With the clear support for repeal of DADT in almost every demographic imaginable, and clear calls for repeal from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, it’s almost incomprehensible that this Administration, through its Department of Justice, is continuing to defend the constitutionality of the law. Joe @ Americablog:
DOJ had to go the extra mile to show just how valid the DADT law is. It’s hard to miss the section titled:Because Congress Could Rationally Have Concluded That The DADT Policy Is Necessary To Maintain Unit Cohesion, Accommodate Personal Privacy, and Reduce Sexual Tension For Military Effectiveness, LCR’s Facial Due Process Challenge Fails
They only right-wing talking point they left out is the “we’re in two wars” argument.
It’s incredible that the administration cannot even respond to questions about strategy for repeal – see Barney Frank’s statement calling for the Obama administration to come clean about its intent:
[T]he Administration has been ambiguous about it, and that ambiguity has allowed some to interpret Secretary Gates’ argument for a delay in implementation as a delay in adopting the legislation. I believe that the Administration should make clear that it supports legislative action this year, and that while implementation is being worked out, it will carry out the policy in the way it was originally intended, which would reduce the number of discharges, in my view, by over 90%.”
Joe hits the nail on the head here:
I’m sure the usual apologists will jump to the defense of the Obama administration, even as it becomes more and more clear that the Obama administration has no intention of working to repeal DADT, or enacting ENDA, or repealing DOMA. This also begs the question of what the DOJ’s LGBT liaison, Matt Nosanchuk, does all day. Didn’t this set off some warning bells? Perhaps he has as much sway as the LGBT liaison at the White House, Brian Bond — which isn’t much.
Speaking of Bond, this is what he said back in November 2009 when I interviewed him at the Equality NC Annual Conference:
Again, this president has not backtracked on any of his commitments; and at some point the bloggers and the readers there I hope they will trust this president and work with him, work with us to achieve true equality. We’re working on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…we’re working on ENDA; you’re going to see mark up in the House next week on ENDA. These are important pieces of equality legislation for our community.
…The reality is, in some situations there are going to be times when you’re going to have to trust us because there are some things that you can’t necessarily put the specific timeline out there. Again, this is a president that means what he says and does what he says.
So which part of the above makes any sense to you, given we have an administration that alternately sends out negative messages such as this brief or doesn’t even respond to queries from Barney Frank about when the President plans to push for legislative repeal? I guess it depends on what this admin defines as “means what he says and does what he says.”
Perhaps that definition has been cleared up by Obama DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, who went to court to repeatedly cite quotes from retired Gen. Colin Powell’s 1993 statements about gays in the military — views he has since very publicly reversed. WTF?
“This is pretty shocking,” said Richard Socarides, the White House liaison to the gay community under President Bill Clinton. “When Powell said this 18 years ago, it was inflammatory and incendiary. … [Powell]‘s now said this stuff isn’t even true anymore.”
This is ridiculous. And if you think I’m reading too much into this pantomime BS the White House is doing, take a look at Tuesday’s White House briefing that landed in my inbox, where Robert Gibbs does yet another tap dance that proves President Barack Obama has no problem letting the LGBT community twist in the wind on this. Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate tried yet again to extract something resembling an answer from Gibbs.
Q Over successive weeks, Congressman Barney Frank has asked the White House to clarify whether it would like to see legislative action taken this year on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He’s said that direction from the White House has been muddled, and then at one point said that you guys were actually sort of ducking whether or not you wanted to see legislation action taken on repeal. Would the President like to see that law –
MR. GIBBS: Well, Carol, I would just say this, I don’t think what Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates have enunciated on this appears muddled to anyone. I don’t — there is a process that’s in place to move forward on the President’s commitment to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
I don’t — Admiral Mullen is the first chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sit up in front of Congress and say that the law ought to be repealed — not somebody who is retired, not somebody who is long past their commitment of serving their country, but somebody who sat up there and said that. And Secretary Gates and the commission at the Pentagon have taken some important steps.
We’re following that process. We’ll see where the legislative road takes us as we continue to build support to keep the commitment that the President has made.
