Ladies and gentleman, may we present the most visible evidence yet that President Obama not only understands what Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is, but how it affects gay servicemen and women.
Six days after Barack Obama was sworn into office, Second Lt. Sandy Tsao wrote him a letter — coming out as a lesbian. Like Obama, Taso is from the South Side of Chicago. Unlike Obama, she pledged her service to defending America by risking life and limb. But after serving some 15 months on active duty, Taso, a first-generation American, expects to receive an Article 15 honorable discharge because of homosexual conduct on May 19 (just like Dan Choi), after she agreed to publish her letter to Obama in Chicago’s gay Windy City Times newspaper.
Taso wrote Obama: “I am a Second Lieutenant currently serving in the United States Army. In addition to being an officer, I am a Christian, a woman and a Chinese-American. I am proud of all these identities. Lastly, I am also a homosexual. On December 21, 2007, I was appointed as an army officer. In the oath of office I swore that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, I will not be able to fulfill this oath because the current policy regarding sexual orientation contradicts my values as a moral human being.”
Obama, who reportedly reads a select 10 letters a day from Americans, responded with a short, handwritten note.
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 reads: “Sandy– Thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment!”
That Obama would personally respond to a gay officer’s letter says plenty unto itself. Tsao says she is “very hopeful,” adding, “I believe he is a man of his word. … My heart is bounding with joy.”
Reading between the lines, however, we see this: Obama says he’s “committed to changing” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which is not the same as “repealing.” That difference in wording is what got Obama into trouble when the White House website revamped the president’s Civil Rights section and replaced a promise to repeal DADT with a commitment to “changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way.”
Also: A built-in excuse for not tackling the subject right away “because it needs Congressional action.” What else needs Congressional action? Bailing out Wall Street, but he got that done overnight.
Wayne
As I recall Obama made promises to END DADT, not “change” it. This guy backtracks better than Bush!
Alexa
Actually, he says “commited to changing our current policy” not changing DADT. And IIRC he commited to repealing DADT. Yes, he says it will be a while, but my interpretation is that he is still intending to end it.
Alec
Well, what could be worse than DADT, if we’re talking about a “change” in policy, apart from a return to the pre-DADT “drum them out” policy?
That’s the danger with parsing too much.
The real problem is that there doesn’t appear to be anything specific coming out of this administration on DADT. No plan, no proposal, nothing. We need something concrete, and we should also be looking to Congress. I think Obama would sign anything they gave him on this, but it does require legislative action.
ask ena
Allow me to reiterate an earlier posting…
1/16 of the way into a 4-year term…at least. Is this really the one of the first things that needs to be accomplished in the 1st 3 or 4 months?
From my perspective, Pres. Obama has been focussing on issues which, if not addressed, will be SO dysfunctional that most of the gay equality issues on the table at the moment will not matter to ANYONE.
We have made huge strides at state levels, and unlike every freakin’ right-wing pseudo-christian hypocritical moron that has something to say about it (and I would include our former president in that bunch if he were still in office, but obviously he is in Texas, coked up and doing Mad-libs), President Obama does NOT. Maybe because these advances are business as usual, and addressing them will only confirm bigots’ beliefs that they are “special laws”, etc.
i.e. I am still optimistic about the President pro-actively being on our side…it’s been 3 1/2 months.
RichardR
This is a great story, but everyone should write and call and email whitehouse.gov and elected reps and demand that while all this “commitment” is going on they should stop dismissing gay servicepeople. Just suspend dismissals. How hard could that be. Dan Choi went to West Point, for crying out loud! It’s nuts and its mean. How long will it be before Tsao gets her dismissal letter like Choi just did.
timncguy
@ask ena: somehow I don’t think that Obama keeping his promise on stem cell research within the first days of his administration had anythign to do with fixing the economy. I’m sure there are other examples of accomplishments during the first 100 days that also have nothing to do with the “dysfunctional” problems you are speaking about.
Bruno
Um, a “change in policy” can, and in this case most likely does, mean a full repeal. If he had been more specific I might be more worried about it. This isn’t quite the same thing as what was posted on the website, which did more connote that the policy would not be repealed, but altered.
AlanInSLC
How many times does this same subject need to be reported on. WE GET IT! OBAMA ISN’T ACTING ON THIS AS FAST AS WE WANT.
