President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign last night and re-declared his opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But wait a minute: he’s commander in chief. If he’s opposed, why doesn’t he actually do something about it?
Here’s one issue where conservatives with their traditional concern for the military can outbid the all-talk president.
As former JCS Chairman General John Shalikashvili pointed out in the Washington Post, scant evidence exists that allowing openly gay enlistment would harm unit cohesion or spark mass resignations from our fighting men and women. Other countries, including the Israeli Defense Forces, have allowed homosexuals to serve, with no serious adverse effects. It’s tough to argue that the ban on open gay service is much different from the Briggs Initiative from 1970’s California which sought to ban gay and lesbian teachers from the classroom. Ronald Reagan was against kicking out gay teachers, and his intellectual heirs ought to be against kicking out gay soldiers.
Besides, I can think of only a few things more fitting than for a homophobic radical Islamist in Afghanistan to discover that his latest plans for a terrorist attack were foiled because of the quick work of a gay member of our armed forces.
Increasing numbers of Americans are embracing gay marriages and civil unions. Earlier this year, I wrote that younger voters of all colors are embracing a society that is more tolerant of gay rights, and I have no doubt that an anti-gay stigma dissuades many younger voters from supporting Republican candidates, particularly those who are solidly on the anti-gay marriage side. Additionally, as FF editor David Frum continues to point out, there are more college educated Americans in this country than ever before. A recent Pew survey returned disheartening results for advocates of a traditional marriage only policy: high school graduates and dropouts oppose gay marriage 59-32, but college grads support marriage equality by a margin of 49-43. (Another reason why President Bush was wise to leave out anti-gay marriage rhetoric from a college commencement address.)
Obama speaks. Republicans can do.
25 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Oct 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Do you believe that Obama should unilaterally void § 654 of Pub.L. 103-160, ignoring the law as written by Congress and signed by Clinton?
Second question – do you think that this issue is so important that Obama should be heavily lobbying Congress to amend Pub.L. 103-160?
2 Obama: Pro-Gay Talk, but No Action // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm
[...] New Majority contributors Zac Morgan and Jeb Golinkin weigh in on the President’s speech. Morgan argues that the GOP should take the lead on ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” and [...]
3 sinz54 // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm
balconesfault:
Whether a POTUS can refuse to enforce a law he doesn’t like raises some tough constitutional questions about separation of powers, that have never been fully resolved.
http://tinyurl.com/yj4bgnu
Usually, you liberals were against Chief Executives who refused to live within the strict letter of the law (Nixon and Watergate, Bush’s controversial signing statements policy). Now all of a sudden, you want a liberal POTUS to employ nullification??? For Obama to void a law isn’t all that different from Nixon violating a law.
I know that’s what you would like to see happen with that particular law–but Obama doesn’t want to do something that could be construed as unconstitutional either. Neither one of us is a constitutional lawyer. Obama has probably been told by his advisers that he may not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally void laws. Nixon would have loved to have had that authority.
4 balconesfault // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Sinz – right here, it seems like the conservative (Morgan) is the one blaming Obama for not nullifying the law (which is consistent with Republican support for Bush’s lawlessness).
I personally believe that Obama is doing exactly the right thing by putting the ball in Congress’ court.
5 rbottoms // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I needed a good laugh this morning. The Republican party, champion of Gay rights. That’ll happen right around the time that Hell experiences that famous temperature drop.
The GOP is and will continue to be the party of poisonous gay bashing, hysterical homosexual panic, and home of toe tapping closet queens it has always been.
6 A Ku Indeed! » Archive // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:21 pm
[...] I’m interested in what their notion of a ‘new conservativism’ would amount to), Zac Morgan takes Obama to task (surprisingly) for not doing more about gay rights (specifically, regarding “Don’t Ask, [...]
7 sinz54 // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm
balconesfault:
I stand corrected.
I thought you wanted Obama to nullify that section of the law.
I agree that it’s Congress’ job to decide what to do about it.
The current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is both hypocritical and stupid. But General Shalikashvili’s argument is incorrect. The Israeli Defense Forces have a military draft. All young men must serve, regardless of their personal feelings or religious beliefs about serving with gays.
Whereas the U.S. has an all volunteer army. Surveys have shown that devout Christians are disproportionately represented in our military–they chose military service voluntarily. How they will feel about serving with gays, I don’t know. We can only hope they’ll grin and bear it, as they grin and bear a lot of other aspects of military life. It’s a soldier’s right to complain, you know.
OTOH, Blue State liberals–who are the ones agitating for lifting the ban on gays in the military–are underrepresented in the military. They think they know what’s best for the military. But they wouldn’t be caught dead serving in it.
8 rbottoms // Oct 11, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Seems to apply to conservative commentators from the 101st Chairborne, 5th Chickenhawk Battalion as well. Their stalwart members include David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and a host of warmongering cowards who have been unable to find their way to the recruiting offices of any major service.
No one of those flag waving super-patriots have ever worn a uniform nor will the vast majority of the College Republicans sitting on their ample butts as they press for larger tax breaks for the rich and do nothing for vets like myself or those currently serving.
The Army has and will always have a large share of homosexuals willing to fight and die for their country and all they ask is for their sexual orientation not be a barrier to openly honoring their pledge. The toughest military in the world, the Israeli Army, somehow manages to have gays in their foxholes.