Q So the President would feel perfectly comfortable letting the next Congress take that up?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we’re going to follow the process and the path that are underway with the clear direction that the President has given to repeal this.
Well what is the damned process? We don’t even know where the legislative road is, let alone what direction it is going. What does the President intend to tell Congress to do, if anything, and what is the timeline, since he suggested in the State of the Union that DADT was as good as gone this year?
Does Gibbs need his lips oiled like the Tin Man to utter what the administration intends to do when asked a direct question? Mixed messages and dodges like this have generated strong responses from SLDN and HRC. They are below the fold, as well as some speculation on my part — and some fresh video — as well as a few things readers to look out for going forward.SLDN:
Today Servicemembers Legal Defense Network expressed strong disapproval of the U.S. Department of Justice’s March 29th filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, a constitutional challenge to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The brief supports the current DADT law.“We were bitterly disappointed that the brief filed yesterday by the Justice Department in the Log Cabin Republicans’ case restates at length policy arguments that are inconsistent with where the leadership of this country is today, and where the American people are on open service,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN. “The lengthy quotations from then-JCS Chairman Colin Powell were particularly unfortunate and ironic in light of his recent statement that it was now time to change the policy. As SLDN argued in the Cook v. Gates challenge in 2004, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ lacks any rational, important, or compelling basis, and serves no legitimate government or military interest.
“SLDN understands the Justice Department’s role in defending the constitutionality of federal laws, even ones with which its leaders do not agree. Therefore, we would not expect that their legal briefs on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would read anything like the recent statements of President Obama, Secretary Gates or Admiral Mullen on that subject. However, there continues to be a big and unnecessary disconnect between what DOJ files in court and what the Presidents says on Capitol Hill and to his top DOD leadership team.
“When Congress comes back next month the White House should make it clear that repeal of DADT this year is a top priority for President Obama. One sure way to send that clear signal is for the President to include repeal language in his defense budget bill going up to Capitol Hill in a few short weeks. The President’s defense budget repeal language should mirror the words in his State of the Union speech to Congress and the American people.”
HRC President Joe Solmonese released the following statement:
“We were proud when the President stood before the American people and declared in his State of the Union that it is time to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ If he’s going to uphold that commitment, however, he must ensure that his Administration doesn’t work against it. The time for repeal is this year, and the time for his leadership is now.“Over the last several years, I have met countless veterans who have sacrificed in the name of freedom, but in doing so were unfairly forced to sacrifice their integrity by hiding who they are. They love this country, have put their lives on the line to defend it, and serve just as courageously as all our men and women in uniform. Yet, they are forced to serve under the discriminatory DADT law, or to not serve at all.
“While these veterans – and so many Americans in support of them – are fighting alongside our President and many Congressional leaders to achieve repeal, today we took a step backward when the Department of Justice filed a brief in defense of the law. The brief relies on arguments that were debunked and discredited in 1993, and even more so now. When military leaders – including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, General Collin Powell and Vice President Cheney – have the courage to stand up and say it is time to throw out the discriminatory policies of the past, it is also time for this Administration to show leadership, move the debate forward, and work with Congress to get repeal done.
“This year presents an unprecedented opportunity to repeal the law and to finally recognize that all brave men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line for this country deserve to serve openly. While the Pentagon undertakes its review of how to implement repeal, Congress can and must move forward in repealing DADT in the same bill that put it into law more than 17 years ago – the defense authorization act. And the President can and must provide the leadership necessary to get the law passed this year.”
NOTE: Blenders, I want you to remember a couple of things — 1) Notice that sentence above that I have in boldface. Bookmark it, email it to yourself, do whatever it takes to ensure you can find this statement down the road; and 2) This statement, taped by yours truly at the HRC Carolinas dinner back in Februrary — a promise by Mr. Solmonese that DADT would be repealed this year.
The defense authorization act — the easiest way for this administration to bury DADT this year is to include a repeal measure here, rather than send it out as a standalone bill. A no-brainer. And that’s the question that needs to be asked and answered.
