Study says Obama has authority to end DADT discharges | Lez Get Real

May 11, 2009 Full story: lezgetreal.com 20

Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops, but according to a new study critical of administration efforts to repeal the militaryís Donít Ask-Donít Tell policy, President Obama has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order and Congressional approval is not needed for him to do it. The report ďHow to End Donít Ask, Donít Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,Ē was prepared by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and spells out the legal bases that Obama could use to end the discharge of gay service persons.

Full Story

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#1 May 11, 2009
That would seem to be within the president's power as commander in cheif. I mean, what if the draft were instituted and people just started claiming they were gay?! I doubt suspension of the policy would not be a power already granted to the president, and even if congressional approval were a requirement... well, the policy would be repealed in a heartbeat.

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#2 May 11, 2009
I've been saying this since January 20th.

Why doesn't he just issue the order ?
equalityboy81

Jacksonville, FL

#3 May 11, 2009
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
That would seem to be within the president's power as commander in cheif. I mean, what if the draft were instituted and people just started claiming they were gay?! I doubt suspension of the policy would not be a power already granted to the president, and even if congressional approval were a requirement... well, the policy would be repealed in a heartbeat.
If there was a draft and people started saying they were gay to get out of it I guarantee you there would be a temporarily DADT. Gays would be "good enough" to serve then. I wonder if Obama will put a lock on this policy or stop soldiers from being discharged even though there would still be a DADT policy.
equalityboy81

Jacksonville, FL

#4 May 11, 2009
In other words if there were a draft I almost guarantee the government would temporarily make DADT unenforceable and/or the gays and ones who claimed to be gay would be forced to fight in the war or be given jail time if they refused. Then as soon as the war was over with they would be given a dishonorable discharge even if they were war heroes. That's the U.S. for ya.

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#5 May 11, 2009
equalityboy81 wrote:
In other words if there were a draft I almost guarantee the government would temporarily make DADT unenforceable and/or the gays and ones who claimed to be gay would be forced to fight in the war or be given jail time if they refused. Then as soon as the war was over with they would be given a dishonorable discharge even if they were war heroes. That's the U.S. for ya.
Because of the military actions we are engaged in now, "stop loss" orders have been issued several times, which has prevented the discharge of gay people.
Resist Ignorance

Knoxville, TN

#7 May 11, 2009
Daniel P from Long Island wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of the military actions we are engaged in now, "stop loss" orders have been issued several times, which has prevented the discharge of gay people.
I have to agree with equalityboy81. If they enacted a draft and a "stop loss" suspension of DADT, then my son could be drafted. Once the action is over, if DADT has not been lifted then he would, by law, be required to be dishonorably discharged. Wow, that's some gratitude! Forced into service and then punished for that same service.
Resist Ignorance

Knoxville, TN

#8 May 11, 2009
Hopefully, it will never come to a draft. I am a Vietnam era veteran. I was registered for the draft (as is my son). However, I enlisted voluntarily. I don't see this for him though. But, there are many LGBT that are serving and those who wish to serve. I have so much gratitude for them. So, why should they be punished for their servitude or willingness to serve?
equalityboy81

United States

#9 May 11, 2009
I don't see why gays would want to serve a country that discriminates against them and denigrates them to a second class status.

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#10 May 11, 2009
equalityboy81 wrote:
I don't see why gays would want to serve a country that discriminates against them and denigrates them to a second class status.
Ask Eric Alva.
Southern Farmer

Sweetwater, TX

#11 May 11, 2009
" The report ďHow to End Donít Ask, Donít Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,Ē was prepared by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara,"
What else would you expect from Queer Center of Calico Junction.
Reason

Houston, TX

#12 May 11, 2009
equalityboy81 wrote:
I don't see why gays would want to serve a country that discriminates against them and denigrates them to a second class status.
It is a good career for some.
Resist Ignorance

Knoxville, TN

#13 May 11, 2009
equalityboy81 wrote:
I don't see why gays would want to serve a country that discriminates against them and denigrates them to a second class status.
Because this is their country too!

One of the best servicemen I ever served with (30 years ago) was gay. NO ONE CARED! He was our First Sergeant, and if you wanted something done, he was the "go to" guy. New comers would make fun of him and they were quickly put in their place!

Unfortunately, after a lifetime of service, he was outed, discharged and disgraced. Why? Bigotry! The USAF lost a very good man that day!

Did I know other gay servicemen? Sure and they all served with distinction.

