Just give me the REAL REASON for stalling on DADT

[TonyMontana]

Somebody, anybody, just give me the real reason. I don't buy for a SECOND Obama's excuse that they need to end DADT in an "orderly fashion". According to all the articles I've read so far, that's what I'm reading. Obama is trying to get the law passed through the Senate, but it's been declared unconstitutional already, so what's the problem?

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how all this nuanced legal stuff works. What I do know is that the excuse their giving just doesn't fly at all.

[emulatorloo]

1. See this post, it makes some sense

The thread basically asks the same question as you do, there are several responses on different sides.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9361041#9361117

nadinbrzezinski

<QUOTE>

The military will have to make crystal what this new way of life means. It might also require (it does in fact) the full rewrite of art. 135. If this is not rewritten it goes back to the ante, which meant jail time for gay troops before discharge. That is what it means when they say planning.

You asked an honest question, this is the cliff notes of what they need to do regardless how it is repealed. Read the filing, DOJ is saying we want to get rid of this, and yes they're already working on that rewrite, so to me it looks motions and yes preparation.

Honest question have you ever served in a military or para-military organization? If you have think back to all those rules and regulations that don't apply on the outside.

<QUOTE.

[DevonRex]

12. Yep. Repealing DADT without doing away with art. 135 means jail for GLBTs

in the service. This is a very tricky situation.

[Tesha]

24. That would be true if the judge's order had merely ruled DADT unconstitutional.

But she went much farther than that, effectively tossing
out all of the military's strictures against homosexuals.

Tesha

[joeybee12]

26. Exactly!

People are really grasping at straws here.

[DevonRex]

31. Ah. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

29. Nonsense, there is now a judge's ruling on this issue which

changed everything and let's see what happens the next time they try to discriminate against a gay soldier.

Her ruling together with an Executive Order to stop the dismissals while Congress gets its act together, would have effectively ended this vile policy.

We are being lied to, again. And the excuses are so transparent that only someone who thinks more of a single politician's reputation than the Civil Rights of American citizens would buy into those reasons.

If this George Bush doing what this WH is doing, there would be outrage here on this board. Sick to death of the millions of excuses we get every time this administration does what a Republican administration would do. Like Offshore Drilling eg.

There was a perfect opportunity to stop this prejudice and to stop feeding the hate, and once again, it was blown. Shame on them.

[Raster]

2. Because we want to be nice and bipartisan with the rethuglican homophobes...

...and if the truth were told, we, the Democrats, have our own homophobic contingent that is very uncomfortable with LGBT persons. The repeal of DADT is yet another milestone on the journey to full and complete civil rights for EVERY person in this country. And unfortunately, some in this country perceive civil rights as a private perk, bestowed only on those they deem worthy and equal.

[RKP5637]

7. For a country that always brags about freedom, equality, civil rights and all, it

seems to me all I've ever heard in this country is people struggling for civil rights in a constant fight by all sorts of people for equality.

[RKP5637]

3. IMO it's all about politics and close to the midterms. Also, from what I've seen,

this admin does not like upsetting conservatives too much thinking being careful will somehow win conservative votes. I guess what I keep wondering is how anyone thinks they will get congressional approval if the R's make significant strides in the midterms. My gut feel is this is going to remain in limbo for sometime.

[AtomicKitten]

4. It's more complicated than some here think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102100569.html

[treestar]

8. Or emote. I don't see much thinking going on here

We've been explaining this for days, and all we get is more outrage and more shallow "research" and more insults that we are the stupid ones.

And this is the way to get people to help advocate for you, apparently. After all the whining about "insulting the base!" I guess the "base" insulting us and our intelligence is OK and supposed to force us to agree with them.

[Touchdown]

10. That is because none of you are being honest.

This is not about ending DADT. For any of you, and you know it. This is about criticism of the President, and a concerted effort to silence it, which you have joined.

[Dawgs]

11. WTF! Are you serious?

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

13. Give it up. You're not fooling anybody.

Dissent is unpatriotic. Criticizing the President is treason. We get the message. Move along.

[joeybee12]

27. Actually, it's much simpler than people here want to believe...

but then we would be committing heresey, wouldn't we?

[kenny blankenship]

5. The military will not draw up plans to adapt until *forced to* by changed law

(this much has been made obvious & indisputable by the present episode, whatever your take on DADT)

By NOT having made the plans, they can always plead "but we can't do this in an orderly way! You're hurting us, you unfair, rash, gay librul meanies - waaaaah!!!"

Not "being ready yet" is one way they seek to resist equality - if possible forever. Passive-aggressive stall tactics won't work forever, but that won't stop liars and homophobes from trying.

