Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Where are we now?
Sounds like President Obama is solidly against the policy and has committed to ending it, but his sense of urgency is what people are questioning. Representative Patrick Murphy is introducing a bill into the house that would, if signed into law, abolish DADT. He currently has about half the co-sponsors he needs and he continues to work toward the goal of getting this through the House. Of course, it then needs to go through the Senate before ending up on the President's desk. However, according to Congressman Murphy, President Obama has promised that if congress puts a bill on his desk to abolish DADT, he'll sign it into law.
Here's something I didn't expect to hear, but with which I think I agree. Congressman Murphy was being interviewed by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (On 7-8-09) and Rachel asked him if he thought it would be appropriate for President Obama to put forth an executive order putting a hold on implementation of DADT, effectively stopping the practice of kicking people out of the service for their sexual orientation. To my surprise, the congressman said he would be opposed to such a move.
If we think about it, this makes sense. Many, including me, have criticized President Bush for his prolific use of Signing Statements, essentially allowing a law to be passed but pushing a caveat that he doesn't intend to abide by this new law. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a law that was passed some 16 years ago, and until it's reversed by another act of Congress, it's still the law in the US. If President Obama puts out an Executive Order that puts a hault to the practice of DADT, he would be doing exactly what President Bush is so roundly criticized for doing.
As ridiculous as I think DADT is, I think I agree with the logic of Congressman Murphy that the law should be enforced until Congress can get their act together and fix this mess.
11 comments
I think it's crazy that we even have to have this conversation. If a Democratic super-majority can't do something about this travesty, what does it say about our values as a nation.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/reid-backs-plan-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/
due to sexual orientation on the basis that you don't agree with the
conflics in which we're currently engaged? Really?
I was never in favor of us going into Iraq in the first place, but I
don't think that's a reasonable reason to exclude gays from serving in
the military. I think that's absurd.
Sam: Well, you might be right. On the other hand, many would disagree with you. It's a complicated issue that deserves its own attention and doesn't deserve to be diluted by mixing it up with other issues that are not related.
As the draft laws stand right now, you or anyone else is entitled to choose whether or not to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States based on whether you agree with what it all stands for. If you don't like what America stands for, you're not currently required to serve (as long as you haven't already enlisted). But the point is, you have that choice. If I understand your remarks, this is what you're referring to, but it's not what this blog post is about.
The issue at hand here is that the GLBT community doesn't currently have that choice. If they're discovered, they're kicked out. It doesn't matter what they believe. If you're straight and you wish to serve, you're entitled to pursue enlistment. If you're GLBT, you don't have that right, and that is wrong. If a GLBT person feels a patriotic duty to serve his or her country, then s/he should have the right to do so just like any of the rest of us.
Thanks for the comments. I do appreciate it.
