(05.19.09) "Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military" (WSJ) All talk, no action

[Laura Cereta]

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military's ban on service members found to be gay.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn't be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.

The move "takes the issue off the front burner," as a trial and subsequent appeals could take years before the question returns to the Supreme Court, said an official familiar with the matter.


Translation: "We don't want to deal with it."

The decision comes as President Barack Obama attempts a balancing act on gay rights. He was elected with strong support from the gay community and promised action on a number of issues. But mindful of the complex politics, the White House has moved slowly.


As a candidate, Mr. Obama said he would seek to repeal the ban on gays in the military. But since he has taken office, administration officials have been less clear about the matter and its timing.

Last week, the White House was pressed to explain whether the administration would intervene to protect Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Arabic speaker in the Army National Guard. He announced he was gay as part of a plan to challenge the law. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president believes the issue should be dealt with through legislation.


Translation: "Someone else needs to introduce legislation to deal with it."


In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform "create an unacceptable risk" to military morale and "unit cohesion."

But the court ordered the government to show why military discipline would be imperiled by the specific presence of Maj. Witt.

President Obama faced an early March deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obama aides twice filed requests asking for a one-month extension, which the court granted. The administration let the most recent deadline pass without seeking another extension.



White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president remains committed to repealing the law "in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security" but added: "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."


Translation: "It's not my fault; I'm the victim. Congress is supposed to take care of it."


http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/2059911/airforce.jpg

Maj. Witt also had a relationship with another woman from July 1997 through August 2003, the opinion said. The partner was not a military employee and the couple's home was in Spokane, Wash., 250 miles from the base where she was stationed.

According to the lawsuit, Maj. Witt did not tell anyone in the military that she was homosexual. In July 2004, however, the Air Force began investigating her for homosexuality and five months later began proceedings to discharge her. The action left her less than a year short of the 20-year service requirement to obtain a full Air Force pension.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected similar suits in the 1990s. In its May 2008 ruling, the appeals court said the Supreme Court changed the legal landscape in 2003, when, in striking down a Texas sodomy law, it found that homosexuals had a constitutional right "to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government."

Citing that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the government would have to do more than show that the "don't ask, don't tell" law furthered an important interest. Rather, at trial it must show how expelling Maj. Witt "significantly furthers the governments' interest and whether less intrusive means would" have worked just as well.


Full article @ WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268952606832391.html)

[Ikasu]

Of course he's avoiding it. He's running for reelection.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Though Obama could easily influence congress to pass a gay rights bill congress does share the blame for not doing it on their own.

[Meg]

Of course he's avoiding it. He's running for reelection.

And I'm sure all those gays that voted for him, have once again kicked themselves in the ass.

[devildog]

A new bill from Congress isn't needed. An Executive Order from the President will stop current investigations and discharges immediately.

[TheTaoOfBill]

A new bill from Congress isn't needed. An Executive Order from the President will stop current investigations and discharges immediately.

That's a temporary fix. The second someone who's anti gay gets into office we'd be right back where we started. Congress needs to act a lot more than Obama needs to act.

It would be nice if Obama signed the executive order you're talking about. But we can't do this with the president alone.

[Ikasu]

A new bill from Congress isn't needed. An Executive Order from the President will stop current investigations and discharges immediately.

That's a temporary fix. The second someone who's anti gay gets into office we'd be right back where we started. Congress needs to act a lot more than Obama needs to act.

It would be nice if Obama signed the executive order you're talking about. But we can't do this with the president alone.

Legislation is needed to reverse the policy though. Obama isn't willing to do either and making excuses for it is unhelpful.

[The_Basseteer]

That's a temporary fix. The second someone who's anti gay gets into office we'd be right back where we started. Congress needs to act a lot more than Obama needs to act.

It would be nice if Obama signed the executive order you're talking about. But we can't do this with the president alone.

"The President proposes and Congress disposes."-- Old Political Adage

[TheTaoOfBill]

"The President proposes and Congress disposes."-- Old Political Adage

In this particular case it wouldn't be politically wise for Obama to have this on his plate. If congress does it the blame is spread out. But if Obama charges the movement forward head first he risks it becoming a major political issue to be used against him in 2012.