HM
@ask ena:
Some people are just more anti-Obama than they are pro-equality.
Viktor
@AlanInSLC:I agree with you, either keep posting pics of twinks or find something else to harp on. You are clearly drunk off the Haterade and tonic
Lee
The following is EXACTLY what Obama PROMISED to do relation to DADT in November of 2007 [emphasis mine]:
“America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS LEADERSHIP. As President, I will WORK WITH CONGRESS and PLACE THE WEIGHT OF MY ADMINISTRATION BEHIND enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination THE OFFICIAL POLICY of the U.S. military. I WILL TASK THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND THE SENIOR COMMAND STRUCTURE IN EVERY BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES with developing an ACTION PLAN for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I WILL DIRECT MY SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE AND HOMELAND SECURITY TO DEVELOP procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. IT WILL START WHEN I TAKE OFFICE.”
Note, while experts say he could IMMEDIATELY stop discharges as Commander-in-Chief, pending actual repeal by Congress, none of us are saying he can snap his fingers and it’s gone. We ARE saying that he hasn’t started THE PROCESS that HE outlined HIMSELF and promised to BEGIN on Day 1.
On that first day, and in the 100+ since he’s accomplished or begun DOZENS of others things, including such NON URGENT things as expanding protected wilderness areas, so there is NO EXCUSE for him not even FUCKING SAID ANYTHING PUBLICLY about this goal.
Hey, I have an idea. He could task Malia or Sasha with making a little sign saying REPEAL DADT! and hanging it on Bo. The press would photograph it and we could all die happy or just be “bounding with joy” like the naive Lt Tsao.
rigs
Obama bubble bursting, he better do SOMETHING soon for gays or he’ll really lose them.
Sam
@timncguy: You’re right! It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, etc. play hard ball and HRC doesn’t. Those groups won’t endorse candidates unless they have a 100% approval rating on choice and has no problem trying to knock off incumbents in the primaries. HRC, on the other hand, has endorsed candidates with a 53% rating (at my school, that was an F) and stays out of primaries.
So who do you think gets action on their agenda the first week? We’ve got a lot to learn from those ladies (and gents)…
afrolito
@rigs:
“Obama bubble bursting, he better do SOMETHING soon for gays or he’ll really lose them.”
Lose them where? The republicns are waiting with arms wide open i’m sure.
Sam
Queerty: I have a question. If we get hate crimes passed this year (as seems to be happening) and ENDA (as they’re gearing up to do), are you going to keep bashing Obama as a turncoat to the geighs because he hasn’t fixed DADT yet?
I’m just wondering, because your fixation on DADT as the litmus test for Obama’s geigh lovin’ is starting to seem odd.
timncguy
@afrolito: lose them to apathy and staying home instead of voting. lose their dollars when they come looking for donations.
Cam
@Sam:
Exactly, look at when things changed and when they didn’t.
Before Stonewall gays in New York were arrested and bars raided constantly for men and women dancing with people of the same sex. After Stonewall that stopped. In the 80’s Act-Up got change by being loud and pushing for the fast tracking of medications etc…
for the last 20 years we have sat back and been good little boys and girls, never yelling and letting HRC sit back, take our money and hold cocktail parties. HRC even tried to get several of the first couples suing for marriage rights to drop their cases. Well what happened? those loud pushy couples who sued got us marriage rights in MA. and got us in the newspaper for their case in Hawaii which almost got us the rights. In the last few months we now have several states that allow gay marriage and ENDA and Hate crimes actually were brought up in Congress instead of just lying dormant. I don’t know if HRC will EVER get the memo that having back slapping lunches has not worked. Then again, if we ever got full rights they would all be out of a job, so maybe they prefer things the way they are.
Lee
Excuuuuuse us, Sam, but other than gracing us with his signature on the bills IF hate crimes and ENDA pass, how would that prove that His Holiness still deserves our love and devotion?
He didn’t just promise to sign the bills, he promised to
“place the weight of my administration behind the” the passage of the hate crimes bill and ENDA. A quality signing pen weighs only around 3 ounces. Promises unfulfilled [so far].
DADT is getting so much attention because (1) that is the issue about which he has so much direct interim control as Commander-in-Chief, (2) about which representatives of his administration have commented about the most since he took office, and (3) about which he gave the most detailed promise about what he would do, as quoted above.