The military is not the only party whose bad faith has just been revealed. Obama has been President two years and he has plainly not instructed the military to get ready for this, as evidenced by their squealings about "enormous consequences" and panicky warnings about segregated barracks, etc. His own ostensible policy goal is repeal - and yet he never told the military to get ready for it? Neither the Pentagon nor the President are credible or sincere in this matter. Nor are they due any deference from the judiciary or citizens who believe in the Constitution's guarantee of equal civil rights.

[treestar]

6. Why shouldn't it be done in an orderly fashion?

Is this how you approach every problem in life? Take the short cut and deal with the consequences later (and probably complain about them too, and blame others for it).

[TheKentuckian]

17. Interesting argument from a "fix it later" true believer.

Real and present harm is being done to actual fellow citizens. Immediate remedy is right and necessary.

There has been more than enough time to research how the rest of the modern world made this work and adapt reasonable new policies.
You would permit this forever as long as someone pretended they were on the case.

[Touchdown]

9. I don't know what his reasons are, but I do know

... that all the justifications, the ridiculous legal readings, silly circumlocutions and weak arguments are not about DADT or the legalities of it here on DU. Those are all red herrings. It never has been about "pragmatism" and political reality on this site.

[elocs]

14. Real or not, it's pretty clear you will reject any reason given. n/t

[treestar]

16. Got it!

There is no attempt to understand, and in fact a desire not to.

[elocs]

20. It's simply an observation that any reason or explanation will be rejected out of hand.

Then I see the argument given by those who support the OP's viewpoint that to believe otherwise is an attempt to quash any dissent or criticism of the President.

Interesting. So they take the opposing viewpoint, or simply the explaining viewpoint, and define it and make it into what they want it to be. That way the strawman can be nobly knocked down and ridiculed so only one viewpoint is acceptable.

So we have:
1. The President's position on DADT and the action of the Justice Department.
2. Any explanation or reason given for that apparent dichotomy is actually an attempt to put down criticism of the President and that is anti-Liberal.
3. Therefore, to give and explanation or reason for #1 means you are anti-Liberal.

How may one ever argue with such impeccable logic?

[Touchdown]

23. And the sleight of hand circumlocutions continue.

Bravo! "These are not the droids you are looking for."

[Spazito]

18. Exactly! n/t

[Touchdown]

19. I haven't seen any real reasons yet.

"We hate you for dissing The President" isn't in your bag of excuses... and that's the only thing that's true.

[elocs]

21. So, you are the decider of what is acceptable as "real".

I wondered who that was and I yield to your obviously superior intellect.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

30. So what is the real reason for blowing this historic

opportunity to finally grant Civil Rights to American citizens? Are you FOR the many dismissals of good soldiers who pay their taxes just like you do, just because of their sexual orientation that will now continue to take place thanks to this WH, and which HAD been stopped and could have remained stopped for at least two more years, IF we had a WH that had some spine?

You KNOW what you would be saying if George Bush had repealed a judge's decision to stop an anti-Constitutional law from continuing to victimize decent American citizens. I know what would be going on here if this decision had been made by Bush.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. You can't upset the wee sensitive bigots or they'll say bad thing about us liberals.

:scared:

[joeybee12]

28. Obama ia afraid of the military brass...

it's why we're still in Afghanistan, also.

[QC]

32. Wow! Sometimes the truth still gets said. n/t

[krawhitham]

36. no he is afraid of losing all independents

If it goes through the senate that is the proper way to do it.

If he signed a executive order rethugs will frame it as Obama bypassed the checks and balances of government, remember the only reason monkey boy won was because of all the anti gay marriage laws being voted on at the state level and that drove repucks numbers WAY up at the polls

Now I have a question, before DADT, LGBT were not allowed in the military and they actively tried to find out if people serving were LGBT. If they were, they were discharged. If a Judge strikes down DADT don't we go back to witch hunts? We need the senate to approve LGBT in the military not a judge to just remove DADT

[joeybee12]

37. Um...I don't know what to say to such incoherence...but I'll try...

so, when 80% of the public supports ending DADT, this will piss off Independents HOW?

And since this is the "right" way to do this, I guess you mean that when the Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances, they were just kidding.

[laughingliberal]

38. No, it doesn't go back to the policy before DADT. It would follow Phillips' decision & injunction.

There has also been case law since the passage of DADT that asserts a right to privacy for LGBTQI people.

[KG]

33. it deprives the prez of a rose garden photo op.

face it, the loyalists don't give a fuck about gay rights. they're pissed coz the courts outflanked their hero.

[ruggerson]

34. He's an overly cautious politician who made a deal with the military on this

That's a large part of it. It is the reason Obama andn Gates stripped out the anti discrimination language that was in "pre-compromise" drafts of the legislation. He has been catering to how the military wants to approach it.

Secondarily, it plays well politically to some in the religious community not to be seen as an overly zealous advocate of LGBT equality.

[krawhitham]

35. It has to pass Senate and Rethugs blocked it from coming to the floor