Like it or not gay marriage is only supported by 40% of the people.

Obama is sending a signal to congress that this one is on you guys. I'm confident being that the congress is mostly pro-gay right now that they will pass something. But Obama is simply taking the politically cautious route. And I'm not necessarily going to blame him for that because I want him to be a strong contender in 2012.

[Ikasu]

In this particular case it wouldn't be politically wise for Obama to have this on his plate. If congress does it the blame is spread out. But if Obama charges the movement forward head first he risks it becoming a major political issue to be used against him in 2012.

Like it or not gay marriage is only supported by 40% of the people.

Obama is sending a signal to congress that this one is on you guys. I'm confident being that the congress is mostly pro-gay right now that they will pass something. But Obama is simply taking the politically cautious route. And I'm not necessarily going to blame him for that because I want him to be a strong contender in 2012.

So backtracking on the issue is going to make him a stronger candidate?

[TheTaoOfBill]

So backtracking on the issue is going to make him a stronger candidate?

If it didn't work politicians wouldn't be doing it. Besides this isn't a complete reversal. It's not like he's suddenly against it.

[mavfin]

Still makes me shake my head when I realize a lot of gays thought Mr. Flip-Flop would actually do something for them.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Still makes me shake my head when I realize a lot of gays thought Mr. Flip-Flop would actually do something for them.

It's not a flip flop...it's an avoidance...He's not saying he's going to veto a bill or anything

[mavfin]

It's not a flip flop...it's an avoidance...He's not saying he's going to veto a bill or anything

You can sugar-coat it all you want, Tao, but he's done his usual thing on a difficult issue that he promised action on: nothing.

[TheTaoOfBill]

You can sugar-coat it all you want, Tao, but he's done his usual thing on a difficult issue that he promised action on: nothing.

First... it's not a sugar coat. That's what it is. He didn't reverse positions on it. He simply stated that it's not his job. Which technically he's right. I dunno why we aren't putting more blame on pelosi and reid right now. They are the ones with the real power to do something.

[Ikasu]

First... it's not a sugar coat. That's what it is. He didn't reverse positions on it. He simply stated that it's not his job. Which technically he's right. I dunno why we aren't putting more blame on pelosi and reid right now. They are the ones with the real power to do something.

That's a cop-out. Blaming Congress, not having the votes, or worrying about an election are examples of poor leadership. And you're supporting his inaction because you don't want to criticize your hero.

[Meg]

First... it's not a sugar coat. That's what it is. He didn't reverse positions on it. He simply stated that it's not his job. Which technically he's right. I dunno why we aren't putting more blame on pelosi and reid right now. They are the ones with the real power to do something.

Fine, yet I don't hear Obama making any effort to get them to start on a bill.

[TheTaoOfBill]

That's a cop-out. Blaming Congress, not having the votes, or worrying about an election are examples of poor leadership. And you're supporting his inaction because you don't want to criticize your hero.

I'm not supporting his action. I'm understanding it. I want him to win in 2012. And there is nothing he can do that would have a permanent effect without congress anyway.

[Laura Cereta]

Obama is sending a signal to congress that this one is on you guys. I'm confident being that the congress is mostly pro-gay right now that they will pass something. But Obama is simply taking the politically cautious route. And I'm not necessarily going to blame him for that because I want him to be a strong contender in 2012.

Why? So he can waste more money, break more campaign promises, and uphold more Bush policies in 2012? Yipee.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Fine, yet I don't hear Obama making any effort to get them to start on a bill.

That kinda defeats the purpose of trying to keep your name off the bill.

By saying this is congress's job he is indirectly influencing congress to get on it.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Why? So he can waste more money, break more campaign promises, and uphold more Bush policies in 2012? Yipee.

Because whatever you say about him he's still better than any other choice currently on the table.

[Meg]

That kinda defeats the purpose of trying to keep your name off the bill.

By saying this is congress's job he is indirectly influencing congress to get on it.

Briefly mention that, "Oh that's their job!" isn't going to get them to do anything. What's he waiting for? For a few years to go by and the Dems lose the house and senate seats again?