Bottom line – has this administration, with its continual playing of jackass footsie about paths and roads and other nonsense, already made its decision about inclusion in the defense authorization for this year — as in NO?
It’s time to clear the air — yes or no? Has the decision been made and when and who decided it? Is it a done deal? A lot rides on this question – certainly more than what many of you are probably aware of.




Again, this president has not backtracked on any of his commitments; and at some point the bloggers and the readers there I hope they will trust this president and work with him, work with us to achieve true equality. We’re working on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…we’re working on ENDA; you’re going to see mark up in the House next week on ENDA. These are important pieces of equality legislation for our community.
Q Over successive weeks, Congressman Barney Frank has asked the White House to clarify whether it would like to see legislative action taken this year on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He’s said that direction from the White House has been muddled, and then at one point said that you guys were actually sort of ducking whether or not you wanted to see legislation action taken on repeal. Would the President like to see that law –
30 Comments


All I can say about the presidentis that if he hasn’t decided to ignore ENDA and DADT this year, his administration totally sucks at communication. They sucked at selling the health insurance bill, and they suck when it comes to anything having to do with LGBT people. Why be so cagey?
I’ll suspend my disbelief just a little longer…I’d written off the Obama Administration as useless and believed they’d fatally bungled insurance reform, but then the Democrats pulled it off. Furthermore they played the Republicans for fools in the process. Are the Republicans really going to campaign for bringing back ‘pre-existing conditions’ or reopening the Medicare donut hole? Americans have 7 months before the next election to enjoy the increased benefits and they are going to like them (once the anxiety fades). They’ll also (I hope) remember which party wanted to ensure that sick children couldn’t get medical help. Could Obama be playing chess again on DADT? It’s a stretch maybe, but it just might be how this man operates. He’s too intelligent to promise a constituency something just to stab them in the back – well, face actually – and make them even angrier, right? I’m exasperated with the pacing and the seeming back-and-forth but just maybe there will be another ‘ta-dah’ moment.
But who’s his constituency?
He wasn’t elected by gays: he was elected to a significant degree by homophobic AA churches.
What promises did he make to them? That his “Fierce advocacy” for GLBT causes would be something between tepid and actively obstructionist?
How many of those votes would he lose if he departed from this line? because you can be certain that few GLBT people are going to switch to the GOP.
Same Old Song!What the hell???
Does the Obama Administration truly believe that the memory of the LGBT community is so short or That the smelly debacle of last year’s DOJ defense of DOMA doesn’t still linger in the air like the political flatulence that it was? Who knew that when the President, then Candidate Obama, promised to be a “fierce advocate” for LGBT issues that he meant being in fierce opposition to anything that might cost his new Administration one iota of political capital. At least there is no question of who the new political Negroes are in Washington. Mr. Gibbs seems to make that abundantly clear in is comments on Admiral Mullen being the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to come out against dadt. You can almost hear the twang of “You people should be glad anyone is speaking up for you” in his blathering condescension. However, I will give the Obama Administration credit in one regard. If this act of sedition against the LGBT community doesn’t unite it from the grassroots to the Washington boardrooms, I will be completely surprised. I for one will gladly work with any organization willing to make the Obama Administration and the DNC fully aware of the venom of their current actions because whether they recognize it our not, It is a slap in the face to all those being discriminated against in our military for their sexuality, and to their families.
However, groups like the HRC would have to go to some extremes to prove their loyalty lies more with the community than with the Whitehouse Administration that has once again made them look like complete asses by promising something that it either had no intention of delivering on in the first place, or once again decided that the political capital of the administration might go further if they simply sold our community down the river once again. Multiple times in the last year, more than one Congressman has threatened to simply bring a dadt repeal to the floor. Only to complain that their efforts had been quietly opposed by the Administration or by the Congressional leadership in support of some other legislative agenda item. It would seem that tabling even popular legislation, which dadt repeal is, has once again become status quo for the Whitehouse Administration. And the DNC on the whole has once again proven that in good times or bad they will gladly take our money and political support but will do little or nothing to change the discrimination our community must suffer under everyday. It would seem that when it comes to LGBT issues in Government the Republicans are not the only party of no around.