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#14 May 11, 2009
Resist Ignorance wrote:
<quoted text>
Because this is their country too!
One of the best servicemen I ever served with (30 years ago) was gay. NO ONE CARED! He was our First Sergeant, and if you wanted something done, he was the "go to" guy. New comers would make fun of him and they were quickly put in their place!
Unfortunately, after a lifetime of service, he was outed, discharged and disgraced. Why? Bigotry! The USAF lost a very good man that day!
Did I know other gay servicemen? Sure and they all served with distinction.
A lot of people seem to think that this policy of not letting gay people serve openly in the military goes back in time a long way. This is not true.

DADT was signed by that BASTARD Clinton.

More people have been discharged under Clinton watch then the Bush & Reagan presidencies put together.

Prior to DADT, gay people were "officially" banned, but in practice it was really left up to the discretion of the CO.

My father was in the Marine Corps. His older brother, Will, was n the U.S. Army in Korea. My father's oldest brother, John was in the U.S. Navy in WWII, in the Pacific, and my other Uncle John, on my mother's side was also in the U.S. Navy in WWII, also in the Pacific.

My maternal grandfather was in the Marine Corps in France in WWI.

So my family has a bit of a military history.

I discussed the issue of gay people in the military with my Uncle Will. He said that he was unaware of the policy banning gay people. He told me that when he was in the Army in Korea,( 1947 - 1949), that there were 3 gay guys in his platoon. He said that everybody knew, and nobody cared.

And prior to DADT, gay people served openly for decades. There was a show on The Discovery Channel about 2 months ago about sex during The War Between The States. According to this program, there were both female houses of prostitution, and male houses of prostitution, which soldiers of both sides of the conflict patronized.

General von Steuben, in whose memory is the Steuben Day Parade, was hired to train the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. He worked closely with Washington training the troops, although he could not speak or understand English. And he arrived from Europe with his young boyfriend and a retinue of other gayboys to keep him company. If anyone had objected then, they certainly would not have kept him on for his valuable services and given him a pension.

So if some people think this ban is very old and historical, they are completely mistaken. It's a product or modern-day prejudice.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#15 May 11, 2009
Daniel,

On this grounds, you're wrong. Please stop rewriting history. Sodomy, as opposed to homosexuality, was grounds for dishonorable discharge under the military code of justice in the United States since the formation of the Continental Army. In 1942, being homosexual (with or without the actual actions) was grounds for getting discharged dishonorably, and one could be actively investigated for any suspicion of being gay.

Now, these rules were probably not always enforced, especially during warfare.

Let us not forget the implication of the song In The Navy. Yes, many gays did serve openly, BUT many more were drummed out of the military for either being gay or engaging in homosexual behaviors.

My source for this is The Oxford Companion To American Military History, incidentally.

Many lesbians served in the military as men, incidentally, and some even rose well into the highest ranks of the military.

Daniel, we all know you hate Clinton and worship at the alter of Reagan, but get your facts straight. YES, the policies, especially in wartime, were laxly enforced, but this does not go back to Clinton. In 1950, it was an absolute that, if you were gay, you got drummed out of the military AND thrown in jail for five years.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#16 May 11, 2009
Daniel P from Long Island wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of people seem to think that this policy of not letting gay people serve openly in the military goes back in time a long way. This is not true.
DADT was signed by that BASTARD Clinton.
More people have been discharged under Clinton watch then the Bush & Reagan presidencies put together.
Prior to DADT, gay people were "officially" banned, but in practice it was really left up to the discretion of the CO.
My father was in the Marine Corps. His older brother, Will, was n the U.S. Army in Korea. My father's oldest brother, John was in the U.S. Navy in WWII, in the Pacific, and my other Uncle John, on my mother's side was also in the U.S. Navy in WWII, also in the Pacific.
My maternal grandfather was in the Marine Corps in France in WWI.
So my family has a bit of a military history.
I discussed the issue of gay people in the military with my Uncle Will. He said that he was unaware of the policy banning gay people. He told me that when he was in the Army in Korea,( 1947 - 1949), that there were 3 gay guys in his platoon. He said that everybody knew, and nobody cared.
And prior to DADT, gay people served openly for decades. There was a show on The Discovery Channel about 2 months ago about sex during The War Between The States. According to this program, there were both female houses of prostitution, and male houses of prostitution, which soldiers of both sides of the conflict patronized.
General von Steuben, in whose memory is the Steuben Day Parade, was hired to train the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. He worked closely with Washington training the troops, although he could not speak or understand English. And he arrived from Europe with his young boyfriend and a retinue of other gayboys to keep him company. If anyone had objected then, they certainly would not have kept him on for his valuable services and given him a pension.
So if some people think this ban is very old and historical, they are completely mistaken. It's a product or modern-day prejudice.
Daniel, would you please get off your f'n rocker? The DADT policy came about because Clinton tried ENDING the ban. So now you're blaming him for it? This is exactly why Obama is taking great precaution, IMO, at ending the ban. He saw what happened when Clinton tried doing it. No offense, but you're really getting on my nerves here how it sounds like you're taking a puff off some crack pipe and then writing down some diatribe about how horrible Obama is. Obama is the most pro-gay president we've had in a LONG time. He's come out and said he's for gay rights, he just made a joke about going to Iowa to get hitched and you somehow think he's against us. Get over yourself Daniel.