[TheTaoOfBill]

Briefly mention that, "Oh that's their job!" isn't going to get them to do anything.What's he waiting for? For a few years to go by and the Dems lose the house and senate seats again?

We'll see what happens...right now he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

[hobbitt]

Translation: "We don't want to deal with it."





Translation: "Someone else needs to introduce legislation to deal with it."





Translation: "It's not my fault; I'm the victim. Congress is supposed to take care of it."



Full article @ WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268952606832391.html)


And I will be having my hair cut that day...

[Alces95]

Why? So he can waste more money, break more campaign promises, and uphold more Bush policies in 2012? Yipee.


Laura, One minute I find myself completly agreeing with you and the next wondering where you are at.:thinking: Either way, I LOVE reading your posts! (No sarcasm, I'm being serious. I still feel bad about the * post a few months back. :)>-)

For my vote, I think I am getting what I thought I was voting for. I see him doing some things that have supported the left, right and everyone in between. The biggest campaign promise that he has kept is that he was going to listen to advisors and folks in the know. Sometimes, this has led to a desicion I disagree with (Tribunals and one of the spending bills) and some I do (CAFE increase today for example.)

The headline of your posts I think says it all for me. "Obama avoids test.." Good. Maybe I am being far too trusting and naive (I can here you yelling at your computer "YES!") but what if he was truly trying to be less partisan? "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall catch hell from both side."

[TheTaoOfBill]

Laura, One minute I find myself completly agreeing with you and the next wondering where you are at.:thinking: Either way, I LOVE reading your posts! (No sarcasm, I'm being serious. I still feel bad about the * post a few months back. :)>-)

For my vote, I think I am getting what I thought I was voting for. I see him doing some things that have supported the left, right and everyone in between. The biggest campaign promise that he has kept is that he was going to listen to advisors and folks in the know. Sometimes, this has led to a desicion I disagree with (Tribunals and one of the spending bills) and some I do (CAFE increase today for example.)

The headline of your posts I think says it all for me. "Obama avoids test.." Good. Maybe I am being far too trusting and naive (I can here you yelling at your computer "YES!") but what if he was truly trying to be less partisan? "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall catch hell from both side."
Excellent post
genericstamp!

[VotingHillary]

Because whatever you say about him he's still better than any other choice currently on the table.

3 1/2 years is a long time in politics. I will just say this one thing on this issue since my opinion is already known. There is not more patriotic Americans than our gay service people. These are the folks that truly put country above all else.

God bless them...and frankly all those who CHOOSE to put their lives on the line so we have the freedoms we do.

[Laura Cereta]

Laura, One minute I find myself completly agreeing with you and the next wondering where you are at.:thinking: Either way, I LOVE reading your posts! (No sarcasm, I'm being serious. I still feel bad about the * post a few months back. :)>-)

For my vote, I think I am getting what I thought I was voting for. I see him doing some things that have supported the left, right and everyone in between. The biggest campaign promise that he has kept is that he was going to listen to advisors and folks in the know. Sometimes, this has led to a desicion I disagree with (Tribunals and one of the spending bills) and some I do (CAFE increase today for example.)

The headline of your posts I think says it all for me. "Obama avoids test.." Good. Maybe I am being far too trusting and naive (I can here you yelling at your computer "YES!") but what if he was truly trying to be less partisan? "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall catch hell from both side."

Alecs95, first of all please don't feel bad about the * post. I am very comfortable with conflict and debate, as long as it is respectful. If I take a position, I should be able to defend it. If I can't defend it, I had better rethink my stance, right? Feel free to challenge me any time. ;)

I think Obama's avoidance of "tests" are problematic for several reasons. First of all, on this issue in particular, he is acting contrary to numerous campaign promises. Secondly, I would be more inclined to give his intentions the benefit of the doubt if he didn't have a history of talking yet not acting. Thirdly, if we use the argument that doing nothing is being less partisan, then why wasn't he "less partisan" about the abortion issue? Why didn't he bow out of the Notre Dame invitation and "do nothing" to avoid controversy? Fourthly, he was hired to the executive position with the expectation that he would lead. As someone else pointed out, he may not have numbers in Congress that are this favorable in a year and a half. The time to act is now. While he does need Congress' cooperation, a good leader intiates action. Lastly, and most importantly, being less partisan does not bring the freedom and equality to the LGBT community that they are entitled to, as far as I'm concerned. Playing politics is not a valid excuse to rubberstamp continued oppression.