Reply“A” constituency not “His Entire” constituency. I’m not so sure the AA churches have the power you suggest they do but I think you are very correct about the GOP. It kills me when LGBT voters threaten to switch sides – the alternatives are usually to be ignored by the Democrats or be actively vilified and legislated against by the Republicans. I’d love to see a third (fourth, fifth) party emerge. Obama could very well ignore us and survive – and he may be doing just that – but he could have let us twist in the wind and said nothing. We were already disappointed and angry so why say something just to make us furious? Why not just let it lie? Society at large wouldn’t care too much. I’m suggesting (actually hoping, but not betting) that there is much going on behind the scenes because strategically it doesn’t quite add up…
‘he was elected to a significant degree by homophobic AA churches…” Wrong. Totally wrong. The vote potential of African American cultists is small potatoes. It’s not significant as a part of the total vote. He was elected by EuroAmerican cultists – catholics, mormons and southern baptists who he successfully wooed away from the Republicans.
Obama got a hair over 1/3 of the voters, McCain a hair under 1/3 the final 1/3 boycotted the elections. People who mistakenly voted for Obama or McCain should tattoo their foreheads with the reminder:”STOP ME BEFORE I VOTE AGAIN.’”
Aside from his cult vote he got lots of soon to be betrayed voters like:
Trade unionists - he busted the UAW, the jewel in the crown of US Labor.
GLBT folks - he just gets worse and worse – we need another massive anti-Obama like the March on Washington,
Environmentalists – his record is abysmal and just got worse when he authorized more offshore drilling.
Immigrant and imported workers - he adopted a racist and medically dangerous policy of denying health care to millions of hardworking, taxpaying people, many of whom fled Mexico and Central America to escape the economic devastation caused by Clinton’s NAFTA.
Women – he’s denying the right for federal funding for a necessary medical procedure – abortion.
Health care advocates - he’s a lap dog of the insurance industry, Big Pharma and HMOs.
Working people - his administration, with the help of Congressional accomplices, made draconian cuts in social services while giving trillions to the obscenely overfed looter class.
The solid majority against the Clinton-Bush-Obama wars and occupations. Obama is escalating and causalities are mounting.
Etc.
With respect: EARTH TO PAM!
….and anyone else who still believes those “clear calls for repeal from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.”
With respect, WHAT part of Gates and Mullen, like the DOJ, report to Obama, too, don’t you understand?
What part of their clear call NOT to repeal until oooops after midterms when the chance TO repeal will be almost certainly moot don’t you understand?
What part of this has all been a coordinated charade between the White House and the Pentagon to continue what Obama Inc. does best…smile fuck gays with WORDS WORDS WORDS while DOING as little as possible…don’t you understand?
McClurkingate didn’t do it….
His lying about having cosponsored and passing the Illinois LGBT rights bill didn’t do it….
Lying about a functional difference between him and Hillary on DOMA didn’t do it….
Needlessly interjecting “God” into “the mix” of marriage as no other Democratic candidate had didn’t do it….
Warrengate didn’t do it….
The ludicrous arrogance of crowning himself our “fierce advocate” didn’t do it….
Telling the Catholic press that “as a Christian, I’m constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians” didn’t do it….
Defending DOMA repeatedly in court using the same homophobic language used to pass it didn’t do it….
Defending DADT repeatedly in court using the same homophobic language used to pass it didn’t do it….
Claiming DADT has been ruled Constitutional when it has not didn’t do it….
Saying out of one side of his mouth that DADT is an injustice that weakens national security and refusing to use his Congressional mandate to freeze discharges in the name of national security out of the other didn’t do it….
Continuing to discharge gay servicemembers day after day after day, week after week, month after month while they “study” repeal didn’t do it….
WHAT is it going to take for you to get that the last three months have just been more of our being played; that Gates and Mullen are not at odds with Obama but in cahoots with him to SAY one thing and DO another…slow walk DADT repeal to death?