If he won’t follow his own step-by-step plan for eliminating it, it’s reasonable to believe that his silence/inaction on the other issues suggests he’s shelved all his gay promises behind the Puppy Chow.
Alec
@Lee: While I agree that the signs coming out of the administration are troubling (i.e., it looks like they are backing off on DADT a bit and haven’t formulated a plan or gotten the military leadership on board), it simply isn’t the case that the law is clear on his “direct interim control” as commander in chief.
sparkle obama
@HM:
>>Some people are just more anti-Obama than they are pro-equality.<<
thank you. this is the inconvenient reality that will come back to haunt crypto-r*cist gay & “teabag” obama haters alike.
that’s why they get so het up and sputteringly profane, because they know as well as we do that the day is coming when they will run out of gay-specific “rationale” for refusing to support Our president.
sorry for the word salad, but you get my meaning.
haters are out of style & a shame for the gays.
sparkle obama
@Sam: @Sam:
say it louder.
gays must do better!
sparkle obama
@timncguy:
>>lose them to apathy and staying home instead of voting.<<
oh, give me a break.
don’t blame president obama for gay “apathy”!
timncguy
@afrolito: PLease excuse me if I’m wrong on this, but aren’t you the same person who claimed in another thread that JOhnson signed the civil rights legislation into law because “the country was ready for it then”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of the country was against Johnson signing civil rights legislation.
So, pardon me if I don’t take your opinions too seriously since you have problems with accuracy about history when trying to bolster your points.
Bruno
@afrolito:
There are other options. Not that I’m saying the LGBT community should do one thing or another, but not voting Democrat doesn’t automatically mean voting Republican.
Lee
Repeating part of my response to you, Alec, in another thread:
Per Palm Center Executive Director Aaron Belkin in Monday’s New York Times:
“A forthcoming study by experts in military law, sponsored by the Palm Center, shows that President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality. The law requires that the military discharge service members found to be gay. But nothing requires the military to reach such findings. The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.”
Laws don’t have to be “clear” for a courageous leader to challenge them. Look at the endless accusations of Constituional overstepping being hurled at him regarding his economic plans…telling the auto companies who they can hire…whether they’ll file bankruptcy…what rates credit card companies can charge…ad infinitum.
This one would not even be controversial with the public with at least 56%, and up to 81% of the American public saying they believe DADT should be dumped.
What would the minority who do going to do? Join Elaine Donnelly in dumping tea at the front gates of West Point?
AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN….in OBAMA’S OWN WORDS:
“ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS LEADERSHIP.”
But a closer look at the absurdity of some of YOUR words….”it looks like they are backing off on DADT a bit”…”a bit”?…A BIT???? makes me begin to doubt the innocence of your legal questions and suspect an intention to distract.
I apologize if I’m wrong, but the fact remains, forgive the cliche but in law as in everything else…”nothing ventured nothing gained.”
At least 56%, and up to 81% of the American public would back him in a confrontation with Congress as they believe DADT should be dumped.
Alec
@Lee: I will gladly read their analysis, but I didn’t go to law school so I can defer to their conclusions.
Except Congress didn’t pass a bill stating that the Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations prohibiting interference in employment and business decisions of corporations that accept government bailout funds. Quite a difference.
Alec
@Lee: And by the way, accusations of bad faith simply end discussions. I’m not accusing you of bad faith, please refrain from doing the same.
Lee
Again, necessarily cross-posting:
The Palm Center’s Belkin posted a subsequent brief commentary on the NYT “debate,” he reminds that there is precedent for ignoring DADT in the application of “Stop-loss.”
In fact, ignoring the earlier ban on gays in the interests of the country’s defense goes all the way back to WWII. It was applied again during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf 1 and today.
Since 9/11, the Pentagon, who report to the President, acted on their own to ignore a law Congress had passed. That is the same kind of umbrella under which Nathaniel Frank and Aaron Belkin and others suggest Obama act: national security.
And the case can be FACTUALLY made, both generally in terms of the difficulties maintaining adequate troop strenth the military is having that has forced them to lower physical, mental, and legal standards for service [more and more are being inducted who have felony convictions] AND specifically in terms of the shortage of Arab language speakers when several gay linguists have been discharged.
