Obama Certifies Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Via CBS News:

President Obama on Friday signed a certification of Congress' repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning gay men and women from serving openly in the military, setting the stage for the Clinton-era policy to be formally abolished on September 20, 2011. The policy will not be formally abolished until September 20 because the legislation passed by Congress late last year requires a 60-day waiting period between the certification by Mr. Obama and military leaders and full repeal.

...Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen also certified that the military was prepared for repeal to be implemented.

< The Wrong Moment For A Moderate Conservative President | Affidavits the Public Shouldn't Be Reading >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fantastic news. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Tony on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:21:21 PM EST
    Equality seems to be the one shining bright spot in this administration.

    Yep (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    too bad it's all being overshadowed by Obama's numerous bad policy choices.

    It's not (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:20:14 PM EST
    about him. It's about the policies. Sigh.

    A great day (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:12:15 PM EST
    A loooooooooooooooooooooooooong phucking overdue.

    Jaysus, is it ever.

    To those brave men and woman who have been serving under the wretchedly discriminatory circumstance, you earned this one, you are a credit to this nation.

    And it's nice to have a "hip-hip-hooray" for Obama.  No matter how much he did or didn't do to get us to this point, he's the CIE who signed it, and the due credit is his.

    circumstance should be POLICY (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:13:11 PM EST

    not to self: no watching golf while blogging.  


    I felt good about this, about something (none / 0) (#13)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:38:40 PM EST
    until seeing interviews with some of those brave former military who have been fighting for reform.

    And they are not happy with this, even quite angry.  Apparently -- I am not into the details on the reform aims -- there was considerable compromising (surprise).

    So I think that more needs to be known, and from the perspective of the leaders of the efforts.


    This is a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:42:16 PM EST
    Multiple effort by activists, the courts, Obama and Congress.

    It is the Chinese curse again. (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:48:40 PM EST
    "May you live in interesting times."

    There will be interesting times in the military. The activists are not happy because they didn't get the "full equal rights" package that is available in civilian life.  The military was exempted from full compliance in repealing DADT.  For example in a  Federal Building in DC or at a big Corporation Office the individuals would have a lot more latitude.

    Command in the military still has the ability to segregate, assign, maintain harmony, and discipline as it sees fit to benefit the mission even if the decisions are based on sexual preference reasons.  
    Also no EEOC. Granted they will be careful especially under this president.  

    The activists have already gotten upset in one case that was publicized where a soldier who had been away for the weekend came back and found his roommate with another soldier in the roommates bed.  When the man finally got out from the bed all he had one was his shorts.  The excuse given was that they fell asleep together in the bed while watching TV and eating Pizza.  Both the men in the bed were disciplined.  The activists got upset, but that will be the way it is.

    Men and women aren't allowed to do that, and neither will men and men, and so on.  Now I can tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep the men and women apart and to keep different sexes from fighting over each other which denigrates the mission, and the consensus is (away from the cameras of course) is that it will be even harder from now on.

    Really, (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:39:11 AM EST
    I'm very glad you're retired.

    How will we ever win (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:58:31 AM EST
    our fake wars if our soldiers don't solely think about fake T&A?!!!

    Gay people are dangerous, gyrfalcon!  That's why we only invade straight, mostly white countries!!!!

    Seriously, f*ck that gay soldier I met at the bar about 6 months ago, about to deploy to Afghanistan!  What a total asshole for wanting to talk about his life!  F*ck all those gay men and women who just want to live their lives as though they weren't putting it all on the line for their country!  What a bunch of @ssholes!  Don't you know there are a few people who might enter a "gay panic"?  I can't believe they don't consider prejudice before they make their every move.  Pure selfishness there.

    What BS.  BTW, as they used to say, and apparently still have to, here, queer, get used to it.  (also been dying a long time for freedom so...)  


    I reread it to see what you took offense at.

    I only stated:

    1. what the new law does and doesn't do.
    2. the problems we have currently with men and women serving together and the rules (current and future) that are used to maintain a military type organization on the base, on the ship, and on the field
    3. and a reasonable expectation of even more problems in the future
    4. and finally a current case.

    I never judged anyone or even made a suggestion as what should be done.

    You seem to have a problem with the reality of the situation.

    Or maybe I missed what I said wrong.  Why not point it out?


    There is a Chinese proverb (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    that says "a book tightly shut is but a block of paper".  I feel confident that the military will not only adapt successfully, but also, become enlightened through leadership, training and experience.   It is not the potential "problems" or irrationally-based fears that deserve highlights,  but rather, the  over due recognition of equality that should be celebrated.  While "jade must be chiseled before it can be considered a gem, the Chinese also say, "a man with one chopstick goes hungry."

    Your suggestion (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    that gay relationships will threaten the mission.  How many gay service members can there possibly be?  Are relationships going to threaten the mission, or is homophobia going to threaten the mission?  

    Right well (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:52:15 AM EST
    Now I can tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep the men and women apart and to keep different sexes from fighting over each other which denigrates the mission,

    let me know when Desperate Military Recruits is on, it sounds fascinating.  

