Dick Cheney was most recently the vice president of the United States. Before that, he was secretary of defense. Which gives him a vantage point few people — whether civilians or military officers — will ever enjoy. We’d be saying that even if Cheney, on This Week this morning, did not say it’s time to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But that’s just what he did. Now how can everyone fuck this up?
“I think that society has moved on,” Cheney says. “It’s partly a generational question.”
It adds Cheney’s name to a list that not only includes top military officials like Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen, but also Colin Powell, a Bush administration official with direct knowledge of military readiness. It also puts Cheney’s views in line with, shock of all shocks, the majority of Americans (and 64 percent of Republicans). But Cheney, influenced by raising a gay daughter, has always been the conservative outlier with gay issues.
This is an excellent development (albeit not a new one; Cheney has long opposed bans on gays in the military). It’s a ripe opportunity for even more momentum on repealing DADT. So why do we get the feeling this opportunity to push efforts into a snowball effect will fall short? With the Pentagon’s “review” underway, we’re looking at a multi-year timeline before gays are finally allowed to serve openly.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
It shouldn’t have to take that long. But it will, if Democratic leadership on a repeal is allowed to stand, or Obama’s hands-off approach to killing DADT continues to be blessed by weak Gay Inc. leaders.
It shouldn’t have to take that long. Not when the White House and lawmakers have so many pieces in place to push this through. Yes, “controversy” remains over homosexuality, but with the most senior military and executive branch officials (both former and current) on board, to not push for full repeal, in the immediate, is an opportunity lost.
It shouldn’t have to take that long. Sen. John McCain represents the past. So, too, does Sen. Jon Kyl,, McCain’s Republican peer from Arizona, telling CNN (see video below) he sees no reason to kill the policy. These men are increasingly on the outs with American views; moreso, they’re on the outs with the views of Republicans.
It shouldn’t have to take that long. Not often is there so obvious a stance lawmakers should take, simply because it is the right thing to do, but this is one of them. The ball isn’t just in Democrats’ hands; it’s about two inches from their hoop, and they still aren’t sure how to sink it.
[stream provider=video flv=x:/ht.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big/politics/2010/02/14/sotu.sen.kyl.dadt.jobs.bill.cnn_416x234_dl.flv embed=true share=true width=650 height=340 dock=true controlbar=over skin=dangdang.swf bandwidth=med autostart=false img=x:/www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2010/02/senkylbug.jpg /]
Same Crap
Die, queerty. As soon as I saw this item morning, I wondered how long it would take queerty to write its fact-free, illogical analysis of the situation. You took longer than expected, but the quality of your posting is as concern-trolling and idiotic as ever.
You want validation and approval from a white conservative Republican male–well you got the holy grail–a man who is no longer in office, and did nothing to effect change in this policy when he had the power to do so.
You call this momentum? Name one influential ELECTED Republican (you know, those people who actually vote on this) who has expressed an unequivocal intent to see the repeal. Talk about momentum when we get there.
Oh but yes, keep fellating Dick for this. He certainly joins the list of unelected Republicans who can now speak freely, but remained silent when they had power.
fradiavolo
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. This particular stopped clock is right for the first time in his life. Must be a strange experience. Nevertheless, the basic point of the piece is correct. Republicans never an opportunity. Democrats never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity.
David in Houston
Cheney is half right when he said, “It’s partly a generational question.” It is totally a generational question. Canada has allowed gay people to serve openly for 18 years. This SHOULD be a non-issue. But we’ve got senior citizens running our country. THAT is the problem.
Gridlock
The only reason he’s for this all of a sudden is because he wants to make a wedge issue out of it to further bone Democrats.
I dunno how much more boning he can get in, the Losercrats re boning themselves quite handily without his help.
Brian NYC
There aren’t enough votes to pass a repeal of DADT in the US Senate. It doesn’t matter what Cheney says, either.
We are witnessing a huge charade regarding the repeal of DADT. It isn’t going to happen. Not now. You’ll see.
alan brickman
Coulda have said this when he was in power but didn’t why is that?….
