With the New York Times continuing to pummel President Obama on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, should we start expecting the newspaper to soon engage him on marriage equality?
Feet, Meet Fire
Get Queerty Daily
Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #don'taskdon'ttell(dadt) stories and more30 Comments
Comments are closed.
edgyguy1426
The Stop-Loss option seems to be such a no brainer, while not overturning the policy, which the top brass would object to, yet saving the jobs of many in the military which is the main goal here and the general public is in favor of.
InExile
Maybe the President is concerned by what the reaction of Focus On The Family would be to stopping DADT?
mick
NO…he never promised marriage equality.
timncguy
it sure would be nice if newpapers articles such as this one in the NYT would explain the current policy in more detail. They mention Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell. But, they fail to mention Don’t Pursue and Don’t Harass.
They mention that gays in the military are expected to refrain from homosexual acts, but they fail to provide the definition of what it is. They also fail to define what constitutes “telling”.
It is my understanding that something as simple as confiding in your mother that you are gay, is considered “telling” if anyone finds out. And, it makes no difference when you confided in her. It could have been before you joined the military.
Something as simple as two women holding hands in public can be considered a homosexua act even though straight women hold hands or, kiss each other as a greeting or a goodbye on a regular basis.
The pilot who is being dismissed was never ASKED and never TOLD. Someone supposedly turned him in. But, we don’t know the details of what his transgression was supposed to be. Wasn’t someone turning him in a violation of the DON’T PURSUE or DON’T HARASS policies?
The Gay Numbers
@mick: He promised repeal of DOMA which is effectively marriage equality at the federal level if it is coupled with a law providing benefit rights to all unions.
timncguy
@The Gay Numbers: you need to check into his policies a bit closer. He promised support for repeal of DOMA which would allow the fed govt to recognize LEGAL unions is states that have legally recognized unions. Repeal of DOMA does no good at all for gay couples in states that have no legal recognition of their unions. I checked with his staff during the campaign to verify this point. And, they told me that Obama does NOT support any kind of federal registry for gay couples who live in a state with no legal recognition of gay couples.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@timncguy:
“Wasn’t someone turning him in a violation of the DON’T PURSUE or DON’T HARASS policies?”
No, and not just because he was apparently outed by a civilian who claimed Fehrenbach had engaged in sex with another man. If true, and that person’s knowledge came from Fehrenbach himself, he’s guilty of two things: violating the UCMJ “sodomy” ban and “telling.” A member of the service who had such alleged knowledge would be permitted, some would claim obligated, to inform Fehrenbach’s superior.
“Pursue” here means to initiate an investigation of someone without the slightest, reasonable evidence that they might be gay. It was meant to end notorious, often vicious, witch hunts that could grow out of nothing more than someone’s bad mood.
“Harass” refers both to the actions of one’s superiors and one’s peers. Just as in the civilian world, it is supposed to discourage a “hostile environment”…everything from fag jokes to directly verbally or physically threatening someone perceived to be gay. It is the section that is most routinely ignored and willfully violated by the military which still glorifies “masculinity” in part by constantly emphasizing what they believe it is not: gay.
Fehrenbach’s case is the perfect example of what is permitted when one’s commander receives information claiming you are gay. He/she has the choice of whether or not to investigate. That choice, either way, depends on the unique circumstances of every case.
How detailed is the information? Is it from a reliable source. What is the superior’s attitude toward the law? What is the superior’s attitude toward the accused both personally and in terms of his/her perception of the value of the person to the military. Are you about to literally go into combat where every body/skill is needed [they can always discharge you later…if you survive…and they have…there’s documentation all the way from WWII to today]. How many others know? What is the likelihood of the superior of one’s commander or homophobes in one’s unit finding out? For instance, someone evil enough to out him would likely escalate his/her campaign to others, e.g, the Secretary of the Air Force, if he/she realized the first person they told wasn’t doing anything about it. Etc. It would be interesting to know what was the deciding factor[s] in Fehrenbach’s case given his extreme closetry generally [he’s never told his family] and long and distinguished service record.
@ Gay Numbers: I would urge care in word choice when speaking of “marriage equality” so as not to unintentionally reinforce those who don’t understand the difference between “effectively” and “is.”