As Knights Out’s Daniel Choi, now being discharged, reported:
“On Monday, September 10th 2001, a message was intercepted by the State Department: ‘tomorrow is zero hour’. Despite its simplicity, nobody was able to translate it. Any of the dozens of linguists already discharged for being gay at the time would have done so easily.”
Raise your hand if you think Obama would fail at rubbing THAT in Congress’s face?
afrolito
@timncguy:
I stand by what I said in this thread, and the other one. If gays don’t want to support Obama, fine. Let them take their pink dollars and support the GOP. Staying home and not voting works pretty well too.
Sam
@Lee: I think his open letter to our community, in which he basically said he would work to pass our entire agenda except marriage (which he only wants to help a little by repealing DOMA), should get him a little longer honeymoon than what you’ve given him. I mean, it’s not like he’s affirmatively fucked us, like Clinton did with DADT and DOMA.
Here’s the thing: if he actually does abandon us, I will be the first person in line calling for his defeat. Lord knows I was with Bubba (Nader ’96, baby!). I’m already annoyed that he hasn’t signed an executive order expanding employment protections for federal workers and contractors. But to call him out for not pushing to repeal DADT in his first 100 days in the midst of a global economic crisis, wars in two countries and trying to fix the horrifying international standing of our country that Bush left behind just seems a little…unreasonable.
If Obama affirmatively fucks us, he’ll lose me. If we don’t get the executive order and one piece of pro-LGBT legislation this year (like a hate crimes or ENDA), he’ll lose me. But I’m not going to jump off the plane just because take off was a little bumpy. To assess his Presidency’s impact on LGBT rights, he’s gotta have some more of the Presidency first.
So, since I’ve outlined what Obama could do to lose me, can you outline what he could do to win you over? How much would he have to do for you to say “oh, I guess he’s doing okay.”
ask ena
@Bruno:
umm…for all intents and purposes, we live in a two-party republic, at least as far as voting for the president is concerned. While I would love to have a green or socialist party with some credibility in this day and age, the only thing voting for a third party accomplishes is to take a vote away from the runner up.
I still say Obama is as political as the best of them, and I mean that in a good way. I think he is waiting for the GOP to completely implode, and who knows what he/we can accomplish then?
tavdy79
When Labour swept to power in the UK twelve years ago one of their campaign pledges was marriage equality. Eight years later we got Civil Partnerships.
Obama said he’ll repeal DADT and DOMA. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Lee
Sam, I don’t know what you mean saying, in this context, Clinton “affirmatively fucked us.” If you mean he chose to sign DADT and DOMA when it would have been just as easy “politically” not to, you’re wrong. He shouldn’t have, but both circumstances were more complicated than that, particularly DADT which was complicated enough that there are at least half a dozen books on it.
While I remain emotionally moved by the sigificance of a man of color having finally broken the Presidency ceiling; remain in agreement with almost every one of his other decisions; the point is that the wise focus more on the parallels with the past than the promises of the present.
There are a variety of opinions about what Clinton should or should not have done in relation to DADT; while the evidence contradicts them, a few even believe that he was never serious about overturning the existing ban.
Everyone but they agree about one thing: Clinton squandered the acclaim he rode into office on and lost the moment he delayed, and amplified it with his ill-advised subsequent choices. Again, Nathaniel Frank:
“Politically, Obama has chosen a strategy of ‘wait and manage’: hope the issue doesn’t come up, and diffuse it when it does. This approach appears to come from taking the wrong lesson from the Clinton years. Many see Clinton’s error as coming out too soon on gays in the military, guns blazing, without laying the groundwork by consulting with military brass. But it’s a myth that Clinton moved too quickly and didn’t consult the military. The new president met with the Joint Chiefs right after both the election and his inauguration. They just didn’t like what they were hearing, so they balked. Clinton’s resolve weakened. He called for a 6-month ‘study period’ that allowed the opposition to rally and fester. Underestimating the resistance, Clinton assigned inexperienced, junior aides to manage the issue. In the end, a dressed-up gay ban was locked into place for years to come.”
Second, the excuses and further promises of those speaking for Obama are another direct parallel to 1993. Anyone reading former Gay Best Friend of Clinton David Mixner’s “Stranger Among Friends” breaks out in goose bumps at how much his description of repeated assurances by Clinton’s reps not to worry, don’t protest, it’s going to happen, trust us, trust us, trust us sound identical to what Obama’s peeps are saying to Joe Solmonese and other “gay leaders” now.