[Alces95]

Alecs95, first of all please don't feel bad about the * post. I am very comfortable with conflict and debate, as long as it is respectful. If I take a position, I should be able to defend it. If I can't defend it, I had better rethink my stance, right? Feel free to challenge me any time. ;)

I think Obama's avoidance of "tests" are problematic for several reasons. First of all, on this issue in particular, he is acting contrary to numerous campaign promises. Secondly, I would be more inclined to give his intentions the benefit of the doubt if he didn't have a history of talking yet not acting. Thirdly, if we use the argument that doing nothing is being less partisan, then why wasn't he "less partisan" about the abortion issue? Why didn't he bow out of the Notre Dame invitation and "do nothing" to avoid controversy? Fourthly, he was hired to the executive position with the expectation that he would lead. As someone else pointed out, he may not have numbers in Congress that are this favorable in a year and a half. The time to act is now. While he does need Congress' cooperation, a good leader intiates action. Lastly, and most importantly, being less partisan does not bring the freedom and equality to the LGBT community that they are entitled to, as far as I'm concerned. Playing politics is not a valid excuse to rubberstamp continued oppression.


I think I have a different view on all but your last point. While I don't think its partisan (Personal political gain) it is a leadership style. It does come with an expense and I don't think it is an expense that is right to set aside.

I tend to think of "Retreat, but never surrender" in politics. Maybe sometimes even retreat may be a bad idea. My hope is that he is not surrendering on this (LBGT) issue. Minimally, he should encourage debate even if he himself is reluctant to participate.

As for any tests, I can't see any president or leader passing one. When the answer are subjective, everyone gives you a different grade. Thats why, in general, I am ok with him avoiding tests. Just keep doing what you thin is right and those that want to grade you anyway will do so.
But you make a great point on the LGBT issue. After your post, I wouldn't consider it a test. It would be adressing an issue that needs to be addressed.

[CGP]

In this particular case it wouldn't be politically wise for Obama to have this on his plate. If congress does it the blame is spread out. But if Obama charges the movement forward head first he risks it becoming a major political issue to be used against him in 2012.

Like it or not gay marriage is only supported by 40% of the people.

Obama is sending a signal to congress that this one is on you guys. I'm confident being that the congress is mostly pro-gay right now that they will pass something. But Obama is simply taking the politically cautious route. And I'm not necessarily going to blame him for that because I want him to be a strong contender in 2012.

But he's willing to go against public opinion in regards to abortion.

No, his flip-flop on this issue (don't ask, don't tell) is indicative of a broader strategy of luring voters in with false promises only to withdraw those promises once he has their votes. It's really BAD politics & I am so not inspired by it.

[NativeSun]

To Everyone: what actions in Obama's past ever gave you the inclination that he was supportive of the gay community and their causes? Now given that, how can anyone be surprised by his recent actions (or lack of them). Or better yet, why did you even think that he was even going to do something about them?

[Spang]

Or better yet, why did you even think that he was even going to do something about them?

I never expected Obama to do everything in the first 100 days. It doesn't disappoint me that he hasn't.

[NativeSun]

I never expected Obama to do everything in the first 100 days. It doesn't disappoint me that he hasn't.

There is a difference between delaying action and avoiding it. And he is avoiding it because he does have the opportunity to intervene and is choosing not to.

[Laura Cereta]

To Everyone: what actions in Obama's past ever gave you the inclination that he was supportive of the gay community and their causes? Now given that, how can anyone be surprised by his recent actions (or lack of them). Or better yet, why did you even think that he was even going to do something about them?

There are no actions to support that Obama will accomplish much of anything in office. People expect things based on his word. The only action he has consistently taken throughout his career is to run (campaign) for a higher position. Now there are no higher positions yet he's running around the country campaigning anyway. People scoffed at Hillary's "experience" argument but I'm going to bet she will have the last laugh (though it probably won't be a public laugh).