Sarah Palin’s Objection to DADT Repeal is Timing

Gosh, so she’s open to it otherwise? I’ve been fascinated by the GOP reaction to the prospect of repealing DADT. Other than John McCain and Beauregard Sessions, the Republicans have been awful careful to not seem anti-gay on this one. And Palin has been the most surprising, suggesting that the biggest problem she has with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the timing:

PALIN: I don’t think so right now. I’m surprised that the President spent time on that in his State of the Union speech when he spent only about 9 percent of his time in the State of the Union on national security issues. And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the military. I think that kind of on the back burner, is sufficient for now. To put so much time, and effort, and politics into it, unnecessary.

Right, like she did the math. (Not to mention, that “throw me down the stairs my shoes” sentence: “I think that kind of on the back burner, is sufficient for now.” Would it kill the Republicans to finally elect a president half a brain?) That aside, it’s telling that one of the lead conservative presidential hopefuls for 2012 felt the need to not oppose DADT on principle, but rather to oppose the “timing” of it “now.” Great, so is Sarah Palin willing to commit to when she thinks the Congress should repeal DADT?

More at: American Blog!

Wartime is the Right Time for Rights?

There’s seems to be an ongoing debate over repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and how some (typically your conservative, gay un-friendly, Republicans) think doing so during a time when the U.S. in engaged in a war or two, would be detrimental to our national security.

There’s an interesting perspective on this debate over at L.A. Progressive. Below is an excerpt:

As the Obama Administration moves (slowly) toward repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, one argument in opposition is that the nation is at war, and fundamental changes in the military should not take place during wartime. One response to that point is that all hands are needed during heightened military deployments, and it harms American national security to dismiss trained soldiers. But there is a more fundamental reason why the argument against change during wartime doesn’t work: there is no end in sight to the war on terror. And endless war cannot be a reason for permanent stasis in military policy.

The no-change-during-wartime argument is an example of conventional thinking about war and American society. “Wartime” is imagined to be a temporary condition. It is a special kind of time. Wartime, by definition, is preceded and followed by “peacetime.” American history is thought to consist of the movement from peacetime to wartime and back again. In this conceptualization, wartimes always comes to an end.

This idea that wartime is by definition a temporary time is an essential ingredient of the argument that social change shouldn’t happen in wartime. This is presented as an argument that does not challenge change itself, but simply asks advocates of change to be patient. Change can come after the war is over.

But what if there is no end to war?

United States military deployment overseas has been on-going since at least World War II.

The last sentence in the excerpt above is what strikes me as the “a-ha” of the argument against repealing the law. To dissect that a little more, the U.S. hasn’t gone two complete decades without being involved in a “war”, counting the “police action” of Vietnam.

So what does this tell us? No startling conclusions. The whole “war-time” excuse, is exactly that…an excuse. And again, if gay and lesbian men and women are serving their country in the armed forces, why should they be denied the right to marry…or denied any other right that any other American citizen is granted?

This is just another ploy by the anti-gay right right to keep the LGBT community as second class.

Oh, and one last thing, just in case the anti-gay right wasn’t aware, gays and lesbians have been fighting for the U.S. Armed Forces since they were established.

D.C. to Hold Summit on Gays In Foreign Armies

From PR Newswire:

The Palm Center has announced plans to convene a Washington, D.C. summit of officials and experts from military forces that allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, including the Israel Defense Force and NATO member militaries. The summit, which is planned for early spring, will focus on the implementation of personnel policies for openly gay troops. British and Israeli experts have confirmed their participation.

“As military and political leaders anticipate the end of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the lessons from the twenty-five foreign forces that allow open gay service are instructive,” stated Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center. Belkin cited three questions that generally dominate the comparison: Did the decision to allow open gay service undermine military readiness? How was implementation managed? To what extent can lessons from abroad help U.S. officials plan for an inclusive policy?

More here!

Don’t Ask, Tell: Repeal DADT

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested there’s no time to debate the end of the military’s discrimination against gays because of the national backdrop of economic crisis, duo-war, and unemployment.

Curiously, I’ve never heard him complain about Congressional proposals to legislate a college sports playoff system or delaying confirmation hearings for important executive branch appointees. He didn’t appear to be pressed enough for time to forgo holidays and recess periods. Hell, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear Mitch was talking through his (ass)hat.

Yet, he’s right in one respect, we could save a lot of time… by repealing DADT now. Because of Bill Clinton’s jelly-like backbone and former Sen. Sam Nunn’s intransigence, we created the most cockamamie, stick your head in the sand abortion of a policy imaginable 16 years ago.

The premise of DADT is laughable. Essentially, the homophobes pretend there are no gays in the military while gay people in the military pretend they aren’t gay. The most common argument for this is that unit cohesion and morale would be hurt by anyone a little light in the combat boots.

What a load of crap!

Gay soldiers have existed since armies first went on the march and pretending they aren’t there is self-delusional. Some homophobes argue they are afraid gays would spy on them in the shower. But only if gay soldiers said, “Hi, I’m Bruce, I’m gay, and I’m here to fantasize over your rock hard hunk of burning manhood,” first. My suspicion in these cases is that the worriers probably have a honkin’ set of man-boobs and don’t go near the showers anyway. In other words, they’re poor candidates for ogledom.

More at: Gather.com!

Florida Gov Supports Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Yes sir! Florida’s Republican Governor Charlie Crist has spoken out in favor of maintaining the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.

According to TampaBay.com:

U.S. Senate rivals Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio both said today they oppose abolishing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy affecting gays and lesbians in the military.

The 1993 policy was intended to be a political compromise that let gay men and women serve so long as they stayed silent about their sexuality. But President Barack Obama and top military leaders say it is time to end the discrimination all together.

“We are a nation at war. The governor believes the current policy has worked, and there is no need to make changes,” Crist campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.

Of course, as rumors of Charlie’s homosexuality has plagued him for years, maybe Crist is simply leading by example?

Florida Govenor Charlie Crist

Senate Hopeful Marco Rubio

Next Page »