[img]http://www.bartcop.com/gay-soldier.gif[/img]
Jem
Uh, I don’t see any pummeling in that article. In fact, it sounds like rational and nuanced discussion of the topic. Which is completely different from the BASHING over the head Queerty does.
And they’re NOT going to engage him on marriage equality because he never made any promises about marriage equality other than DOMA (which is more than I can say for the girl the gays seem to love, Miss Hillary).
timncguy
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: If there is a “sodomy” ban, don’t you suppose that EVERY straight member of the military (both male and female) has violated that policy by engaging in oral sex? As far as I understand it a blow job from a man or a woman is defined as sodomy.
Dennis
Another day, another “Obama’s dragging his feet on DADT” article…Yeah, we get it. All the regulars will be present on this thread…
Meanwhile, the Govinator is threatening to eliminate or severly cut funding for HIV/Aids drugs for the poor and/or uninsured and Queery has NOTHING to say on it ???! What the FUCK!
This is a threat of “slow murder” for thousands of Californians, and this site is silent? If I’ve missed the post, I apologize, but if so, uh, when was is it and why isn’t it still up? Thousands of lives are the line here…SILENCE ?!
Please do your job, and post on things other than Obama’s failings. Another Democrat bashing idea you may enjoy…how fucking USELESS is Harry Reid? Struggling to get Hate Crimes passed in the Senate…check it out.
Jem
@Dennis: Nonsense, Dennis! Obama is the only Democrat dragging his feet on gay rights. He’s a homophobe in a vacuum!
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@timncguy:
Yes, “sodomy” whether gay, straight, bi, menage, is equally illegal under the UCMJ.
BUT, no pun intended, the biggest hypocrisy is not that it’s almost never enforced against straights but that straights are not presumed to be guilty of it by definition.
THIS gets to the rotten core of the Catch 22 of DADT. The concept of “propensity,” that is, a homosexual is, by definition, assumed to have a propensity to engage in homosexual acts, actually existed in the pre-DADT policy.
But the rabidly homohating architects of DADT, Sam Nunn, Charles Moskos, and Colin Powell were not content to just play the charade that “we’re not banning “status” [that is, just “being” gay] but only “conduct” [gay sex acts].
They supersized the propensity clause to the point where once a servicemember is accused of “being” gay, he/she must “prove” to the military’s satisfaction that you will NEVER act upon it sexually. IF you can, then they can’t discharge you.
That’s right. You’re supposed to “prove” in the present that you won’t do something IN THE FUTURE. Strictly speaking, this would not be a universal impossibility. For instance, if the ban were against, say, writing with your left hand rather than the much more common and once-enforced-by-grade-schools practice of writing with one’s right hand, and your left hand had been amputated, you could make the case that you would, in fact, could never write left-handed.
The illogical extension of this is that the only way a gay person could similarly prove such a thing is that if he/she were dead.
So, on top of all of the unconstitutional aspects of the ban…equal treatment, due process, freedom of expression, privacy [by case law, not the constitution literally]…there is the irrationality of it when left to prove not just a negative but a FUTURE negative and the build-in subjectivity. One person might believe your claims that, for whatever reason you’d decided to be celebate [a gay Catholic priest might make this argument], and another not.
During my friend Leonard’s administrative discharge hearings, when there was still an exception clause in the policy that empowered the Air Force to retain specific gays for whatever reason, he was asked by the prosecutor if he would sign an affidavit swearing never to engage in gay sex again. He refused.
What rarely gets discussed is that repeal of DADT will not alone protect military gays. Until the sodomy ban is removed from the UCMJ [something Obama is on record as supporting], they will still be in jeopardy of not just discharge but military prison.
@ JEM: contrary to propaganda during the primaries, the positions of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton on DOMA in functional terms were identical. BOTH supported [and, by his counterproductive statement on the Iowa Supreme Court decision, he still does] a state’s right to do WHATEVER they want, “good” or “bad” from our viewpoint, in terms of gay unions regardless of whether DOMA Section 2 was eliminated.
She was only guilty of explaining it poorly while he was guilty of claiming that they were functionally different when they weren’t.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@Jem:
I disagree with Dennis about many things, but it is absurd for you to claim that “Obama is the only Democrat dragging his feet on gay rights.”
