Connect with us

Salvation Or Sham? “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal Compromise

Published

on

The compromise that created “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 has led, seventeen years later, to a compromise promising its repeal. But the LGBT community right now is in turmoil, unsure if it can trust the powers who have effectively oppressed and dominated us to keep their promises to free us.

Monday night, a compromise was reached between key Congressional leaders, the military, and the White House that effectively will allow a vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to take place this week, (probably Thursday in the full House, and in the Senate’s Armed Services Committee as an amendment to the 2011 defense authorization bill,) with the very mild support of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

(Gates’ support was so mild that it, along with Obama’s perceived reluctance, convinced Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to decide to vote against repeal. “Moderate” GOP Senator and Senate Armed Services Committee member Scott Brown (R-MA) has also promised to vote against repeal. Fortunately, Senator Ben Nelson (R-NE) has surprised most and indicated he will vote in favor of repeal. Of course, Rep. Mike Pence is still lying, stating, “The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda,” despite a CNN poll released yesterday that found that 78% of “the American people” want DADT repealed.)

If passed, repeal would not take place until after the military’s current invasive and unnecessary ten-month study has concluded, and even then, it would be up to the military — not Congress — to determine how and when implementation of the repeal would take place. In short, as many in the LGBT community are concerned, a gentleman’s agreement and a handshake are all we’re getting.

Esteemed civil rights activist David Mixner, who left the Clinton White House as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was being forged, weighed in. Writing “DADT: Compromise, Faith and Full Equality,” on his blog, Mixner voiced many strong and insightful thoughts which you should read, but I’ll share this one with you:

In the end, it is apparent that as a community we are being asked to proceed with “total faith” in the President and his willingness to take decisive action next winter. This compromise gives us no guarantees, doesn’t end current discrimination and leaves hoping for the best in others. ” Faith” is going to be tough for many people since some of us remember how in 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was touted as a major compromise and progress. Yes, it is wrong to live in the shadow of the past since it is 18 years later and it is a different world. However it is also wrong to ignore the lessons of our history – which tell us that most times when we have been asked to have “faith”, we have been given darkness.

So, do we trust Obama, who, I am sorry to say, is someone who means well but whose portrayal of patience, caution, and pragmatism seems more like running and hiding? (See: LGBT rights, BP oil “spill,” immigration reform, health care reform, public option…)

And how could we possibly trust the military to do the right thing? To quote a good friend, it would be like trusting a drug addict to quit cold-turkey, when he has no desire to quit in the first place.

The good news is once Congress votes to repeal, and it looks like they will, we’ve got a huge roadblock out of the way. The bad news is that once Congress votes to repeal, and it looks like they will, we have to trust Obama and the military to do the right thing. And then, we have to trust the next administration, and the next, and the next, to continue it.

Because even if and when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law, is repealed, there is nothing in place to ensure discrimination does not continue. Remember, before it was the law of the land, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been the military’s policy, in various forms, since World War II. And even if the law and the policy are rescinded, the attitude and behavior of harassment and subjugation must be eliminated through formal training and follow-up.

The right thing also means time. Because even if Congress repeals “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” tomorrow, they are ceding all power to the military to determine how and when repeal will become effective.

The worst case scenario is that the military could decide, after their study is complete on December 1, that implementation would have to take years. They could also decide to not stop the “don’t pursue” part of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass.” (Yes, most folks forget that’s really its name. Sadly, the last half of its name is forgotten, both in word and in deed.)

So, what we could have is an equally offensive slap in the face, if the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is rescinded, but the policy remains in place. And literally hundreds of good soldiers will continue to be kicked out of the armed forces, this time, not because of the law, but despite the law.

Huffington Post’s Aaron Belkin is more optimistic. In “Jim Crow? Really?,” he writes,

Here’s why that scenario shouldn’t scare us. 2010 is not 1993. The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and the Republican Secretary of Defense have called for open gay service. The public supports open service overwhelmingly, and that includes a majority of Republicans. Within the ranks, people just don’t care. Sure, there are some die-opponents in uniform. But their numbers are small and dwindling. Polls show that the number of service members who feel strongly about the issue is trivial, somewhere around 5 or 10 percent depending on the survey.