But be at peace, Gaykins. Verily I say unto you: only six more days until the White House Easter Egg Roll!
MR. BUNNY MUST BE GAY — HE BELIEVES WHAT THE PRESIDENT TELLS HIM.
Those same homophobic“AA people” that send pro-gay Congressman after pro-gay Congressman to Congress and to state legislatures.
Bitch, fuck you.
For the recordlook at the numbers.
donal1944 is right.
Obama pulled in a larger share of the white evangelical vote in many states than Kerry circa 2004 in states like North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, Florida, etc.
As with the DOMA briefit’s not that this Administration defends the law (I can understand that, this Administration has never said that DADT is unconstitutional) but the bigoted arguments that his Justice Department chooses to defend it with.
Reducing sexual tension in showers, really? How tone deaf can this administration be?
Simple Enough To Figure OutThey’re letting it drag out until after the November elections so as to give the Republicans one less thing to yell and scream about. I’m sure the White House thinks they have a big enough job ahead of them already defending healthcare reform.
How do you square that view with reports ENDA is moving to the house floorIt would seem that in the world of sound bite politics, moving any piece of LGBT related legislation gets Dems having to defend the action. ENDA will have a much harder time moving in the Senate. DADT could actually be passed. Wouldn’t it be better to have the victory, if you have to defend taking a stance on equal rights, then legislative stalemate, where the vote was taken, but nothing to show for it?
So, who do we primary against Obama?This administration continues to triangulate to the right even more than Bill Clinton did.
One of the few things the admin truly fears is that there will actually be somewhere else for Democratic voters to go. And (for better or worse) in our current political system, it has to be from within the party structure to be viable.
So, who will fight state-by-state to wrest the re-nomination from Obama, and pull the sitting administration to the positions of the traditional Democratic coalition?
Pam, this is a question I would like asked at the LGBT-DC-Insider town hall.
And I’d love to hear the leading beltway insiders respond with a viable alternative to Obama — not just some “work with what you got” crap.
That ain’t working, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Give hasn’t been enough.
The admin has to see a coordinated (though not necessarily coherent, see: Tea Party) rising threat to respond.
It needn’t just be LGBT issues. Every day, this admin continues to grind parts of the Democratic coalition under the bus — yesterday teachers (Race to the Bottom); today the environmentalists (Drill Viriginia Drill!)
Democratic primary voters are begging for somewhere to go.
If by “sucking” you mean “outright lied”Judge by actions, not by words. Obama and his administration are NOT our friends.
And after the 2010 elections…It will be dragged out until after the 2012 elections, in the hopes of guaranteeing Obama’s re-election. Then it will be dragged out until after the 2014 elections, lest it hinder the election of Democrats. And it won’t be addressed until after the 2016 elections, because we wouldn’t want this albatross around the neck of the Democratic candidate for president, would we?
The Republicans may be The Party of No, but the Democrats are The Party of Cowardice. I don’t see any reason to support either one.
The “Clueless Chloe” defensejust doesn’t work for me.
That does even less to inspire the trust of this administration in putting the weight behind it’s promises than if the Administration was out and out bigoted (at least I would know it for what it is).
And it strains my common sense to think that the Obama Administration’s Justice Department can actually be clueless Chloes after that stankin’ DOMA brief.
They are defending the law of the landjust like they are supposed to do.
You don’t know how to readI’m OK with this Administration’s Justice Department defending a law that they believe is constitutional.
No problem with that at all.
I do have a problem when the Justice Department uses these bigoted right wing defense like “reducing sexual tension” type shit.
No. It is the admin’s choice of which laws to defendAs documented well here
http://gay.americablog.com/201…
Perhaps someone above linked elsewhere the orignial research, but it is clear evidence that DOJ’s and WH’s choose what they want to defend.
Let me be a little more precise hereGeneral Powell’s “sexual tension” argument is based in notions of social stigma against gays and lesbians.
Now if I (personally, I won’t presume to speak for the rest of the community!) actually trusted this Administration to use a defense of DADT that’s based in social stigma to show the absurdity of the law, maybe I could go along with that type of defense.