He may be leading the parade, twirling the baton, but there are multiple snails behind him.
Jem
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: I was being sarcastic.
edgyguy1426
@mick: what does DADT have to do with marriage equality?
edgyguy1426
bye bye Miss California… we’ll be looking forward to your forthcoming book. P.s. get a proofreader…
TMZ says Carrie fired off a series of e mails in the past few weeks indicating she didn’t cotton to being handled. They quote one e mail, “You do not cooperate with me…you pick and chose [sic] the the [sic] things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice.”
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@Jem:
Sorry. I know the pain of that not always coming across in what one writes.
The Gay Numbers
@timncguy: I think you have me confused with someone who does not know that. Whatever his policies are on paper, he’s not attempting to implement any of it. Which is the only relevant point I ineed to mention.
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: I tend to write these posts quickly. Give me more details about my word choice.
timncguy
@The Gay Numbers: I was just responding to your comment that ending DOMA along with providing benefits to all “unions” would in effect be marriage equality.
But, it would only in effect be marriage equality for gay couples living in states with legal recognition of unions. IT does nothing for gay couples in other states.
The reason I brought it up is because during the campaign, there were many Obama supporters that were oft he opinion that Obama supported a FEDERAL law granting marriage rights to ALL gays in ALL states in effect forcing ALL states to at a minimun recognize full civil unions.
That’s why I contacted his campaign for clarification.
The nly promise Obama made on that front was to use the “Bully Pulpit” of the presidency to try to convince states to provide legal recognition for gay couples.
But, to the larger point, to date, Obama has made no progress at all on any of the promises made to gays. Even though his promise on DADT was to begin the process of ending it on his first day in office.
If the gay community were holding its collective breath waiting for the “Fierce Advocacy” to begin, we’ve all turned blue by now. But, maybe that would work to our benefit in being able to claim civil rights, since we wouldn’t be able to hide our sexuality anymore as people claim we can all of us being BLUE now.
The Gay Numbers
@timncguy: Well we are in agreement. Many peo do not understand that the repeal of DOMA does not equate to the gaining of rights. You also correct to require that I am as clear as possible because a lot o fpeople are clueless about how complex the law is on these issues. I have had more than one conversation in which I had to point out the problem with civil unions are that they are new to the law, and therefore are a big mess of legal issues left unresolved.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@The Gay Numbers:
Sorry, don’t mean to be overly nitpicking. It’s just that certain people with a robotic nature [not you] tend to selectively perceive, grab onto anything that could remotely seem to justify their defense of him.
I get it was not your intention but they could use “effectively marriage equality at the federal level” to bolster his own repeated disingenous [read dishonest] assertion that 95% = 100%, that he is, despite his “separate but equal” nonsense, for “FULL LGBT equality.”
And, thank St. Judy that someone else gets that “the repeal of DOMA does not equate to the gaining of rights.”
One says to those who don’t, “Uh, we didn’t have the rights married straight couples had before DOMA how by repeal alone do we get them afterward” and they just click into howler monkey mode and start screeching at pitches Yma Sumac would have envied: “You’re just an Obama hater…Hillary lover…racist…fill-in-the blank.”
The “Lord O will healeth all things” brainwashing was transparent to me during the campaign, particularly when it went beyond naive reading between the lines and “he really believe in gay marriage he just can’t say it” and blindness to what additional kinds of legislation would be required to pulling things out of the air like “he’s wants to create federal civil unions” when the feds don’t marry straights either.
I just never expected the willful self-delusion to last so long. It’s been snowing for over four months. You’d think the sleep induced by the Obama poppies would have worn off by now.
