Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IS 2010 TOO LATE TO REPEAL DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL?
Under the Bush administration, record numbers of gay and lesbian service members have been discharged due to their sexual identity, even those in crucial jobs such as translating Arabic into English. Considering the discrimination inherent to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the pressing military and intelligence needs of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, shouldn't DADT be quickly repealed by the Obama administration?
That's Andrew Sullivan's position, and I'd certainly like to believe that an immediate DADT repeal would be politically feasible. Sure, the issue was a disaster for Bill Clinton in 1993, but today's America is quite different when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality; according to one poll, 75 percent of Americans now support the rights of gays to serve in the military.
Yet tackling the issue in the midst of two wars will be delicate, and there are conflicting reports on whether the Obama team plans on delaying the repeal of DADT until 2010, as the
That may be pragmatic, but it'll be little comfort to the LGBT troops risking their lives in the field right now. Just a reminder of the many tensions that are sure to play out between the incoming administration and various progressive interest groups.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (8)
IS 2010 TOO LATE TO REPEAL DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL?
Probably. I guess you could, in theory, repeal right after the midterm vote and still reap the benefits (because repealing is net political benefit after some time) in 2012.
But I still think sooner is better than later.
Posted by: ed | November 26, 2008 10:55 AM
The military? Marriage? Why is it that gays are dumb enough to want to get involved in our worst institutions?
Posted by: Shaderoba | November 26, 2008 12:06 PM
Obama's going to have to move a few HUGE programs through Congress over the next year or so: the stimulus/infrastructure program, universal health care, and climate change.
Until those three are either done deals or dead ducks, many lesser priorities of real importance will have to wait, so as to not sour the deal on those three. That's life. I don't expect to see a Net Neutrality bill in 2009. EFCA will have to wait. And so will ending DADT.
You want to say any of these things is more important than passing universal health care, or limiting climate change? You'd better have a good argument.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | November 26, 2008 12:11 PM
Clearly, there is a lot of room between (1)full, open repeal of DADT and (2)continuing to throw out good personnel. I would expect some kind of tacit non-enforcement for the time being.
Posted by: Henderstock | November 26, 2008 1:53 PM
I have never understood why we want soldiers and sailors who can't get over their heebie jeebies at the thought of serving alongside people who identify as being gay. (They already serve alongside closeted gay people.)
Shouldn't we want service personnel with greater courage and a bit more fortitude than that?
Posted by: Anita Dickens-Hyde | November 26, 2008 3:47 PM
good info. thank you for this news.
Posted by: john laptop | November 27, 2008 9:18 PM
"low-tech cyclist" thinks that ending DADT is as big of a deal as universal health care and climate change, and that we need to wait until those bigger issues are taken care of?
No way, homophobe. Gays are tired of sitting in the back of the bus. The time for change is now!
Posted by: Mark | January 11, 2009 7:19 PM
good info, Thanks
Posted by: acekard 2i | June 18, 2009 11:03 PM