    Seriously.  I don't understand.  The few gay soldiers per unit are going to somehow f*ck things up, even though they've been there for a while?

    Most of them just want the ability to openly discuss the people they love before they went to the sh!tholes our awesome government has consigned them to.

    Let's exclude women from the military, that TOTALLY fixes the "gay problem."

    Good lord.  It's about




    Good. Hope Obama's DOJ gets the (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:38:44 PM EST

    All deliberate speed (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:53:30 PM EST

    If Rachel Maddow is right, (none / 0) (#5)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    we can thank part of that "deliberateness" to the late Sen Bobby Byrd who in one of his final senatorial acts attached the ridiculous 60-day post-certification waiting period.

    The NYT also states (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    that the 60-day period owes itself to Byrd's ability to administer this legislation from the grave.  Apparently, Byrd's purpose was for a return to theCongress for a review period.  However, it is unclear, at this point, to what extent, if any, there will be a review.  But, in this political climate, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of Congress.

    I would be interested in your take, Andy, (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    on my comments/questions at ## 15 & 22.

    I gave a quick reaction (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    Meanwhile I am trying to commit the affirmative defenses to felony murder in New York to mind!

    Just remember, SODDI is not (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    an affirmative defense.  ("some other dude did it")

    heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    My criminal law class three years ago was 95% Model Penal Code. The mess that exists in the real world is much harder to keep straight.

    Likewise the New York evidence rules (as yet not codified).


    Main (secret) thing is (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    the bar exam is not really a "test" in the ordinary academic sense (other than a test of endurance); it is a rite of passage.

    My step-dad used exactly the same (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    phrase to describe it yesterday. I think there's a less charitable term: hazing. The real problem is that it also happens to be an academic test of substantive knowledge, at least half of which you do not necessarily encounter in law school (and as a consequence of that last part, I resent the extent to which it requires so much memorization, which I have always considered a lower form of learning).

    But hey, anger is better than panic, right? :D


    Luke ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:41:30 PM EST
    I am your father! And yes, anger better than panic, as Yoda said (maybe?).

    FRE 804(b)(4)(A) ;-) (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    also offered for its truth (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    I have never met your mother. Just for the record.  Cf. 35th wedding anniversary, a month away. And no winky emoticon.

    Hey, no intended implication (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:12:59 PM EST
    I look a bit like my dad anyway!

    The Sun. afternoon b/4 I took CA bar, (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:29:21 PM EST
    I talked to a guy from FL taking the attorneys' exam--not for the first time.  He kind of set me straight by saying, it isn't the end of the world not to pass the bar exam.  Pretty startling!

    Anyhow, kill it.  


    Muwhahahahahaha (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    <sn>Now the openly gay can die for the oligarchy too</sn>

    Seriously, thank you President Obama.

    Has anyone read a clear statement (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:41:24 PM EST
    that along with the repeal of DADT comes a rescission of the regulation calling for administrative separation (discharge) for engaging in "homosexual conduct" (60-page PDF; see para 8, pp 17-18)?  Or a repeal of the criminal prohibition in the Uniform Code of Military Justice on sodomy?  Until I see those confirmations, I'm not ready to celebrate.

    Everyone is supposed to be get into (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:57:19 AM EST
    trouble for having sex on the job so I expect that there will always be some wording in the UCMJ on that.  We are all only supposed to be having sex during off duty hours.  I don't think they'll have any problems changing the UCMJ though. Things that worry me is that sexual orientation will not be an equal opportunity issue, or at least that was where it stood last that I heard.

    I don't see any limitation in either (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    the DoD Directive on discharges or the UCMJ sodomy crime to "on duty" conduct.  I am concerned that the DADT repeal may be limited to the clauses allowing discharge for statements admitting homosexuality, and that it does not touch the conduct provisions.  Are you sure the net effect of the announced change is not to tell gay servicemembers they can freely "be" or "express" their sexual identities, but must not "do" or "act on" them?  That's not equality at all.

    I don't think they are setting them up (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    for failure right off the bat.  The majority of the military genuinely wants as healthy a force as we can get and sexual preference isn't that big of a deal. Nobody wants everybody's sexuality in their faces on the job, but we all know that the only way your core makes it through a really bad day in Afghanistan is via your family and those who love and care about you....your family unit.

    We will still have the homophobic in the military though, and they will discriminate on OERs and call it something else.  I already know they will.  Our problems in this area are not over.  There will remain reasons for gay soldiers to fear being outed.  And if an officer misses making promotion two years running you are out.  They are only promoting 30% right now, you have to have perfect OERs and come in above center mast probably two years to even make the cut.


    I wish I could give this my full attention (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    It might make the government's mootness arguments in the 9th Circuit case totally wrong. As Justice Ginsburg said in 2010, "[o]ur decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context." But may Congress or the military?

    I'll Give Him Props... (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    ... when he deserves them.  This was a good deed, and can only help promote equality for everyone.

    A wonderful piece of work here. (none / 0) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    Congratulations and thanks, Mr. President.