Tweet
Yeah, there’s no plan, so this is no surprise either.
The leading House Democrat on military policy said Friday that he opposes repealing the law that bans openly gay people from serving in the military.
Seventeen years ago, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) played a major role in crafting the controversial law known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” When President Bill Clinton wanted to lift the ban preventing gay people from joining the military, Skelton opposed the move. The end result was a compromise under which gay service members would conceal their sexual orientation.
“I am personally not for changing the law,” he said during a C-SPAN “Newsmakers” interview that will air Sunday.
Because the military is engaged in two major conflicts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, changing the law would create “disruption” that can cause some “serious problems,” Skelton said during the interview.
19 Comments
Actually…
Skelton was less one of the crafters of DADT than the main echoer in the House after Sam Nunn created it for and got it passed by the Senate. That’s a relatively minor point, because he led the fight to pass it in the House and point-blank lied to the public denying it prohibited “status.”
Throw in that he has voted against ENDA and for a Constitutional ban on marriage equality twice and:
I swearI am half a damned step from going down to Washington and screaming.
WE ALREADY HAVE LGBT TROOPS SERVING AND SERVING WELL. WE ALL KNOW IT.
What changing the law will do is remove a huge legal discrimination and second class tier barrier for the troops and their families.
It will not change the dynamics of our troops one iota, any more than allowing Mainers to marry would have changed the status of marriage.
Yeah, I know I just changed gears- work with me for a second; I’m gonna RANT.
I opened up the local papers this morning and guess what? All of the divorces granted in Augusta District Court for January were listed- about 50 with the original marriage dates going so far back as 1985.
1985. 25 years.
Also in the paper, birth announcements. Bunches of them.
And in every single case, the names of the mother and father were not the same, meaning (presumably) that the parents were not married.
Not a ONE.
Nothing changed. Nothing fucking changed a BIT.
So enough of the pussyfooting, wailing of hands, “ewwwwing” about the idea of teh gay secks, thimking of teh preshsush children, America.
Especially you, Mr President- stop hiding behind your advisors, stop being the community/Congressional doormat.
Take a deep breathe, look yourself in the morror, and DECIDE.
Did you want to be a LEADER? Did you want to follow up on the promises you made on the trail? Or did you want to get lost in playing political/ Washingtonian games?
You do NOT need a “super majority” plus 1 to tie your shoes.
You also do not need one to pass health care.
Nor to put an immediate stop order to DADT.
So knock it the hell OFF. Get FIRED UP. READY TO GO.
And just do it already.
Go to Massachusetts; stump for Martha Coakley and use all of the passion and argument that you SHOULD have used for Maine.
(hey, I’m bitter. And mad. But I still think you can do this , if YOU decide that YOU CAN)
Then get back to DC, put your head down and GET THE REST OF YOUR WORK DONE.
Believe me, you will have the grateful thanks, eventual forgiveness and support from millions, come this fall.
And you are SO gonna need it.
DO THIS.
I keep being right, and you all keep calling me Cassandra for itRemember when I reported that John McHugh was gunning for segregation of gay troops? The majority of Blenders said I was being hysterical, that it could never happen.
Well, according to the Pentagon, that’s their big plan.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: This is their solution. Segregation. Remember when Gates and the WH changed DADT language from “repeal” to “change”? We were all left wondering, “How do you ‘change’ DADT?” You segregate openly gay soldiers.
Separate units. Separate barracks. Restriction to ships during port calls. Restriction of duty assignments. No public displays of affection on bases while in civilian clothes (PDA in uniform is already verboten). That’s called segregation, and Obama’s Pentagon is now advocating it as “change.” And he hasn’t said one word against it. Our first black President is, by proxy, advocating for segregation.
Our options are no DADT repeal, or segregation.
I guess that’s change we can believe in.
And worse, I have straight friends telling me it’s fucking progress.
Mom, if ever there were a day you needed to call Chellie Pingree, this is it. Our government is advocating for segregation. What the fuck just happened in this country?