DNF

“‚ÄúBe guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#17 May 11, 2009
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
Daniel, would you please get off your f'n rocker? The DADT policy came about because Clinton tried ENDING the ban. So now you're blaming him for it? This is exactly why Obama is taking great precaution, IMO, at ending the ban. He saw what happened when Clinton tried doing it. No offense, but you're really getting on my nerves here how it sounds like you're taking a puff off some crack pipe and then writing down some diatribe about how horrible Obama is. Obama is the most pro-gay president we've had in a LONG time. He's come out and said he's for gay rights, he just made a joke about going to Iowa to get hitched and you somehow think he's against us. Get over yourself Daniel.
The Policy your refer to is:
Don't Ask
Don't Tell
DON'T PURSUE!

Please lets stop forgetting that third part!

I believe that whatever happens, we should be stressing that there is a third part of the policy that has been IGNORED for over 8 years.
occono

Ireland

#19 May 12, 2009
Sei wrote:
Daniel,
On this grounds, you're wrong. Please stop rewriting history. Sodomy, as opposed to homosexuality, was grounds for dishonorable discharge under the military code of justice in the United States since the formation of the Continental Army. In 1942, being homosexual (with or without the actual actions) was grounds for getting discharged dishonorably, and one could be actively investigated for any suspicion of being gay.
Now, these rules were probably not always enforced, especially during warfare.
Let us not forget the implication of the song In The Navy. Yes, many gays did serve openly, BUT many more were drummed out of the military for either being gay or engaging in homosexual behaviors.
My source for this is The Oxford Companion To American Military History, incidentally.
Many lesbians served in the military as men, incidentally, and some even rose well into the highest ranks of the military.
Daniel, we all know you hate Clinton and worship at the alter of Reagan, but get your facts straight. YES, the policies, especially in wartime, were laxly enforced, but this does not go back to Clinton. In 1950, it was an absolute that, if you were gay, you got drummed out of the military AND thrown in jail for five years.
And you got a "Blue Slip" which basically ruined your life forever.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#20 May 12, 2009
occono wrote:
<quoted text>
And you got a "Blue Slip" which basically ruined your life forever.
Absolutely right Occono. They ended that policy after a while, but they still kicked you out when they found out, and you got a dishonorable discharge.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#21 May 12, 2009
equalityboy81 wrote:
I don't see why gays would want to serve a country that discriminates against them and denigrates them to a second class status.
I agree whole-heartedly. Back in 1963 when I turned 18 I told them I was gay. I even had a shrink write them a note testifying to it. I was classified as 1-Y, and never had to worry about the draft again. If I were 18 again and the draft was still in force, and we had Iraq going on, I would do it again. I would have no qualms about fighting in a just war for DEFENSE.

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#22 May 12, 2009
So why doesn't he just end it since he has the power to do so ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

UC Santa Barbara Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Newspaper in trouble for calling Illegal Immigr... 9 hr Cuauhtemotzin 29
Men like Elliot Rodger are not owed anyone or a... (Jun '14) Jan 15 lawlslomao 59
Lavayen, Maxwell Named to Santa Barbara Court B... Dec '14 anne Oosterhuis 1
UCSB Professor Shuji Nakamura to Receive Japan'... Dec '14 Switches 89
Nobel Winner Known for LED Battle in Japan Went... Oct '14 SHlTWORMMUMINDEBD... 15
TOKYO: We are proud that Japan's bright blue li... Oct '14 SHlTWORMCHAVADEBD... 4
Russia accuses US of fueling Ukrainian crisis (Jun '14) Sep '14 Dimitri100 61
More from around the web