Obama Proposes DADT Compromise

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:18:51 PM EST
Tags: DADT (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama has endorsed a compromise to pave the way for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Under the deal, lawmakers could vote soon to repeal the contentious 17-year-old policy, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed services; the House Democratic leaders are considering taking up the measure as soon as this week. But the policy would not change until sometime after Dec. 1, when the Pentagon completes a review of its readiness to deal with the new policy. President Obama would also be required to certify that repeal would not harm military readiness.

If it passed, the measure could clear the way for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military as early next year, ending a policy that Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, all say they oppose.

Here is the Committee Amendment that Sen Joe Lieberman is expected to introduce.

< Monday Night TV and Open Thread | Colo. Gov. Signs Bill Reducing Drug Possession Penalties >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Proposes DADT Compromise | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'd prefer an immediate end (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:22:22 PM EST

But given that there is no chance that there will not be such a certification (right?), I can support this.

Can we move on to the hard stuff now?

Green Light (none / 0) (#4)
by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:11:34 PM EST

This is going to happen, imo. DADT is not working out for the military, and most want it gone, at this point.


I agree. I would (none / 0) (#13)
by KeysDan on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:51:20 AM EST

prefer an outright repeal with implementation delayed until a date certain (the Pentagon study is supposed to be completed by the end of the year and its purpose related to implementation). The conditional repeal, with all the old saws of unit cohesion and everything except shower stuff, and certification by the president, Sec of DOD, and Chair of JCS, is worrisome but it seems to be what is still required to make it happen.


Good shot at passing (none / 0) (#14)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:01:03 AM EST

This is an ideal DC bill. It appeases the supporters of gay rights while pacifying the right wing by offering nothing other than the privelege to serve your country. What else would you expect from a bill sponsored by Lieberman.


it will hardly (none / 0) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:26:43 AM EST

appease the right wing. in any respect.


Pence (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:04:08 AM EST

On Capitol Hill, the third-ranking House Republican promised unified GOP opposition to lifting the ban. "The American people don't want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle," said Mike Pence, R-Ind.

And this surprises who? (none / 0) (#24)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:22:58 AM EST

On a scale of right wing hard liners, Pence would at least rate a nine! I'd put him right under Glen Beck.

I remember the initial debate and we were told by the Republicans that we had to listen to the military. Well I'm listening! Are Republicans? Will they be willing to defy the military leadership?


no one Im sure (none / 0) (#30)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:44:36 AM EST

was just responding to your comment about pacifying the right wing. they dont seem pacified


True (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:08:41 AM EST

I'm hopeful that the entire Republican party hasn't been over run by the Pence's of the world! I guess I'm just naive. They've taken a stance to fight any and everything that comes up.

Actually it may serve the Democrats well if the Republicans try to make an issue of this. The country has no problem with it. It may be another issue that magnifies the bigotry within the party.


: I think the repubs (none / 0) (#40)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:31:34 AM EST

are pretty unanimous in their opposition. no surprise. I saw a democrat from the house talking about this yesterday.

This is a toss up in my opinion (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:28:50 PM EST

They have thrown this into the lap of the military to make the final decision. How sad, not much of a CIC. Inspite of having McChrstyal and Petraeus and other military leaders supporting the repeal, we many other leaders claiming that it will be too much of a financial and infrastructure challenge to our military to make such a conversion at this time if ever. If they do anything, they will stick the implementation of a repeal way out there on a timeline...perhaps six years out. That way the Democrats kept their promise but the military doesn't have to implement anything that would distract them from the current mission for a very long time. And leaves the door open for the repeal to be lifted as well.


No benefits for partners allowed! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by mmc9431 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:31:53 PM EST

Yes it's a step in the right direction but a long way from where it should be.

Symbolic Victory (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:34:30 AM EST

For gays, but in many ways it's a slap in the face. Yes you'll be "allowed" to serve your country, but you'll still be a second class citizen at best. The bill specifies that it will not conflict with DOMA. I don't believe the military even acknowledges straight couples that aren't legally married.

I hope Military Tracy comments on the list of benefits that can still be denied to gay personnel.

I still don't agree with Obama that gay equality has to be done at the grass root level and work it's way up. It needs the federal government (the nations largest employer) to take the lead.

I'll sit by the window to watch for the (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Anne on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:09:54 AM EST

flying pigs, if someone else can let us know when hell freezes over...

It will be one hedge after another, with plenty of we-really-really-want-to-do-this-but...for why it can't happen.

cool (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:27:42 AM EST

we will be sure to let you know. looks like next year.


Everything's starting to look like (none / 0) (#23)
by Anne on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:17:45 AM EST

"next year," isn't it?

The solutions are always just around that next bend - or election - aren't they?

And some of them have three election cycles to go before they happen. If they happen.

Maybe it is being delayed until after the election to be the bright, shiny object that diverts attention away from the report of the Deficit (Cat Food) Commission, also due to be unveiled - in a sort of not-transparent way - around the same time.

From The Nieman Watchdog

President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year's mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accountability, the legislation will affect, in substantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.

[h/t to letsgetitdone at Corrente.


11th dimensional chess? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by CST on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:29:48 AM EST

Or maybe it's being delayed, cuz you know, that's when the military review will be done.

As it is, Gates is "lukewarm" on this proposal because it is getting the ball rolling before the review is done. The only reason he isn't "ice cold" is that it will happen after the review.

But yea, it must be because of some completely unrelated deficit commission.

Sometimes I feel like if pigs actually flew out of Obama's @ss you'd ask why they weren't unicorns.