It stinksI read about this on AmericaBlog (and saw you in the comments!) and I’m sick, though I am glad that I shouted at a caller yesterday from the DCCC: “I am disgusted with your party–when it comes to gay rgiths you are absolutely no better than the GOP, except you pretend to be!” And I hung up.
well as long as it “just” disrupts all the lives of the LGBT servicemembersNO SWEAT
It won’t happenYeats pegged the situation:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
The GOP is fired up, ready to destroy anything and anyone. The Dems have no passion at all. Or not enough of them do.
I see no progress ahead, just frustration. Voting and stumping for Obama was one of the biggest disappointments of my political life. On privacy rights, on the wars, on gay rights, he’s wrong, wrong, wrong over and over. I’m not convinced Clinton would have been any better. The party is out of talent, out of ideas, out of gas.
The only “disruption” repealing DADT could causeis Skelton getting a dirty look from his priest/minister/rabbi, as the case may be. The overwhelming majority of the congregation–75%, according to the polls–would congratulate him on a job well done. But that doesn’t seem to matter.
A Weak PresidentMy spouse and I (together 25 years as of last Thanksgiving) were just talking about our huge disappointment in Obama. Where was he on health care? Why wasn’t he leading the Congress, driving the discussion, and what the hell did he actually want or believe in? Can anyone answer that definitively? Even Clinton seems to have been a stronger President–he stood up to Gingrich. Why Is Obama AWOL on issue after issue, or just Bush Lite? I have stopped listening to his speeches months ago. Sound and (little) fury signifying even less.
insulting to the troops and to command“The greatest military force in the world” would be so rocked, so utterly undone, if some queers in military service decided to simply come out? The (straight) troops are so threatened, so terrified by teh gayz and teh bi’s that they will just have hysterical meltdowns negating all their professional training and compromising military readiness and effectiveness? Really?
The Canadian and British and Israeli military (etc.) can and have adjusted to openly gay service members, but American troops and command are just too weak, too culturally/personally compromised, too rigid and frightened to (heavens forfend!) work beside out (as opposed to closeted) gays in the military? Even though American troops often work side-by-side already with these very same allies?
The strategy of our enemies should be clear. A same-sex kiss-in right on the front lines. Guy on guy and girl on girl. Our forces will surely whimper and fold and run screaming into the hills.
Or is 79-year-old Ike just wildly projecting his own bias and terror? Ockham’s razor anyone?
Louise for Senate!Olympia’s term is coming up. Just sayin’.
How is this guy a Democrat?At least he’s an honest bigot.
They’re not going to change anything. If a commanding officer stood up and said that he would not support dadt they would quash the CO. They are not for positive change, they are only there to maintain thier job and status.
I feel so betrayed. I’m glad I’m out now.
Thx!I’d run as an Independent, which is what I have been since my first eligible vote in 1984. Only registered Democrat back in Feb 2008, when I heard how the Secret Service had walked off the job when then Candidate Obama was stumping- in ALL freakin’ places!- DALLAS.
I was about as mad that day as I am now…
No kidding, daughter o’mine.Dawn made the mistake of calling here not 5 minutes after I posted the above; I took the phone outside and let ‘er rip. Had the neighbors’ dogs barking, I was so loud!
But OH DID IT FEEL EFFING GOOD.
The fire is back and gawd help those in DC.
I share your frustrationsand congrats to you both on 25 years, Lev!
Compromise?Especially as a gay veteran, it always pisses me off beyond reason when I hear one more person calling DADT a “compromise position.”
How the FUCK is it a compromise? What the hell changed?
Old Policy: No gay people can serve. If we find out you’re gay, we’ll boot your ass out.
New Policy: Gay people can serve as long as we don’t find out. If we find out you’re gay, we’ll boot your ass out.
Oh, yeah. Big change!
The law actually put penalties in place for the “Ask” part, but to date there has not been a single separation for violating that – and precious few, if any reprimands. The witch hunts continue, as does the harassment.