Brian
Nothing will happen, we have a MIA president with no capital left. He is a joke to the republicans and even his most ardent democratic supporters have now concluded he is not up to the job. Listen to Jay Rockefeller who stated that no one takes Obama seriously anymore. Obama will get passed whatever the republicans let him at this point. He gave in to them from the moment he was elected and they rightly exploited the mans weakness. Gays, immigrants, teachers, etc.. wwe might at well get used to waiting for the next 3 years.
KirilleXXI
The only thing that should be quite clear for every gay American is that we are, and always have been, the loose change, the pawns in the game of big boys for big offices in DC, the pawns that can be sacrificed at any given moment, the pawns that won’t be taken seriously when screaming about injustices: the majority hates us already — and that is exactly where politicians want us to be — this is the only way to really manipulate us when the only support we have is the one they promise us if we give them money for their campaigns and elect them. And when they want others to support them, they play on their hatred toward us (like in Bush campaign of 2004) — that’s how they win their hearts and monies.
And that is the answer to the questions of many:
— when they have power they can’t use it because then they won’t have us where they want us to be — miserable and squeaking, demanding our rights, hated by the majority, helpless and alone… and when they don’t have power they say they support everything for us because there is nothing they can really do, but they can criticize whoever’s in power on our behalf demanding the right for us — they know those in power play the same game, using gays as donkeys (no pun on Democrats intended) who should always jump trying to catch the carrot before them they can never reach — so, whoever’s in power will never give us what we want.
It is a never-ending and a never-changing gayball game (I’m sorry for sports reference, just bear with me) — we are the ball that is being tossed from one side to another, and it’s all just a dance, whoever’s in control over the ball — it doesn’t matter — they keep pushing us to score some points, somebody wins the game, but we, the ball, remain exactly where we were in the beginning — we’re just a ball to toss around, and nobody really cares about the ball, or its feelings, or its rights, though through the whole game everybody watches the ball and tries to catch it — it’s a false feeling of being in the center of attention because, at the end of the game, all they really care about is the score.
So, dear readers, don’t be so surprised about politicians not in power coming out in our support — we’re just a ball, nothing but a ball for them, and until they wear us out they will continue to play with each other using us as a scoring device.
jason
The Democrats don’t truly want to repeal DADT. They simply want to use DADT as a political ploy to keep us gays on their side in terms of whom we vote for.
Democrats simply want to create a Democrats versus Republicans dynamic on this issue, setting up a divide which causes us to side with the Democrats in congressional elections.
In fact, it is in the interests of the Democrats to NOT repeal DADT. By not repealing it, the Democrats have a long-term political ploy to keep us gays on their side.
Keep in mind that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senate votes and did nothing – absolutely nothing – to repeal DADT during that time. Obama and the Democrats are treating us like useful idiots, and we’re falling for it.
Brian NYC
@jason: The Democrats CAN’T repeal DADT, because they don’t have the VOTES.
That’s our fault, not theirs.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
Must be a blogosphere virus destroying hearing as you have plently of company in your mistake.
IN NO WAY did Cheney say he WANTS DADT repealed. He hedged, he dodged, he insured his ability to DENY he said it…because he DIDN’T.
He said he supported “RECONSIDERING” the policy. Times have changed, blah blah blah…but that’s ALL he would commit to.
That’s a good retort to John McCain et al., who oppose even that, but “reconsider” is NOT a synonym for “repeal.”
jason
Brian NYC,
The Democrats have 59 votes in the senate, a clear majority. On this basis, DADT can be repealed provided the Democrats vote as one.
Of course, it’s not a filibuster-proof majority. That went out the window when Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old senate seat in Massachusetts. The Democrats had one full year to repeal DADT and they failed.
The Democrats can stick it up their asses as far as I’m concerned. They don’t deserve one gay vote.
statistics fail
How can Dick Cheney be a “conservative outlier” when 64% of Republicans agree that the law should be repealed?
