Obama to take on military gay ban at `right time'

[Faeelin]

The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that.  As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure.  But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx

The finding that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993 is noteworthy for several reasons

Obama doesn't have to worry about gays voting Republican, though he might if Huntsman was running. He might, however, have to worry about them staying home and not donating. Though that's a bigger issue with the progressive wing of the party as a whole.

[Martinus]

And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.

I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments. The Magic negro is worthless.

Wouldn't DADT fall within the purview of military courts, though?

[alfred russel]

And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.

I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments. The Magic negro is worthless.

I would think that a state court wouldn't be able to throw out an amendment--it would have to be a federal decision granting the right to marry (or forcing states without gay marriage to recognize gay marriages from states that have them).

[alfred russel]

The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that.  As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure.  But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx

The finding that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993 is noteworthy for several reasons

Obama doesn't have to worry about gays voting Republican, though he might if Huntsman was running. He might, however, have to worry about them staying home and not donating. Though that's a bigger issue with the progressive wing of the party as a whole.

I'm guessing Obama's inaction might have something to do with the realization that if you win the issue, you don't have the issue anymore.

[The Minsky Moment]

And to be serious for a moment, before Mart explodes in a rage.

I always figured it'll be the courts doing most of the work, tossing out various state constitutional amendments.

That has started to happen with DOMA, only the first test case resulted in the Obama Justice Department putting in a rather aggressive brief supporting DOMA, notwithstanding the White House official position that DOMA should be repealed by Congress.

[Fate]

Black men hate faggots. Why would anyone expect Obama to be the exception?

God bless America.

[Caliga]

The "right time" will be after his re-election, if he wins a second term, since then he'll have nothing to lose if he makes a bold move like that.  As the 2012 election cycle heats up he'll make more vague promises to the gay lobby just to make sure the gay vote is secure.  But if he does anything prior to 2012 he might lose a portion of the Democrat vote since alot of poor Democrats (the union types, I'd guess) probably hate gays.

Only that by 2012 he will probably not have a majority in the Congress.

So?  Presidents and presidential candidates make campaign promises about single-handedly affecting change all the time, as if the POTUS is a dictator or something.

[Admiral Yi]

This weekend I read, either in Time or the NYT, that some Army colonel examined the effect of gays serving openly on small unit cohesion (which is the sole substantive argument against) in various armies around the world.  They mentioned Israel, the UK, and several others, and determine that gays did not harm small unit cohesion.  Can anyone verify this?  First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?

[Martinus]

This weekend I read, either in Time or the NYT, that some Army colonel examined the effect of gays serving openly on small unit cohesion (which is the sole substantive argument against) in various armies around the world.  They mentioned Israel, the UK, and several others, and determine that gays did not harm small unit cohesion.  Can anyone verify this?  First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?

Well I don't have studies on unit cohesion, but the UK military has been sending fucking floats to gay prides, so yes gays have been serving openly in the UK military for a rather long time now.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US wasn't the last Western NATO country (I exclude the recent NATO entrants from Eastern Europe) that doesn't allow gays to serve openly in the army.

[Malthus]

"Rum, Sodomy and the Lash". 

[Faeelin]

This weekend I read, either in Time or the NYT, that some Army colonel examined the effect of gays serving openly on small unit cohesion (which is the sole substantive argument against) in various armies around the world.  They mentioned Israel, the UK, and several others, and determine that gays did not harm small unit cohesion.  Can anyone verify this?  First, that gays serve openly in those militaries, and second, it has not impacted small unit cohesion?

I actually could see the argument that America's different, because the military is likely to be more right wing and Christian than the nation at a whole.

[Agelastus]

"Rum, Sodomy and the Lash". 

Yes, Winnie had a turn of phrase, didn't he?

Although he was referring to the navy, not the army, here.

[Faeelin]

That has started to happen with DOMA, only the first test case resulted in the Obama Justice Department putting in a rather aggressive brief supporting DOMA, notwithstanding the White House official position that DOMA should be repealed by Congress.

The Obama administration had no idea about that. Honest.

[Admiral Yi]

I actually could see the argument that America's different, because the military is likely to be more right wing and Christian than the nation at a whole.

I was thinking that another difference could be that other militaries already have more social cohesion.  For example it seems that the Golani Brigade is recruited from the an extended family.  And aren't British units recruited regionally?

[Agelastus]

I actually could see the argument that America's different, because the military is likely to be more right wing and Christian than the nation at a whole.

I was thinking that another difference could be that other militaries already have more social cohesion.  For example it seems that the Golani Brigade is recruited from the an extended family.  And aren't British units recruited regionally?

Not to the extent they used to be (the "super regiments" have rather a wide catchment area compared to the old County regiments for the sort of cohesion you talk about, plus we have a fairly large percentage of Commonwealth citizens in the army) but you do still have a point. The basic recruitment structure is still regional.