1. A characteristic unrelated to job performance of a small percentage of military personnel must be presumed to undermine the job performance of all other personnel whether or not that is the actual situation.
2. Requiring a small percentage of personnel to continually deceive their colleagues and superiors is essential to high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
Even the author of DADT, Professor Charles Moskos, admitted in a magazine interview that #2 was bullshit. "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay." Huh? What? Did he actually imply that women and gays will necessarily be overcome by lustful thoughts arising from the merest glimpse of his weener, and the knowledge that somebody might possibly have those thoughts would make him uncomfortable, which justifies the ruination of thousands of careers and lives, and hundreds of millions of dollars of training wasted. Really? Wow. Awesome.
Frankly, DADT is the military's version of the idiotic and discredited "gay panic" legal defense. Isn't it odd how some straight fellas become so frightfully delicate when they believe they might prospectively get what they give? I suppose that if receiving an unwelcome sexual advance was a legal defense, there would scarcely be a man alive today.
HE: Hey gorgeous, how about you and me...
[BLAMMO! He falls to the floor, a cavernous hole in his chest, a ruby red pool begins to form around the body.]
SHE: Yes, I shot him, your honor — but he was hitting on me!
JUDGE: You have my sympathy and gratitude, ma'am. Case dismissed.
...and scene. Anyway, Obama the Audacious campaigned on the promise of scrapping DADT as bigoted and wasteful — which it is. On this and other promises, Gay Allied America overwhelmingly supported and voted for Obama the Audacious.
Gay Allied America got Obama the Ambivalent.
Okay, implying that Obama doesn't give a shit about gay rights may actually be too generous. He's on the record saying he's against marriage equality on the basis of his Christianity — which is, frankly, a bizarre Constitutional argument for a lawyer and scholar to make. He later invited Reverend Rick "gays = pedophiles" Warren to speak at his inauguration, and then invited Coach Tony Dungy (a devotee of the rabidly homophobic Family Research Council) to his newly created Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In both cases, after negative publicity he subsequently invited a token homo to the table, too.
So yeah, okay — I read the news, there's an economic crisis. Nonetheless, Obama's somehow managed to find the time to expand Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives program, but he's just been too damn busy to lift a finger on behalf teh gheys who helped him get elected. Clearly, Obama feels that escalating the transfer of tax revenue and public property to religious organizations that loathe him is a more compelling agenda than ensuring equal protection and due process for everyone.
Granted, I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect nothing. I'm ashamed I voted for him. Not that the Republican alternative was any better. When I read that Meghan (daughter of John) McCain essentially said that queers might as well join the Republican for all the good that the Democrats do, she sorta has a point. I've made the joke that the Democrats promise to never, ever screw you — then they do. Republicans promise to screw you, then they do. You're screwed either way, but at least the Republicans aren't liars.
It should be noted that in the debates that led to Colin Powell's DADT "compromise," it was Democrat Sam Nunn that ran point for the military's existing "no fags/dykes" policy, and it was Republican Barry Goldwater who argued most forcefully for that policy's repeal.
Which gets me back to my original point. Like Clinton, Obama initially promised to "repeal" DADT. Later, Obama committed to "change in a sensible way." More recently, he vaguely indicated that such change "will take some time," blaming Congress in large part for the delay.
Hm. I don't suppose that he happened to notice that he is not only the chief executor of US law, but also the commander-in-chief of the US military? In both capacities, he has the power to choose not to enforce certain military law and policy on the basis of its questionable constitutionality. He not only has the power, he has the obligation, given that he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Obama says he disagrees with the policy, and recognizes that it is ruining honorable people's lives and wasting taxpayer money. Obama the Audacious could sign an executive order to suspend enforcement of DADT, but Obama the Ambivalent simply can't be bothered to fight for the people that fight for him. Contemptible.
This country and it's leaders are unworthy of the people who protect them. Did we learn nothing from the grotesque historical spectacle of asking black men to risk all to defend the country that legally regarded them as something less than human?
If you agree that the president needs to get off his butt and do something, go here and sign the petition.