Funny that the world’s superpower can’t seem to handle it.
9 SFTor1 // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:09 am
My experience with military service tells me that people who serve together develop understanding and respect for each other. I came out with great respect for all I served with, including gay members of our outfit.
Maybe that’s what conservative christians fear.
10 greg_barton // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:42 am
Hey, rbottoms, let’s not forget the grandaddy of all chickenhawks, Dick Cheney.
11 Kevin B // Oct 12, 2009 at 5:45 am
greg_barton and r_bottoms, “chickenhawk” can also refer to an older man who is sexually attracted to young men (though maybe it’s not used that way any more).
I think “Warmongering Cowards” is a great description, though. It could be the name of a band.
12 David Frum // Oct 12, 2009 at 7:08 am
[...] Obama to Gay Rights Activists: Keep Waiting New Majority – PeopleRank: 15 – 18 hours ago …David Frum continues to point out, there are more college educated Americans in this country than ever before. A recent Pew survey returned disheartening results for advocates of a traditional marriage only policy: high school graduates and dropouts… Cited people : Ronald Reagan + vote [...]
13 sinz54 // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm
rbottoms:
Israel has a military DRAFT.
They force all Israeli men to serve, regardless of their personal feelings about serving with gays.
Would you like to try that solution here in America?
14 DFL // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:01 pm
As this site is supposed to further a conservatism that can win again, it is readily apparent that there are no votes for conservatives in supporting homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military and homosexual rights to adopt. San Francisco, Manhattan or Dupont Circle homosexual lefties are not going to switch their votes to Republican just because a Republican votes the way the left wants him on homosexual issues.
Although I would agree that America’s youth is more tolerant on homosexual issues than older Americans, this is primarily caused by 1) indoctrination of the public schools and 2) the desire of youngsters to be “with it” or “cool.” As they age I am confident their views will mature.
15 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Sinz wrote: “They force all Israeli men to serve, regardless of their personal feelings about serving with gays.”
Doesn’t the fact that we have an all-volunteer military suggest that only those who are unwilling to serve alongside gays will simply not join?
Also, what is the rationale for treating those who do not want to serve alongside gays more favorably than we treated those who did not want to serve alongside blacks?
16 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:14 pm
dfl wrote: “San Francisco, Manhattan or Dupont Circle homosexual lefties are not going to switch their votes to Republican just because a Republican votes the way the left wants him on homosexual issues.”
Maybe not, but maybe homosexuals in Idaho and Florida who are more comfortable with GOP gays such as Larry Craig and Mark Foley might switch their votes.
17 greg_barton // Oct 12, 2009 at 10:45 pm
dfl:
That’s just the stated reason for this site. I’m thinking it’s either a fishing expedition for strategies to peel off moderate voters or an attempt to sew ideological chaos. (Or both, of course.)
18 DFL // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:55 am
Mr. Barton, I think you are correct, more so on your first point on peeling off moderates (a legitmate reason, I would agree) than the second. Moreover, I believe Mr. Frum is anti-Christian.
19 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 9:34 am
spartacusisnotdead:
A recent poll by Army Times suggests that’s about 10% of the soldiers currently serving. So unless society’s attitudes change, we’re looking at a 10% cut in the size of our army.
You can already envision the attack ads the GOP will make with that: “Obama cuts our army by 10% in the middle of two wars….”
20 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 9:38 am
rbottoms:
Doesn’t matter.
There aren’t enough of them to even make up one battalion. We have an army of one million men.
In our army as it exists today, those much-derided Christians from the Red States make up the bulk of our troops serving. Blue State liberals are practically nonexistent.
21 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Sinz wrote: “A recent poll by Army Times suggests that’s about 10% of the soldiers currently serving. So unless society’s attitudes change, we’re looking at a 10% cut in the size of our army.”
Maybe 10% of the soldiers will leave, although I suspect that someone who is prepared to quit his/her job rather than work alongside a gay person probably doesn’t have the skills and intellect to fair very well in this economy. Consequently, they may choose to remain in the military.
I would also suspect that there is a significant number of people who have not joined the military b/c of its stance on gays. Those people seem more thoughtful and intelligent to me than those who would rather quit than serve alongside gays. Leaving aside the cost of training and turnover, this seems like a good trade to me.
Lastly, I don’t have any numbers on it, but I would guess that the percentage of soldiers that said they would quit rather than serve alongside blacks was higher than 10% and both the country and the military were/are better off because of an integrated military.
22 greg_barton // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:22 am
Seriously, dfl? What makes you think that Frum is anti-Christian?
23 greg_barton // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:27 am
sinz:
Really? Is that why 44% of the military voted for Obama? Heck, even 41% of them voted for Kerry in 2004. Seems like an odd definition of “practically nonexistent.”
24 me // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:06 am
More people need a fresh look at so many of these Gay Rights issues. I like this link. This guy has it right and the right should listen to this guy:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/06/i-changed-my-mind-on-gay-marriage/
25 rbottoms // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The facts to back up this assertion exist… where? When I served we had quite a few Muslims, Jews, and more than a couple of Atheists and Wiccans to go along with your oppressed Christians.
Any proportionality in favor of southerners in the Armed Forces may have a lot to do with the opportunities for a careers at Walmart, riverboat casinos, and factory hog farms down in Dixie.
You must log in to post a comment.