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: In fairness i see the same thing amongst true blue CLinton supporters, Bush supporters whoever. The issue at the core is that they got into politics for the person rather than for the issue. They look to the politician for emotional validation that the world will be the okay rather than as a politician that you need to hold accountable. I can speak until Ia m blue in the face, but I have come to realize that this is the core difference : either you want to be a in democracy (which is about a system of checks and balances and accountability) or you want to be led by someone else who will tell you that the worls is safe so shut down your worrisome thoughts that it may not be. If you are looking to escape, then, for most people, that’s what leads to extremist following. If you are one of those people for whom you can not follow any particular line of delusional following because if youa re like me, you are jaded, then it’s just all about accountability. I believe what I see passed and can see the impact of. I don’t believe words. They are useless to me.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@The Gay Numbers:
“if youa re like me, you are jaded” Guilty! :- )
Their tireless disingenuousness is probably what gets to me most. When they can’t defeat your arguments, or don’t even try, they go for the ad hominem jugular: “You’re just a racist.” Or “You’re just a Hillary lover.” Or both. AS IF whether one likes him or not has anything to do with the validity or invalidity of the substance of the criticism. As you say, it’s not ABOUT HIM, or anyone, as a person, but what they do/don’t do.
There’s a discussion today on PamsHouseBlend about some straight “progressives” at Daily Kos referencing Rachel Maddow’s lesbianism in their attacks on her for daring criticize Obama. That led to a discussion about whether they’re actually progressive, homophobic, etc. I wrote:
“They are post Right, Progressive, Left; post ideology; monotheists whose only God is O. Hell, if Rachel were BLACK and straight they’d call her an Oreo or self-loathing or whatever.
The homophobia, the lesbian bashing is just icing on their urinal cake.”
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: Well this behavior is also predictable. They are thinking they are doing us a “favor” by even mentioning us. We are supposed to be good little slaves thanking them for whatever bread crumbs they throw at us from the bus. “How dare you expect more!” since in their mind they are already doing us a BIG favor. There is entitlement to it. Of course, the worse, are the gays who fall for this crap because they have spent a life time of thinking of gay as less – “Why are you making a big deal about fucking?” There is so much internalize instinct self hate going there that there is not much one can say about it.
I am lucky to some degree to be both black and gay. I have seen all this crap with race. It’s given me a sort of innoculation. So, it’s a little hard for either those in my group (the fellow gays) or those outside of it (the political opportunist) to jedi mind fuck me on this because I have seen and heard it before. I just swap out black, with gay, and most of the arguments are often verbatim.
One of the guys I dated was this white gay libertarian guy. I said that I believed in government based healthcare based on comparing the economic outcomes in Europe and other countries to the U.S. His response? I was saying that because I am black. That’s how deep race ran for him. I did not have an independent thought outside of race. There are not fundamental principles upon which a gay person can draw to see that Obama is wrong on gay civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation. We can only think of automatons of our sexuality. Not as people who believes in equality under the law. That’s how race has always been couched. So, gays are experiencing nothing new.
The intertia pushes bigotry forward generation after generation. The sheer weight of it is pushed forward not because everyone is burning crosses or bashing gays- it’s pushed forward by the things that people choose to allow to happen because of whatever reason- maybe nothing more than expediency. It’s fucked up. But it repeats itself. Most of the people who supported Jim Crow were not the KKK members with hoods burning crosses on lawns. They were the ordinary people going to work each day trying to not be noticed and keep their down generation after generation. That let it happen because it was easier to let it happen.
That’s why I do not have much patience for people’s bullshit over race or sexual orientation or gender or class or whatever. To me, these things keep playing out as they do because we excuse our own part in it. So, these people do not see themselves as bigots in supporting Obama. They are just “supporting Obama” in this way. If you disagree with Obama, then you are “harming” their support. It’s a really fucked up internalization of a process that is meant to be about protecting equality. But, that’s the reality and this reality allows the bigotry to harm more people.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@The Gay Numbers:
“I was saying that because I am black.” Ouch. That must have hurt in more ways than one.
The closest I can come to that is the feeling I sense sometimes in my straight friends that I’m upset about some gay-related issued disproportionately to “reality” simply because I’m gay. Like when I tore the Obama sign over my desk at work in two when I heard about the Rick Warren invitation. Sometimes I wish I were straight SOLELY to be able to neutralize that angle.
We’ve seen variations of what you were saying about emotional investments in individuals trumping objectivity. There are still gays who think Reagan was a saint; just ignore the oceans of AIDS blood his memory floats in. I trust someone is writing a book about the Obama Cult, as fascinating as it is mad and maddening, including its manifestation of gays siding with him over other gays just because it is him all the while denying it exists.
