Does it apply to the National Guard too? How about the USCG? A simple repeal of DADT actually puts the clock back to the point where a serving member of the armed focrces could be compelled to answer questions about their sexuality before a court or tribunal (the "Don't Ask" part) so it requires an actively progressive wording of that proposed EO to ensure that serving and future AF members are not discriminated against in postings or promotion reviews even if they are not dismissed from the service because of their avowed sexual orientation.

A Legislature makes sausages, grinding the fine details out and (mostly) spotting the flaws before they are signed off. Quickly-enacted law is often faulty -- the recent anti-ACORN bill passed to prevent Government funding of organisations found guilty of corruption means that companies such as Boeing can't get any new Federal contracts as they have a long track record of being found guilty of corruption in a a court of law, unlike ACORN which has only been accused of nefarious acts. That particular bill needed a lot more scrutiny, just as legislation to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual preference in the military needs to be hammered out in committee before it goes to the floor of the House and the senate to get pounded on a bit more.

I don't see Obama as wanting to be a Commander-in-Chief, certainly not the way GW Bush was. Obama wants to be a President, a good one, and part of his job is to reverse the law-by-diktat system that the Bush executive made so prevalent that it seems the norm to many people in the US rather than the odd exception brought on by panic and fear after 9/11.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Isn't it just a question of removing the explicit de jure discrimination in the armed forces code of conduct? Actual anti-discrimination legislation is another matter altogether.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

This might be of some help in understanding:

I worked for several decades under Civil Service (for Los Angeles County). It's possible to fire someone -- but with great difficulty after the first year. It's relatively easy to make anyone's job so unpleasant that the person has no practical option but to resign, and to do this in ways that aren't provably motivated by (illegal) prejudice.

I also spent 18 months as a Draftee in the Army (c. 1950), where the same principle was in operation -- although, that being wartime, the effect was more like punishment with no opt-out.

It seems to me that we do need a trident, here -- a CiC who recognizes that members of racial & cultural minorities, women, and gays (insofar as they don't fall in the "cultural minority" category) can be as capable as anyone else at handling military duties; an upper-level military establishment that recognizes the same thing; and Congressional Laws that close loopholes and tie up loose ends, to reduce the possibility of it being reversed if/when the individuals in charge change.

I think the best solution is to join the rest of the civilized world in prohibiting discrimination -- everywhere -- on the basis of sexual orientation, and that the only valid way of doing this is to establish explicit Laws to that effect. Not that The Law ever works perfectly, of course, but it seems to be the necessary beginning, and I think it's shameful that the U.S. hasn't done this long ago.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Sure, I think it's great that we have full-on anti-discrimination legislation over here; but until that day comes to the USA, simply repealing the explicitly homophobic parts of the military code would be a huge step forward for LGBT people in uniform.

[maviscruet.livejournal.com]

Hurah!

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

About time.

[burntcopper.livejournal.com]

So many damn things crossed. Just...please let him come through on his campaign promises, especially this one. Let America show it's grown up some.

[redbird]

At this point, I'll believe it when I see it.

Whether by pushing Congress on the matter, or by executive order halting such discharges "indefinitely": I'm not giving points for reiterating a campaign promise while the military continues to discharge competent gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers.