home

Repeal the Solomon Amendment

By TChris, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:03:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The faculty and students who walk the beautiful grounds of Vermont Law School are paying a price for their principles:

The Vermont Law School is one of two law schools in the nation that bar military recruiters, as a protest against the 15-year-old rule that prevents openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military. As a result, the school is denied some federal research money — $300,000 to $500,000 a year by one outside analyst’s estimate.

Repealing the Solomon Amendment should be on the list of tasks to accomplish within the first 100 days of a Democratic presidency.

< A Thoughtful Look at the Death Penalty | Biases >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Repeal the Solomon Amendment | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The Starr inquisition (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by koshembos on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST
    The supreme court has become the Starr lynch of Clinton applied to the whole country. A bunch of stone aage thinkers are ordering us around as if we live in Victorian England.

    The American judiciary system, in general, is politically biased and socially still, mostly, in the 19th century. It's yet another reason for the US falling further behind Europe and shortly behind China.

    DADT was a compromise Clinton extracted from a military that lacks the understanding that militaries in Europe and Israel have. Powell was the leader of the military opposition to gays out of sheer ignorance and stupidity.

    It's easy to blame Clinton, but it might help to remember that the Democrats never supported him in anything he tried; not much different than what they did to his wife when her time to run came.

    stupid rule, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    equally stupid amendment. but then, consider the source.

    while our armed forces struggle to meet minimum recruiting quotas, our congress has diligently created roadblocks to getting well qualified people in, who desire to serve their country. instead, the army is forced to continuously lower its standards, creating an environment ripe for the next haditha.

    with these kinds of allies, the military needs no external enemies.

    Better yet... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:00:15 PM EST
    ...force a repeal of DADT and the issue is moot.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST


    I love this (none / 0) (#3)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    The school has every right to protest and the government has every not to pay them to protest...

    Get rid of DADT and this is all moot. I'm not holding my breath because it was a Clinton who put this in, signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and it will be a Dem who will continue this policy as an act of political expediency.

    Let's remember our history, OK? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:53:39 PM EST
    DADT was put in in order to forestall an outright ban on gays in the military, which the Repub. Congress was getting ready to pass.

    The Bush military has made a mockery of it, but it was the best we could do at the time.

    Anybody here really think Obama would repeal it?  Donnie McClurkin anyone?

    Personally, I think since it's the straight men who freak out and cause all the problems, we should ban them and have a military entirely made up of women (gay and straight) and gay men.  Man, what a fighting force that would be!  And talk about "unit cohesion."

    Parent

    It's hard to believe now... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:57:33 PM EST
    ... but DADT was progress at the time.

    Compromises tend not to be viewed favorably in retrospect.

    Parent

    I've gotten into... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09:36 AM EST
    a lot of arguments with younger gays and lesbians over DADT. I was about 23 or so when it was passed and although it wasn't what the gay and lesbian community wanted and is antiquated now, it was indeed progress as you say.

    Today, some think Clinton hates gays and lesbians because of it. Historical perspective is sorely lacking.

    Parent

    It isn't and wasn't... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:25:30 AM EST
    ...hatred of Clinton.  His relationship with the gay community has always been mixed.  Remember, he touted DOMA in ads during his reelection campaign...and two years later he was facing impeachment for lying about extramarital sex.  In fact, when I visited D.C. shortly after the Matthew Shepard murder, he was so mired in scandal that was the talk of the town, not hate crimes legislation.  And of course, that would be when he turned to gay groups for political and financial support.

     I suspect Senator Clinton is better on gay rights and gets the issue more.  But I won't waste time on defending Bill on this one, at least not when comparing him to other Democrats who were far better.  He felt that leadership wasn't called for on this one.  

    Parent

    I am just speaking... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:40:34 AM EST
    from my experience and discussions. Maybe it's because these happened in this primary season, but there wasn't a mixed message coming out of gays and lesbians I spoke to regarding Bill Clinton. When Donnie McClurkin was mentioned, all guns turned on Bill.

    Again, that's me running in my circles.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#20)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:25:02 AM EST
    And I think it is easy to forget how despised gay people were in the 80s and early 90s.  So Bill certainly took some risks.  I won't deny that.

     But overall, on gay rights, Bill lost a lot of opportunities to lead.  The most pro-gay candidate we ever ran was Kerry, though, and I didn't support his candidacy in the primaries.  

     

    Parent

    Yes, lest we forget those who died of AIDS (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:22:51 AM EST
    whilst Reagan and Bush I refused to mention the word, and that's why ACT-UP and other radical Queer groups needed to take action.

    Bill Clinton was courageous in his promises kept to gays, but paid a political price.

    And yes, DADT was progress, even though it's now emblematic of institutionalized discrimination.

    Lawrence V. Texas started the real progress legally, and the recent CA decision on Same-sex Marriage is about to begin a true revolution in the courts, if trends persist.

    Parent

    Reagan... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:41:39 AM EST
    ...was no leader on AIDS, certainly.  Neither was the rather hostile Democratic Party.  

     Bill Clinton was better on AIDS policy than he was on gay rights, frankly.  And that was probably appropriate for the time.  

     Unfortunately, gay rights will proceed along the same lines as other civil rights causes...slowly.  Faster than others, certainly, but still rather slow.  The state marriage amendments will be hard to overcome and, perhaps more importantly, individual attitudes must change.
     

    Parent

    not surprising (none / 0) (#25)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:34:50 AM EST
    when any minority group moves forward, there's less need to be aware of "minority" issues and history.  I view it as three stages:

    1. Complete fear/discrimination:  as a result you're either with the group or a traitor
    2. Some progress:  individuals have additional opportunities, but will be shunned if they don't group identify
    3. Near equality:  you have significant acceptance, and only small portions of society will apply a double standard to you for not fighting the minority fight
    4. I haven't seen equality yet.

    In this case, there's a large number of people who experienced phase 1 and 2, and some people (depending on where they live and how old they are) that are nearing phase three.  As a result, understanding what's come before and what needs to be done doesn't seem as important to them--there's little pressure or encouragement to understand the fight.  i should find the huffpost by barney frank about the fights of the 90s, it's one of the better ones.

    i really shouldnt be posting a land-mine-laden comment while drunk. :P  but i've been astounded by the ignorance of some of my friends as of late.  for all the older queers i know that supported hillary for rational reasons, i got an equal dose of obama-brings-change fandom from younger folks.

    man i wish i could post anon on this site.

    Parent

    Correction: (none / 0) (#45)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    It SEEMED like progress at the time. But it started as Don't Ask, Don't Pursue meaning the military wouldn't come after you and changed to Don't Ask, Don't Tell meaning you had to actively stay in the closet.
    The fact is that discharges from the military have risen under DADT.

    Parent
    DADT was passed by a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS in 1993 (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:11:03 AM EST
    and the Congressional opposition was led by potential VP pick Democrat Sam Nunn.  To quote Wikipedia:

    "Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces was led by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive."

    Parent

    You're absolutely right, I'm wrong (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:05:30 AM EST
    It was a Democratic Congress.  It's just that they were acting like Republicans. :-)

    Parent
    Didn't Michelle Obama state Sen. Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:16:34 PM EST
    would work to get rid of DOMA and Defense of Marriage?

    Parent
    Talk is cheap (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:33:39 PM EST
    I'll believe it when I see someone actually fight for it

    Parent
    I believe... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST
    ...Senator Boxer offered to organize a filibuster back in 1993, and she was turned down.  Although she was relatively new at the time, would probably have been difficult.

     Gay rights is obviously not a priority for the Democratic Party at the federal level.  They prove it time and time again. Part of that, though, is Republican resistance.  A big part of it.

    Parent

    There was a debate question... (none / 0) (#8)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:55:32 PM EST
    ... about whether colleges and universities should be required to have ROTC programs and allow military recruiters on campus. All three candidates (Edwards was still there at the time) said yes; Clinton did hedge just a bit and said that maybe there were other ways of fulfilling their obligation.

    The question didn't mention that the reason a lot of these schools resist is the military's discrimination against gays, and none of the candidates mentioned it.

    So I'm not optimistic about this, to put it mildly. The Democratic Party is just too afraid of fighting for gay rights.

    An interesting development in CA. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:02:45 AM EST
    Sen. McCain will publicly urge passage of the ballot proposition amending CA Const. to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.  But a majority of Californians now accept marriage between same sex couples.

    Yeah I'll believe it on election day (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:07:33 AM EST
    They usually poll as closer calls than they are.

    Parent
    Guaranteed to get out the vote, I (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09:20 AM EST
    suppose.

    Parent
    The last poll I saw was (none / 0) (#31)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:12:11 AM EST
    54-39 in favor of the amendment.

    That's a consensus against gay marriage, and probably enough votes to pass the amendment.

    Parent

    I know I shouldn't post (none / 0) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:18:58 AM EST
    after I've had cocktails but when I first logged onto TL I thought it said Sodom Amendment...I was like WHOA!

    January 2008 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:49:08 AM EST
    Las Vegas debate:

    RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I'll start with you. The volunteer Army, many believe, disproportionate in terms of poor and minority who participate in our armed forces.

    There's a federal statute on the books which says that, if a college or university does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students, it can lose its federal funding.

    Will you vigorously enforce that statute?

    CLINTON: Yes, I will...

    ...I think that everyone should make available an opportunity for a young man or woman to be in ROTC, to be able to join the military and I'm going to do everything I can to support the men and women in the military and their families.

    RUSSERT: Of the top 10 rated schools, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, they do not have ROTC programs on campus.

    Should they?

    CLINTON: Well, there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation. But they should certainly not do anything that either undermines or disrespects the young men and women who wish to pursue a military career.

    RUSSERT: Senator Obama, same question.

    Will you vigorously enforce a statute which says colleges must allow military recruiters on campus and provide ROTC programs?

    OBAMA: Yes...

    RUSSERT: This statute's been on the books for some time, Senator. Will you vigorously enforce the statute to cut off federal funding to the school that does not provide military recruiters and a ROTC program?

    EDWARDS: Yes, I will...
    Is this... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:12:30 AM EST
    ...your pavlovian response to the suggestion that everyone caves on this issue? :-) I'm sorry, hard to resist.

     Your editing is hard for me to follow. You unnecessarily cut out the full responses of the other participants.  It illustrates the many problems I had with Russert's brand of journalism, certainly.  

     The answer itself, provided by all candidates, avoids the rather obvious issue: they have no obligation unless they take money from the federal government.  As VLS illustrates.  The lawsuit challenging the amendment was borderline frivilous.  

     Just curious...what does it mean if you say that "everyone" should make ROTC programs available and then, in the space of minutes if not seconds, state that there "are ways" those "obligations" can be fulfilled?  Does that mean alternatives to ROTC?

     All of this strikes me as a nonissue and, dare I say, posturing...for no apparent gain, other than avoiding media criticism.  With the exception of die hard lefties, who is attacking the presence of ROTC programs on college campuses?

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    I cut the responses of all three candidates significantly, because the whole page would have been needlessly filled.

    My point is that it would be rather silly to expect the next Democratic administration to repeal the Solomon Amendment in the first 100 days, when all three leading candidates instantaneously pledged to enforce it.  And during the Democratic primary, when you're supposed to be running to the left, no less.

    If we get rid of DADT, of course, whole new ballgame.  But I really don't expect any President to lead off with that one after what happened the last time.

    Parent

    Don't let Obama's promises get you down (none / 0) (#32)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:24:39 AM EST
    It's not like he's going to keep them.

    We all know that Obama says whatever he needs to say to win (the primaries, and now the general). He doesn't support the Solomon Amendment.  He might say he does, but he doesn't.  If the Dem-controlled Congress brings him a bill repealing that amendment, he will sign it.

    The only question is how hard the next Congress will push Sen. Obama.  We already know that he will cave completely to them.

    Parent

    by and large (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:57:49 AM EST
    I see more attacks on Clinton in this thread than I see attacks on obama.  I'm going to have to do a better job of keeping track of these things for this "Clinton cultist, obama hating" stronghold.

    Huh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:04:15 AM EST
    Shouldn't be about attacks. Should be about issues.  After all, this isn't a Clinton or Obama or McCain thread.  It is a thread about the Solomon amendment.  About gay rights.  About issues, as it were.

     Maybe you are overprotective about Clinton on this issue? I've never pretended Obama would be great on this one.  If you're willing to attack the tepidness of both candidates on this issue, that's one thing.  As it stands, you appear to only care about anti-Obama statements.  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:18:29 AM EST
    One should be responding to the issue here.

    Not astroturffing memes about the Clinton administration.

    Now.  As far as this issue is concerned I, personally, have no problem with ROTC/Military recruitment on campusses.

    Of course, colleges should retain the autonomy to say and do what they think is right.

    And, well, it's a bummer but the government is also going to retain autonomy to say where money should go.

    Except for the other more tangential observation that this seemed less of an issue back when there wasn't an unpopular war on, that's my input on the issue.