And the implied suggestion that we all just woke up on January 21st and thought, “Hmm, ya know, Girlfriend, I don’t remember hearing about a single LGBT issue during from him during the campaign. Let’s throw some together and gang up on the guy just for fun.”
Pam Spaulding’s characterization is so perfect it’s time we replaced our old Obama t-shirts with a new one that reads:
HE’S CAUGHT IN A TRAP HE BUILT HIMSELF!
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: I love Pam’s site. She’s extremely smart with her commetary. I don’t always agree, but I can see where she’s coming from. I can see the logic that goes beyond someone trying to spin me. I appreciate that kind of discourse. The opposite, which is the norm with many writers, is this lazy kind of emotional perspective that is afraid to be tested by applying facts that are contra to that perspective.
To flip the discussion, however, to my own emotions. Yes, at the time it hurt me. I was still on my ‘I want to be open’ kick back then. But importantly, I learned staying open does not mean a lack of judgment or decision making. There were aleady bells ringing before that comment.
I have dealt with worse from another guy. I had one guy sleep with me only to tell me afterwards that he just wanted to “try a black guy out” but would never date one.
The worse part was listening to others defend his statement as “just about sex.” These were vital lessons in my being able to separate out emotions to objectively ask myself “is his actions acceptable under any circumstance?” Not as “gay man to gay man” but human to human.
The answer emotionally was no, but so was the ethical answer of how human beings should treat each other. I would never treat others like that, and, therefore, my moral standards should not shift. I want to have, in short, standards not focused on just what I might feel because I am gay, but what I feel as one human being to the other.
It is these kinds of experience that shapes my view of accountability. Accountability is how I view Obama. I like him just fine as a President. His words are inspirational. But, my standard for what needs to be done is not based on liking Obama or his words. It’s based on what can he do to improve my life in actual legislation. That’s something objective upon which I can judge his action. Not how his words make me feel.
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers: @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com:
Good discussion you two.
See, this is the type of substantive discussion that I like, mostly to listen too, really, since I know very little. One of the reasons that I stopped frquenting here so much (though I peek in) was the level of the conversation and the poor quality and analysis of some of the stories and the comments which break down on oh so predictable and tired lines at times…
RichardR
@Chitown Kev: “since I know very little” ?? Kev, you know lots. Who ya kiddin? I’ve enjoyed and valued your perspective and comments. But I too have become weary – and wary – of the “level” of the conversation (immediately foregoing one excepted) and sloppy reporting on QT.
Regarding this post, though, while the NYT editorial was sort of tame, I’m thrilled to see “MSM” nailing Obama and Congress on DADT, in particular.
Bill Perdue
The hardening hostility of Obama and the Democrats in general towards the LGBT communities is nowhere more apparent than in the fight to end DADT. Congressional Democrats and Obama, to increase the profitability of oil companies and war contractors like Haliburton have created a killing field in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today marks a gruesome new record as the death rate of GIs in the two wars passed 5000, at 5014. A further 15,000 plus have sustained disabling wounds. Counting returning vets it’s likely that well over a thousand have committed suicide. Over a million civilians have been murdered by Clinton’s food/medicine embargo, the Bush invasions and Obama’s continued occupation.
In expanding the war in Afghanistan and spreading it to Pakistan Obama and the Democrats are aping Nixon’s Vietnam era mistake of trying to defeat the insurgency by enlarging and expanding the war against civilians.
While continuing to demand the repeal of Clinton’s DADT we should do everything we can to discourage LGBT youth from enlisting to murder civilians in these oil/gas rich nations and demand that Obama order courts martial for all officers and others charged with hate crimes. The worst and most common hate crimes are perpetrated by those who rape their fellow female soldiers and civilian women.
We should do and say nothing that implies support for Obama’s murderous oil war. Support for the war is a betrayal of the LGBT and antiwar struggles.Further we should point out that this is now the Democrats’ war of aggression and that those who voted for Obama mistakenly voted for war, the murder of GIs and civilians and against the LGBT agenda. Those who urged a vote for Obama or the Democrats and Republicans are misleaders whose political judgment, to say the least, is questionable.
With Democrats like Obama and Congressional party hacks like Reid, Pelosi and Frank, and there aren’t any other kind who have even a pretense of power, who really needs Republicans?