I think they are all scaredof the fundies who have seriously infiltrated the mid-level officers and the senior NCO’s. Congress has gotten the message that there will be a mass exodus of these groups if they let gays serve openly.
This is another reason that I’m more and more convinced that we need a constitutional amendment to mandate retirement at 75 of all elected officials and those appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate I.e. SCOTUS, Federal judges, cabinet, undersecretaries, etc.). They could stay until the end of their term, but no longer. We don’t need these senile, doddering old coots making policy when they have no idea how the world works now.
my 50′s loom, mere months away …and I am struck by deja vu as I re-read the above. Have I just thought this over and over, so it is that familiar? Or did I >ulp< read something just like it on this very blog, and end up plagiarizing? If the latter, my apologies to the original creator. The steel trap, she rusts.
and in a way, segregation would be worse — and self-perpetuatingNo doubt, the Pentagon would limit LGBT personnel to support MOSs, not frontline units, which would would relegate them to despised status as USO Commandos or Rearguard Rangers or FOBbits or whatever putdown is current for those not sharing combat duty. And certainly no one would be able to prove their mettle in battle, which would perpetuate a reputation for timidity. Almost certainly there’d be no Tuskeegee Squadron, no 442nd Regiment, just KP or logistics duty.
It’s an old story: the Navy relegated Filipino servicemen to ships’ messes, and African-Americans to stevedore duty (including dangerous posts like the Port Chicago ammo docks).
And it would still ruin a lot of trained personnel. Can you see Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a decorated fighter pilot, relegated to a quartermaster unit? Same loss of training investment as what’s happening to him now under DADT.
It would be truly ironic, sickeningly so, if Obama were to see this kind of duty as a compromise.
This genuine American war hero, who’s put his life on the line over and over again, and who the U.S. government has invested $25 million in training, is two years from retirement. Instead of thanking him for his extraordinary service, the country he’s served with honor and distinction is firing him for his sexual orientation.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…
I think 75 is still too old.75 is still three quarters of a century. These people were young before desegregation, TV, the cold war, the Internet, etc. Maybe cap running for office and all senior military positions to 50 and remove age limits. At this rate, I think a 20-something could manage the country better than the idiots currently in office.
All political positions (Congress/Presidency) should have term limits based upon party affiliation. Any party can hold office for two consecutive terms then couldn’t run again for another four terms. That would open things up to independents, third parties, and fresh ideas.
Further, every party should be required to state a specific platform and submit it to a registry and that platform can’t substantively match that of another party (to prevent creating a two party party to get around the term limits and make clear their positions).
The Senate should be reduced to the same term lengths as the House; maybe reduce both to one year terms. Maybe they’d spend less time campaigning when their only choice is to do their job or campaign and get nothing done. It would end the “but it’s an election year” excuse. It would likely end the career politician nonsense when combined with the party-based term limits.
Add a 3-absence limit to Congressional sessions before that Congressman is removed from office. That’s less time campaigning and more time working. A limited number of members (say 5%) could be out at one time on official business (like foreign trips).
The Supreme Court should also have its number of jurists increased to something like 27. With only 9 justices, the appointment of just one or two justices can radically affect the court and allows one president to radically alter its ideology well after that president has gone. Something has to be done since this branch is basically unaccountable with its unused “bad behavior” check from Congress. It also means that there are fewer viewpoints/backgrounds to go around.
Rather than lifetime appointments, they could be phased out after 27 years or age 50, whichever is earlier.
The President and the Vice President should rotate yearly (or each get consecutive halves of the term) as commander in chief. The VP then matters and actually gets some experience and you would be less likely to have four-year stagnation when you elect a moron by accident.
Lastly, the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and all branches of the military should be required to give televised State of the Union addresses regarding what they’ve actually accomplished along with a budgetary statement regarding how much they spent. This would be a six-day marathon twice a year. They might have more incentive to actually do a good job if they had to report to the public directly.