I’m sure that future Republican administrations will try to force gay troops back into the closet. And it would be much better to have a legal promise of nondiscrimination than an executive order or Pentagon regulation. That said, the regulatory path will be durable. Ex-president George Bush tried to undo a Clinton-era executive order mandating non-discrimination among non-military federal employees, and he couldn’t get away with it. As Ana Marie Cox has pointed out, racial integration was wildly unpopular when President Truman implemented it via executive order, and that policy has persisted for more than six decades.

The major LGBT groups — HRC, SLDN (whose executive director, Aubrey Sarvis today called it a “welcomed compromise,”) and Servicemembers United all support the compromise.

Chris Geidner writes in Metroweekly,

A leading gay critic [Richard Socarides] of the administration’s progress on LGBT issues called the compromise language unveiled this week for ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” a ”conditional future repeal,” adding that it ”is not repeal with delayed implementation.”

The bottom line?

The compromise is a step forward, but into unknown, and unprotected territory. Kind of like where we were before the compromise.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

These 19 Democrats May Already Be Jockeying for a Presidential Run: Report

Published

14 hours ago

on

January 21, 2026

By

The November midterms are more than nine months away, but already there are well over a dozen Democrats who could be showing signs of interest in running for the White House in 2028.

That’s according to Zenith Research pollster Adam Carlson, who identified nineteen Democrats with varying degrees of proximity to a presidential race.

The list includes current and former U.S. Senators, Congress members, governors, and mayors. One former cabinet secretary, one former ambassador, and one former astronaut. But overall, the list is heavy with executive experience — not just Washington politicians. That could be a feather in the cap for Democrats, as the GOP’s current bench appears to be drawn largely from inside the Trump administration — and voters may not want four, if not eight, more years of the same.

Nearly all have accumulated years — and in some cases, decades — of experience in government, spanning local, state, and national offices, yet none is older than in their mid-60s. The youngest is currently just one year beyond the Constitution’s 35-year age threshold. And today, after nearly a decade of some of the oldest U.S. presidents in history, that age range could bring a sigh of relief for many voters.

Many also hail from across the country, rather than being concentrated among so-called coastal elites — a longstanding critique often leveled at Democrats.

READ MORE: ‘Damage Control’: Trump Mocked for New Weekly Barnstorming Blitz Months Ahead of Midterms

Carlson divided the list into categories. Five are “clearly running,” six seem likely, four fall into a “wouldn’t be surprised” section, and just one is seen as “unlikely.” The future of two could depend on the 2026 race, and one is a “wildcard.”

Here are Carlson’s predictions:

Those clearly signaling a run include Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear; former U.S. Transportation Secretary and former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; former Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador Rahm Emanuel — who also served in the Obama White House; California Governor Gavin Newsom; and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

The “seems likely” group ranges from former Newark mayor and current U.S. Senator Cory Booker, to former Vice President Kamala Harris, along with U.S. Senator and former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

Under “wouldn’t be surprised,” are U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (AOC), and U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen.

The “unlikely” candidate, according to Carlson, is Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The two “depends on 2026” candidates are both U.S. Senators, and both from Georgia: Senator Jon Ossoff and Senator Raphael Warnock.

Lastly, the “wildcard”: political commentator and television host Jon Stewart.

READ MORE: ‘Can Barely Keep His Eyes Open’: Trump Mocked Over ‘Ramblefest’ Davos Speech

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

‘Damage Control’: Trump Mocked for New Weekly Barnstorming Blitz Months Ahead of Midterms

Published

20 hours ago

on

January 21, 2026

By

As his poll numbers continue to drop, the White House is announcing that President Donald Trump will begin a weekly barnstorming blitz of the country to rally supporters with stump speeches designed to change voters’ perceptions that high prices are Trump’s fault.

“Trump’s first stop will be on Tuesday in Iowa, where he will deliver a speech on the economy and energy, chief of staff Susie Wiles told reporters on the way to Davos, Switzerland,” Politico reported. “The travel blitz beginning in January is much earlier than during his first term, when he began traveling aggressively to support candidates just after Labor Day.”

“Trump has struggled to articulate an affordability message that moves the needle with voters, and a purposeful tack back to domestic matters could help that perception,” Politico noted, adding that “polling has regularly shown Trump’s popularity slipping and voters beginning to blame his policies for the high cost of living.”

According to Zeteo News’ Prem Thakker, Trump is running negative — and in some cases double-digit negative — in a dozen states that will hold elections for the U.S. Senate this November. Thakker cited data from The Economist, which also shows that the president’s net approval rating is now -19 percent, down two points from last week and “the lowest it has been this term.”

READ MORE: DOJ Delay Continues as Judge Denies Epstein Files Special Master

Some of those state ratings, Thakker noted, include:
Georgia: -18.6%
Maine: -18.4%
Texas: -17.2%
Michigan: -15.8%
N Carolina: -13.6%

Meanwhile, some appeared optimistic.

“As President Trump barnstorms the country to advance his America First agenda, Republicans are poised to defy history in the midterms,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Kiersten Pels told Politico.

Others took a different view.

The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell rejected former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) spokesperson Katie Miller’s suggestion that Trump’s travel to Iowa means that he’s “running.”

“This is a hilarious tweet,” Longwell wrote. “Trump isn’t going to Iowa because he is running. He’s going for damage control because his tariffs have made the state a pickup for Democrats.”

The Lincoln Project added, “Trump’s ‘Affordability Hoax’ heads to Iowa to tell Iowans that everything’s fine, despite their worst-in-the-country economy.”

On Tuesday, CNN’s John King reported that while Democrats understand that Iowa will be an uphill battle, they see opportunity.

“Democrats have a huge opportunity and Republicans acknowledge it,” King also told Anderson Cooper. “If the election were tomorrow, the Democrats would take back the House without question. The only part is the margin.”

READ MORE: ‘Can Barely Keep His Eyes Open’: Trump Mocked Over ‘Ramblefest’ Davos Speech

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

DOJ Delay Continues as Judge Denies Epstein Files Special Master

Published

22 hours ago

on

January 21, 2026

By

Thirty-three days after the Trump Department of Justice was required by law to release the Epstein Files — but failed to produce even one percent of them — a federal judge has rejected a bipartisan effort to appoint a special master to oversee production of the documents.

U.S. Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), went to court to make their request. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer declined that request, stating that he does not have the authority to appoint a special master.

“Their request is ‘important’ and ‘timely,’ but the appropriate vehicle may be a lawsuit or Congress, the judge says,” according to All Rise News editor-in-chief Adam Klasfeld.

“This criminal case does not give the Court any charter to supervise DOJ’s compliance with the EFTA,” Judge Engelmayer wrote, as New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane-Newman reported. “And the motion exceeds the bounds of permissible amici participation. This decision is without prejudice to the Representatives’ right to initiate a separate lawsuit. The Representatives are also, of course, at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools available to Congress.”

READ MORE: ‘Can Barely Keep His Eyes Open’: Trump Mocked Over ‘Ramblefest’ Davos Speech

On Tuesday, Crane-Newman reported that attorneys for the two congressmen had renewed “their push to seek a special master to oversee the Epstein files release, saying the government ‘cannot be relied upon to act with disinterest and objectively to do what is best for the survivors. It has its own conflicting interests.'”

Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, earlier on Wednesday, told MSNOW, “I don’t think we’ll see the entire file until Trump is out of office.”

“I think part of the problem here for Congressmen Khanna and Massie is that the law that they wrote is riddled with loopholes. It does not have an enforcement mechanism. So they’re trying to figure out how to get the DOJ to turn over all the documents, but there’s nothing in the law that forces them to do so under penalty of whatever,” he explained.

Aronberg called it “a real big question whether or not they, as members of Congress, have the standing to get this judge in a closed case to force the DOJ to turn over the documents.”

READ MORE: Canadian Prime Minister Warns World Order Has Ruptured

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.