Joe The Fed Ex Driver
You wanna know why DADT won’t be repealed? Look no further than you nearest Gay Pride Parade. Since when do drag queens, guys in buttless leather pants and spanking booths have anything to do with gay liberation? The movement used to be about the right not to be fired, not losing your home and family (if you had kids), and in some cases not being arrested or even comitted. Now its just a big drug-addled, alcohol-fueled circut party.
davii
As a gay man serving currently, I want them to take their time. Everyone, including queerty, is on this civil-rights push that is well-intentioned, but could lead to a disaster. As long as legislation is passed to end it within a year, I am personally okay with it. What’s the rush? You might end up killing someone rushing this. Not everyone I know is of the same opinion, but I have served under this law too. And while I want the discharges to stop, and they should; the military needs to develop the diversity training from commissioned officers down to the new E1. If you rush this, the training won’t be there and the soldiers you intend to free will be susceptible to harassment; the policies aren’t there for a DADT-free military.
KirilleXXI
@davii
There wouldn’t be any rush if they would introduce a moratorium right now to stop discharging homosexuals that were outed or who outed themselves. In that case we wouldn’t be adverse to wait for the military to decide how to implement the repeal of DADT.
Imagine that tomorrow you get your discharge papers because someone outed you — would you be all “Sayonara, people! It was a pleasure to serve with you and under you!”? — the very fact that people get discharged like they did something wrong or that something is wrong with them is what we are against. At least they could do this one for us, and for you, too, by the way.
I can’t imagine the stress gays have to live under, realizing every day could be the last one, and after that you get kicked out like you screwed up when you didn’t. What about honor and dignity? That’s what this is all about, at least from where I’m standing.
Scrivener5
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.
soul_erosion
Surely it can be speculated that Cheney is still in some sort of communication with Secretary of Defense Gates since he himself is a former Secretary of Defense & Gates being a Bush administration holdover. One of the most interesting and yet perplexing statements made by Secretary Gates during the Congressional hearing on DADT was this,“…And we also have to devise new rules and procedures in light of the appeals court decision in Witt versus the Department of the Air Force for the areas of the country covered by the appellate court [the 9th Circuit]. So I would say all of these matters are those that will be reviewed within this 45-day period.”
If you have forgotten what that case entails here’s a quick synopsis: Margaret Witt was an Air Force Major with 18 years of service who was eventually discharged under the Bush administration’s Department of Justice, after being outed in 2004. She sued, arguing, “Under ‘Lawrence’, … DADT’s constitutionality must be reviewed under a higher level of scrutiny than the rational basis review which courts have applied in the past.” In typical fashion, it bounced around the courts until a startling ruling by a 3-judge appellate panel in 2008 in the 9th Circuit sent the case back to District level — the first time a federal appellate court has said the military must meet a heightened standard to deny a gay service member’s right to privacy. They declared “that Lawrence v. Texas requires something more than traditional rational basis review…” and a “searching constitutional inquiry” is required in such cases.
Then the Department of Justice, under President Obama, amazingly did not contest the ruling, and last September, the District judge set the date for the trial for September 2010. From this you might also speculate that the DOJ has changed their mind and are not going to fight Major Witt in District Court which would mean she’ll be reinstated. There is some question about whether a court ruling reinstating Witt would only apply to her, so Gates’ statement is all the more remarkable, raising the question of why they’re apparently going to let ALL gay service members residing within the 9th Circuit to serve OPENLY?
My conclusion is that Cheney may indeed be working behind closed doors with some of his more moderate Congressional Republican buddies to help repeal DADT.
romeo
@DavII: Thanks for the input, and I agree with you. There’s a story on the Yahoo facepage this morning about the military doing it incrementally to mitigate disruption, but THEY ARE going to do it. Makes sense to me, but I think they need to go ahead with eliminating the “third party outing” that’s behind so many servicepeople being unfairly, even under the current policy, removed from the service. It’s supposed to be “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Unless the soldier hits on his commanding officer, or the other way around, it should be left to the service person.
Looks like Iran’s leaders are feeling the heat from their own people. Those kinds of guys never do well under those circumstances. Lack the sophistication to compromise. I’m betting they will miscalculate big-time. We won’t have a choice on that kind of a war I’m afraid. The military is going to need us.
Same Crap
@Scrivener5: You just had an gay service member stating that the incremental approach is a good one. But what would he know? He’s just actually in the military rather than huffily chanting slogans from the outside.