As Pam states, this gets down to an issue of trust, really. This Administration hasn’t had a problem trafficing in homophobia when it suits it’s political purposes.
If he invitesserving gay military and their children to the Easter Egg party, then I’ll suspect he’s serious about ending DADT now.
And apparentlythey’ve decided not to include the Constitution of the United States among the laws they choose to defend.
But hey, Obama has a lot of important items on his plate. It’s just too bad the Constitution isn’t one of them, huh?
Tony West againThis DOJ defense is coming from Tony West again. He’s the same lawyer who headed the team that defended DOMA last year — and he’s an Obama appointee.
While I realize that the intent of this brief is to get a summary judgement (and to make LCR’s case simply go away), there’s no excuse for this level of anti-gay stereotyping in the body of their brief.
Wouldn’t that be beautiful…
Of course, the prohibitive keyword is “serving,” for this would constitute outing themselves and, thus, they wouldn’t be serving much longer. No, we’ll just see civilian gay families and hear them coo once again about how “He likes us, he really likes us!”
But at least they could invite some DADT casualties with their families, such as former Navy Top Gun Tracy Thorne-Begland, who was discharged after outing himself on Nightline in 1992, with his partner Michael and their twins Logan and Chance, seen below.
And, just maybe, since the government’s official Big Lie er position is that gays CAN serve [they just have to do it secretly], Michelle might at least include some lip service to caring about the welfare of GAY military families, too, in the cause she’s made her own.
And, now we learn….
…Lt. General Mixon won’t even be officially reprimanded for urging people to fight repeal.
After Secretary of DEFENSE OF DADT Gates and CJCS ADM Mullen publicly castigated him [and revealed that there actually was something like a script of acceptable talking points about their charade er repeal that he'd gone off of], I was certain he would be their sacrificial jerk er lamb to further distract from the fact that…no matter what they SAY…they don’t really want DADT repealed either. Anyone who doesn’t get that The Study is but their side door strategy to slow walk repeal to death needs to wake up.
But the otherwise unbelievable fact that Mixon won’t even get a letter of reprimand [which is the kind of serious business in the military that can mean you'll never get another promotion] proves that it’s not just Obama the homohating dinosaurs in the Pentagon’s Jurassic Park have in their clutches, but even Gates and Mullen who are being limited in just how far they can go to keep up the charade.
Somewhere behind the walls of that giant pentagonal building the homohating inmates are running the asylum.
I think they used to call that a “Bait & Switch”…Get the entire community holding their breath over and watching the battle over getting ENDA to the House floor; a stunt likely reminiscent of Pro-wrestling’s best Smack Down performance, that will undoubtedly fail. All the while the window to move DADT onto the Defense act passes practically uncontested. They dangle ENDA for about three weeks in the House and make it look like it was a hard fought defeat, and the very real chance dadt has to be repealed this year or even next year passes into oblivion. Putting all of the gay agenda on the back burner until after 2012, when if it comes up at all barring something else more important, Obama tries to make it part of his legacy. Compromising into such watery legislation we will be fighting it in the courts for another 20 years. Win, win, everyone wins. Except for the dumb ass lgbt community who believed him and the “fags” who actually fought and died for this country.
Seriously have we not learned anything from all of the other Civil Rights movements?Name one Civil rights movement that was actually successful at the level of the States. It just divides and matriculates opposition. Which is why the anti-gay movement is always attempting to challenge us to keep it “state”. Not that there aren’t battles to be had on the state level but the main thrust of any civil rights movement is only effective at the federal level.
There is a right way and a wrong way to defend the lawThat was what they should have learned from the DOMA brief. You don’t lie and cast aspersion on a people group in an attempt to win at all costs and then call it justice.
I’m just curious…What does “bring down” mean exactly to you Joe?
Would you mind clarifying it for us a little further? You seem to have as usual left yourself some wiggle room.
Accent is on “Church” not “AA”And I think I’m owed an apology for the language you used. I won’t press the point though, as it’s obvious I inadvertently pressed a button.