And for all the negative parallels, there are positive differences that make Obama’s paralysis all the more foreboding:
As popular as Clinton was with the general public upon taking office, Obama is even more so. Despite all the noise and tea bagging and grandstanding, despite having grabbed Capitalism, shaken it, and thrown it over his shoulder, her remains hugely popular, so much so that he has the luxury, so far, of continuing to do it. For all the early nonsense about bipartisanship, reaching across the aisle, he’s essentially said to the Repugs, “I’m gonna fuck you and there’s nothing you can do about it.” And I’m glad he has.
Further, there’s an even greater positive difference now than in 1993. Since then, the majority of Americans have come to support opening the military to out gays…and the number supporting every other gay advance, save marriage equality has grown, too. All, save M.E., a majority.
Simultaneously, while still a powerful threat, the Antigay Industry which helped Gen. Rectum Powell hold Clinton down while Sam Nunn dry fucked him, has weakened. Falwell’s and the lesser-known but extremely influential and no less ruthless Rev. James Kennedy are dead. Dobson hasn’t entirely given up hurling fire and brimstone but is officially retired. Sam Nunn and fellow antigay coconspirator Bob Dole, along with others homohaters have retired. Iraqi WMD Powell loses more credibility each time he opens his mouth, and Bob Barr, tho retired, is outright calling for repeal.
BUT, again, we don’t have the luxury of waiting because the Repugs could take control of at least one of the houses of Congress next year as they did away from Clinton in 1994.
So, there has never been a better time RIGHT NOW to at least TRY to advance gay rights at the federal level.
When he was elected, I imagined that Obama could succeed in convincing Congress to pass ENDA and hate crimes and DADT repeal, while skeptical about federal DOMA repeal.
We can judge Obama after the fact one way or another. One could be, “He tried as hard as he could. He repeatedly used the bully pulpit, his charisma, the Internet, political favors, applied as President the attention and eloquence to gay equality that he did in the campaign.”
But the indisputable fact is the opposite. He’s dropped the ball, and left the court, the coliseum.
Lee
PS: another parallel, an another chilling one, is that one of the most vicious obstacles to gay rights [probably primarily because of political expediency] was Clinton’s White House advisor Rahm Emmanuel. He barred David Mixner from the WH when Mixner dared publicly criticize Clinton’s DADT failure.
Where is he now? He’s Obama’s White House Chief of Staff.
Adam
The Wall Street bailout argument loses me, Queerty. He got that done overnight because the entire country was ready to storm DC if they didn’t pass something. Kind of a different situation here: plenty of Representatives in Congress feel mighty comfortable ignoring this, as far as their constituents are concerned.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about pushing hard for this change. But let’s also talk about calling our Representatives and Senators, building an ever more powerful PR campaign, etc. While Barack is certainly in the driver’s seat on this one, we can’t pin this all on a dude who’s been in office for a few months.
naynay
EVEN IF OBAMA HANDS YOU GUYS MARRIAGE ON A SILVER PLATTER TODAY YOU WILL STILL HATE HIM. SO WHATS THE POINT. EVEN IF OBAMA HAS A BEER WITH HANNITY, HANNITY WILL STILL SPEW OBAMA HATE ALL DAY SO, WHATS THE POINT. SAME DIFFERENCE. MONTH#3 AND YOU WOULD THINK ITS YEAR #3. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT OBMA WILL CHANGE THIS CRAZY POLICY THAT CLINTON STARTED. MOST OF US BELIEVE THAT.HE IS JUST NOT MOVING AT THE PACE WE WANT. WELL WE ARE NOT THE CENTER OF HIS UNIVERSE!
Zakyluv
@naynay: we may not all be at the center of his universe and we may need to wait. He is helping us either way and its the IMPATIENT IMPOTENT GAYS who give patient decent hardworking gays like muah a bad NAME. I did not vote for Obama because i knew he was a liar. i RECORDED his speeches and they all lied. If anyone dares argue please feel free to email me at [email protected].
Mike
This says it all:
The Fierce Urgency Of Whenever
http://bit.ly/2kA3kw