My point, actually, was that there've (none / 0) (#35)
by Anne on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:04:58 AM EST

been any number of issues important to the regular, ordinary people, that have been delayed, postponed or back-burnered; there's always some reason why something has to be "later," except when the benefit to the power structure is greater than the possible detriment, and then it moves like lightning.

This DADT issue has been alive and kicking for some time now, but I guess what you're telling me is that there is nothing Obama can do to speed it up.

Okay, then.


the pentagon has asked for the time (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:11:19 AM EST

to finish whatever it is they are doing. you are suggesting he should just overrule them.

if he did Im sure you would have something to say about that like "Emperor Obama" or something.

this DADT thing is a big deal. I never expected it to go away in my lifetime.

I can wait until December.


Until these changes help my pocket book (none / 0) (#41)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM EST

I'm going to wait and reserve judgement until the details are finalized. The initial bill isn't encouraging. It seems like it's going to be constructed to block any chance of real equality.

I don't need the government's condescending acceptance of my relationship. I want access to pension rights, social security and all the other social and safety nets afforded straight couples.

This bill doesn't read like a path in that direction.


Does the federal government offer (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:13:16 PM EST

any benefits, such as health care coverage, to same sex partners if one partner is a federal employee?


: The State Dept (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Emma on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:45:10 PM EST

The State Department extends benefits to domestic partners.

: No comparison (none / 0) (#56)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:59:43 PM EST

There's a world of difference in clerking at the Dept. of Commerce and being in the military. You're almost an indentured servant, They own you lock stock and barrel 24/7.
How many career military people would be there if their was no benefit package for their dependants? Not many.
Just as they've realized in many companies in the private sector, if you want to retain quality people, you need to offer them an incentive.

Remind me again - who is the (none / 0) (#42)
by Anne on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:41:20 AM EST

Commander-in-Chief?

I'm not sure, but I think it's that guy, um, wait - you know, oooh, it's right on the tip of my tongue...

Obama's made plenty of decisions regarding the military, detainees, military prisons, and so on, that I absolutely do not agree with. Many of these decisions were in direct opposition to what his stated positions were.

He has a pattern of "supporting" things strongly at first, then more tepidly, then handing it off to be decided in a way that doesn't particularly involve him, and then shrugging his shoulders when it doesn't happen. Is he using the Pentagon to avoid making the decision himself? I guess we'll see.

Just because you never expected to see it repealed in your lifetime doesn't mean you shouldn't be holding accountable those who said they would make it happen.


it's not that there is (none / 0) (#37)
by CST on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:10:38 AM EST

"nothing Obama can do". Obviously he could do it faster if he wanted to but he chose to go this route with the military review.

It's more like - the simplest answer is usually the right one.


This has been dubbed (none / 0) (#25)
by KeysDan on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:27:45 AM EST

"The Cat Food Commission".


Nonetheless, a step forward (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by mcl on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:17:52 AM EST

If memory serves, 17 years ago the Pentagon opposed this kind of change with frenzied ferocity. Today the generals quietly support it.

Things are improving, albeit slowly.

no way (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by CST on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:38:29 AM EST

this isn't going to happen.

As BTD would say, pols are pols. 80% of the American public wants this, the people in charge of the military want this. They would have to be complete idiots not to do it.

: Not all military leadership wants this (none / 0) (#57)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:13:44 AM EST

And if they are going to base this on a "study", they've already looked at it and the specific housing and deployment problems this poses. My spouse says the only way to deal with it and avoid the chaos is to make all deployed housing situations and areas coed and an embraced universal standard for what constitutes sexual harrassment. The past study on what repealing DADT will cost the military to implement and cover all of its legal responsibility bases was pretty staggering. I only give this a 50/50 chance given the current deficit and it will actually take place around 2016.

You're the Commander-in-Chief (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Dadler on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:14:26 AM EST

Just do it. The military, as a thoroughly anti-imaginative institution, needs to be pushed on this issue. Push it. Get it done. You think Generals who read "Three Cups of Tea" and realized, decades after they should have, that it's the right way in these kinds of conflicts, are going to give you forward thinking policy in this area?

Just. Do. It.

There's no indication Obama proposed it (none / 0) (#3)
by gyrfalcon on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:06:32 PM EST

From what I read, this was Carl Levin's idea.

Still it's good news-- finally. Don't know why somebody couldn't have thought of this a year ago.

: The pro-appeal people have been suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by MO Blue on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:36:35 AM EST

something along this line for some time. Servicemembers United (pdf)proposed a version of this in 2009. It had "Set End-date / Delayed Implementation" which this compromise does not have. Adam Bink has post which goes into the background and difference between original proposal and current compromise.

Set end date" would set a date certain for the policy to be lifted- in the proposed case, 60 days after the review to prepare directives, and then another 60 days to implement the regulations. This "deal" does not set such a date but rather requires the President, SecDef, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to certify they have received the report and it does not adversely impact cohesion etc., then implement the new regulations scrapping the policy.

i.e. after election day (none / 0) (#5)
by diogenes on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:09:41 PM EST

"But the policy would not change until sometime after Dec. 1..."

Or, perhaps, after Hillary Clinton becomes (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:35:08 AM EST

Secretary of Defense?


: Or, Joe Lieberman (none / 0) (#11)
by KeysDan on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:42:55 AM EST

true (none / 0) (#19)
by CST on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:30:42 AM EST

it would be after the next election day.

Which is actually be worse for Dems, since 8 out of 10 Americans support the repeal. That's probab