And you don’t know your history. When Truman desegregated the armed forces, it still took upwards of 10 years to fully integrate it.
Same Crap
@romeo: What is this based on? That gay men and women will break down the doors of recruiting centers to join the military when DADT is repealed?
If there is a conflict with Iran, (which there will not be; every country no matter how insane their leaders appear to be, have a self preservation instinct) they could just bring back the draft (in which case, many will want DADT to stay in place so they can say they are gay to get out if it, haha).
waltk
When the 4 Chief’s representing the Army, Navy, Airforce and USMC give a thumbs up for Congress to repeal current federal law there will be movement. Until then, don’t hold your breath.
Dasher
@2 Fradiavolo…is so right. Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. Finally, Dick Cheney is right about an issue. Maybe it’s because he’s the father of a GP and has seen the light. Maybe it’s for some other reason.
When he’s right, he’s right.
But don’t think the Republicans won’t use his stand on this issue — which is no doubt sincere — for their own slimy purposes. Like try to soften up the gay vote to vote Repub in areas where it might make a difference. Yuck.
1EqualityUSA
zombie bird house:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHK-ioV8UE8
jason
Joe the Fed Ex Driver,
I agree that the takeover of the gay rights movement by the hedonism crowd is harming the gay rights notion. One of the reasons this has happened is because gay people often refuse to criticize other gay people.
My personal belief is that gay people should be criticizing the gay hedonists.
Woody
Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit gays to serve openly. Of the 18 countries that outright ban homosexuals to serve openly, most of them are communist or muslim.
Coutries that allow: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.
Countries that ban: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, Yemen, and United States (Don’t ask, don’t tell).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service
Brian NYC
Dick Cheney said “DADT should be reviewed.” He never said it should be repealed. That’s the game going on now – review.
It’s not going to be repealed. The “review” will take years.
reason
People must forget that Cheney has a lesbian daughter who has a partner and children, the reason he didn’t do more in the White House is because the administration was vehemently against homosexuality and he had better self serving agendas to push. Cheney like most republicans care about one thing which is empowering themselves. He has already grossly enriched himself via Halliburton, started up an ill intentioned war in Iraq to guaranty Halliburton’s solvency thus guarantying that he would get paid his multimillion dollar pension loaded with stock options to boot when he sauntered out of the White House. Now he wants to soften up America on gay issues to insure a good life for his daughter, after decreasing estate taxes so he can pass on all the wealth, which he stole from the American tax’s payers and the families of the soldiers that died in Iraq, on to his daughter. Cheney could care less about homosexuals, it his daughter throne that he is worried about; it’s me and mine first at its greatest.
Brian NYC
@jason: There are 9 anti-LGBT Democrats. You only have 50 votes. The Democrats could NEVER have passed anything LGBT-related. That’s the truth.
The groups that tell you differently, HRC, lobbyists and much of the media, does that to get your money. If they told you the truth you wouldn’t give any money.
The Truth
@Same Crap:
Contrast that with Bill Clinton who both not only had the power to change the status quo of the gays in the US military but actually did so – by signing DADT into law in the first place after having it handed to him by a Democratic-run congress.
Touche, mon gay.
David
@davii: There’s no doubt in my mind that a few gay military people are going to be killed because of a few heterosexual’s uncontrollable resentment and brutality. It’s gonna be part of our road out of 2nd class status. We can’t not do what we have to do, and those of us on the outside looking in have to watch what’s going on and support the troops that are in.
Oh yeah, tears and tragedy ahead. Gotta do it, though.
David
@Same Crap: I agree . . . From my USAF days in the 1970’s and listening to some 1st hand accounts of black soldiers misadventures in integration from the 1950’s and 1960’s, it is going to be awful for the first gay troops. It’s going to take an awful lot of courage and social skills to make this work 100%. But when ya gets that many people interacting, you’re gonna get situations where an impulsive flamer is going to expect civility from an impulsive Joe-Bob KKK’er, and sparks (maybe heads) will fly.
It can and will be made to work, and over time, work well. But the first ones,though — it’s gonna be unbeleivably rough.