    Parent

    maybe it's just me (none / 0) (#29)
    by english teacher on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:30:57 AM EST
    but i can't really see making a first 100 days issue out of a policy that affects two law schools and involves $1 million bucks.  maybe a better way to focus on this issue would be to reinstate with full benefits and rank all the homosexual translators that were apparently not needed to fight the war on terror.  like i said, not that the bigger issue is unimportant, but the framing here seems kind of ridiculous, imo.  a policy that adversely affects research money for two law schools should be addressed in the first 100 days of the next admin?  why not submit a f!%&ing balanced budget?  could we at least get obama to say he plans to do that (arguably) more important little bit?  

    Sam Nunn imposed it in the first 100 days (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:53:31 AM EST
    Sam Nunn thinks it was a mistake.  Maybe Nunn should be the point man on this.

    He used it during the first week of the Clinton Administation to sandbag the new president.  That's some great party unity.  Now he's sorry.
    Nunn should fix the error and publicly apologize to all the members of the service whose lives he has impacted.

    Parent

    Using Nunn as point man (none / 0) (#39)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    is an excellent idea.  Even better if he could team up with Colin Powell, the other major force in forcing DADT down Bill's throat.  But, last I checked, CP is stubbornly sticking to his antigay stance.

    One thing is certain though, it would be exceedingly unwise for a Pres Obama to squander precious political capital early on fighting a battle, and perhaps a losing one, on a small issue like the Solomon amendment.

    Clinton taught us that timing is everything in politics and also that it's probably not a good way for a CnC to start the administration by strongly and publicly going against all your military Chiefs of Staff, including the Chairman.  

    And as to reforming the military on gays, you need to have not only some key military figures on your side, preferably among the Joint Chiefs, but also the public.  That was not the case in 93, and Bill blundered on the issue and probably should have been less forceful about it in the campaign,  but times and attitudes have changed and 15 yrs later repeal of DADT is probably doable.

    Parent

    Not a mistake (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    I do not believe Sam Nunn said that either DADT or his role in its adoption was a "mistake".  Rather, he offered that a change might be considered. This comment appeared to be associated with another consideration--that Nunn be considered as a running mate for Senator Obama.

    Parent
    better yet, why not allow the (none / 0) (#30)
    by english teacher on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:35:04 AM EST
    recruiters onto campus then have all the students go pull a john winger on them?  sgt: "are either of you homosexuals"?  winger: "you mean like flaming?"  sgt:"well, it's a standard question we have to ask" ziske:  "homosexual?  no, but we are willing to learn".  after a couple days of that, i expect the recruiters might voluntarily decide to quit wasting their time.  you know, make it funny.  just a thought, anyways.  

    Wouldn't happen... (none / 0) (#42)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    ...for two reasons.

    First, the Don't Ask provision means, well, you are not allowed to ask whether a prospective recruit is gay/lesbian.

    Secondly, these days recruiters are so hard-up (pardon the pun) for recruits, they pretty much don't care who you are as long as you have a pulse (though you can probably get a waiver for that too...). Their main concern is that someone signs on the line that is dotted.

    Hell, when I signed up the recruiter evidently was thinking I was a drug user (!), judging by the number of tips on how to beat the urinalysis.

    Parent

    What to expect from the first 100 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    days:

    not much at all

    Speeches (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    We'll get speeches.

    Parent
    but not just any speeches! (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    We'll get speeches.

    we'll get uplifting, unifying speeches!

    Parent

    We will get bipartisan, (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:05:50 PM EST
    everyone love and honor the nearest Republican speeches.

    Parent
    Why hassle recruiters? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Prosecutorial Indiscretion on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    The recruiters have no say in whether or not the military lets gays in.  Harassing the recruiters isn't going to have any effect on the Solomon Amendment, and makes it easy for homophobes to claim that those who oppose the Solomon Amendment are more interested in opposing the military.

    The Solomon Amendment is plainly the responsibility of the democratically-accountable branches.  If you want to do something to undermine the Solomon Amendment, get law students to protest every member of Congress who comes to campus.  If the schools taking a stand were rational as well as principled, they'd ban members of Congress.  There's a much better chance of actually changing things if every law school faculty that's expressed opposition to the Solomon Amendment held elected officials responsible.  Taking it out on the recruiters might feel good, and let anti-military types find a seemingly principled manner to get their hippie jollies, but it's ultimately ineffective and counterproductive.

    I like that approach. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    Indeed, why not penalize Congresscritters on the basis of their voting record?

    Parent
    Repeal the Solomon Amendment | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment