A Friedman Unit For DADT

Gen. James Jones, the President's national security advisor, wants to wait to overturn the military's policy on gay soldiers until "the right time."

KING: You're national security adviser at a time of two wars, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And there's a big question about a promise the president made in the campaign, ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about homosexuals serving openly in the military.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, sent the president a letter this past week in which he says, "At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country. Many members of Congress, like me, support the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.' As Congress considers future legislative action, we believe it would be helpful to hear your views on policy."

They want the president to get involved. Is it time now, as soon as possible, to change that policy?

JONES: The -- the president has an awful lot on -- on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on.

KING: No idea when the right time is?

JONES: I don't think it's going to be -- it's not years, but I think -- I think it will be teed up appropriately.

I don't think this is as bad as John Aravosis makes it out to be, but it's not great. Jones could just as easily taken the same approach as Harry Reid, saying that the fact that we're in two wars is an argument FOR ending a bad policy as quickly as possible. Instead, Jones argued that things must be done at the appropriate time. In other words, wait a Friedman Unit or two, and we'll see then.

If anything else was happening to expand gay rights consistent with Obama's promises for more equality in America, maybe this could be excused. But he's not.

Official Military Publication Calls For End Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

An article in the Joint Forces Quarterly, an official military publication published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues powerfully and using available evidence for an end to discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military.

WASHINGTON - An article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs’ “flagship’’ security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.

While decisions on which articles to publish are made by the journal’s editorial board, located at the defense university, a senior military official said yesterday that the office of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman who is the nation’s top military officer, reviewed the article before it was published.

“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’

Via Adam Bink at Open Left, here's the entire article. The author takes a very deliberate approach, marshaling all of the arguments before and against repeal and coming to an unequivocal conclusion. He says that allowing gay members to serve while hiding their true identity compromises their personal integrity to an unacceptable degree. He says this ends up hurting unit cohesion more than it helps, as commanders know everything about their troops except one hidden fact. He cites the tragedy of 12,500 willing servicemembers no longer serving, likely a low number "since it cannot capture the number of individuals who do not reenlist or who choose to separate because of the intense personal betrayal they felt continuing to serve under the auspices of DADT."

Importantly, Col. Prakash applies empirical data from other NATO and allied countries who have allowed gay members of their militaries and sees absolutely no basis to the claim of a loss of unit cohesion:

Prior to lifting their bans, in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated that they would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their bans, the result was “no-effect.” In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops.

This finding seems to be backed by the 2006 Zogby poll, which found that 45 percent of current Servicemembers already suspect they are serving with a homosexual in their unit, and of those, 23 percent are certain they are serving with a homosexual. These numbers indicate there is already a growing tacit acceptance among the ranks.

This was written by a member of the military, for members of the military, and his study leads to the inescapable conclusion that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a costly failure that must be repealed. Furthermore most Americans favor repeal. There is absolutely no excuse for delay on this subject from either Congress or the Obama Administration.

Even The Not-Liberal New Republic...

With Ellen Tauscher's departure from Congress, Patrick Murphy is taking up the cause of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Murphy, a second-term Democrat, will be lead sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" — a policy first passed by Congress and signed into law under President Bill Clinton.

"It's our job," Murphy said of a repeal. "This was an act of Congress in 1993 and it will take an act of Congress" to reverse it.

The measure got a subcommittee hearing last year, but Murphy says Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has promised him a full committee hearing on the bill this session.

And The New Republic editorializes for its repeal as well this week.

This magazine has made no secret of its high regard for Barack Obama. Which makes it all the more distressing for us to observe the approach that his administration is taking on gay rights. During the campaign, Obama said all the right things (well, almost all--like most national politicians, he wouldn't endorse same-sex marriage). He invoked the importance of winning "equality" and "dignity" and "respect" for gays and lesbians. Now he is president. And one of the perks of being president is that you get to lead. But, when it comes to gay issues, leading does not seem to interest this White House [...]

In all of this, nothing is more infuriating than Obama's refusal to act on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is true that the issue affects a relatively small number of gays and lesbians. But discrimination in our armed forces carries a potent symbolism: It tells an entire class of people that the country is not interested in their service. And it would be an easy problem to fix. As Nathaniel Frank argued at tnr Online last month, Obama may need Congress's approval to officially repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but he has the legal authority to tell the Pentagon to stop enforcing the policy via executive order. He could do it tomorrow. As for the political risks: Obama should look at some polls. Unlike same-sex marriage, the question of whether gays should serve openly in the military is no longer a particularly controversial issue. According to Gallup, 69 percent of Americans believe gays should be able to serve openly. To put that number in perspective, it is 25 points higher than the percentage of Americans who endorse Obama's handling of health care, 19 points higher than the percentage who currently support the war in Afghanistan, and 18 points higher than the percentage who approve of the administration's economic policies. Obama is not afraid to push health care reform, send more troops to Afghanistan, or stand by his stimulus program--nor should he be. But why, when it comes to the far less controversial cause of gays serving in the military, is he apparently willing to punt?

So, take a look at the coalition here. Patrick Murphy, a Blue Dog Democrat, replaces New Democrat Ellen Tauscher as the lead sponsor on the repeal bill. The New Republic, easily the most centrist of major Democratic publications, which still has Charles Krauthammer on the frickin' masthead, calls the President's refusal to act "infuriating." We're not talking about Barbara Lee and The Nation teaming up on a bill. This is the consensus opinion of virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.

Except Barack Obama, who could stop implementation of the policy immediately through a stop-loss order.

If it's true that senior military leadership is to blame for the holdup of this basic, and modest, civil rights gain, someone needs to start naming names.

The Big Gay Olive Branch

Honoring the 40th anniversary of Stonewall while transparently pleading for time and faith from key supporters who have begun to abandon him, yesterday the President held a big gay party (not my words) and gave a pretty speech in an attempt to placate the LGBT community. If Joe Sudbay is any indication, it didn't work:

Also, your president wants you to know that unjust laws must be overturned. Some day. The crowd loved that one too. One might forget that the Obama administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act law recently. They not only defended it, they defended it in a way that demeaned and mocked same-sex marriages by invoking incest and pedophilia. But never mind.

Obama also told us that some would deny us full equality. Um, that would include him. He doesn't support marriage equality -- and his words are being used against our efforts to achieve those rights. But again, never mind.

The President tells us that he's looking for a "practical" solution to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (We've also heard the solution has to be "durable" or "sustainable.") But, it has to be an Act of Congress. It really really really really has to be an Act of Congress and not a stop-loss order that could achieve the same thing by executive order immediately. It's too bad that in the meantime two gay service men and women are kicked out every day. But hey, we're a nation at war. And, for some reason it means that we should have fewer, and not more, Arabic linguists. See, we're going to continue to ruin the lives of people who want to serve their nation, but, in the long run, that's okay. Because we're perpetually at war. But, someday we'll have a "practical" or "durable" or "sustainable" solution. Although, it is funny how how "practical" and "durable" and "sustainable" weren't talking points on DADT during the campaign. (Search for those terms in Senator Obama's Statement on Don't Ask Don't Tell from November 2007.) They sure are now that Obama is dragging his feet on every major campaign promise to the gay community.

All in all, the president gave a very eloquent speech. But, you know what, we've heard those speeches already. He's the president now, not some candidate. He can do more than talk. And so far, he's chosen not to, and made up some pretty flimsy excuses to justify his action. And, while many of the so-called gay "leaders" in the East Room may be assuaged and bought off by the promise of champagne and a heartfelt "God bless you" from the man who promised much, lots more people are mad as hell and starting to think they're being taken for a ride.

Lt. Col. Victor Fahrenbach, about to be discharged by the Air Force under DADT, actually showed up to the big gay party, and spoke directly to the President. He discussed the meeting with Allison Stewart last night.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Stewart correctly locates the outrage from the LGBT community back to that terrible DOMA brief linking homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. And Fahrenbach breaks some news here - that Obama basically told him the senior leadership in the military has misgivings over repealing DADT, and that this will take some time to smooth over. If that were the only obstacle, the community would probably understand. The DOMA brief really fractured the goodwill here, and Obama should have apologized for it today. Hendrik Hertzberg has a good rundown of the whole dispute.

What should wake up this President and the Democratic Congress to the need for full civil rights for all is this almost complete reiteration of Stonewall, at a gay nightclub in Fort Worth, Texas, THIS WEEKEND. Forty years after Stonewall, gays remain second-class citizens on far too many fronts. While Congress is making positive sounds on moving key gay rights legislation like extending the Employee Non-Discrimination Act for LGBT members, providing health care benefits for same-sex couples who are federal employees, and repealing DADT. But these sounds must be accompanied with action, and the full and active support of the White House. The gay community will no longer settle for less.

Changing Standards On Stop-Gap Solutions

The President could end the discharges of gay and lesbian servicemen under the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy today. He could sign out an executive order essentially putting a moratorium on those discharges, or he could even just issue a change in implementation to the policy at the Defense Department. 77 members of Congress signed a letter to this effect this week, and yet the President maintains that the issue must be tackled legislatively.

The White House has responded to an inquiry from The Advocate about a letter sent from 77 House members Monday urging President Barack Obama to take immediate action to stop the investigations of "don't ask, don't tell" violations.

"President Obama remains committed to a legislative repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which he believes will provide a durable and lasting solution to this issue. He welcomes the commitment of these members to seeing Congress take action," read the statement.

Of course, an executive order or implementation order could be the first step to such a lasting solution. The President could offer legislative language as he secures the stoppage of implementation, form a blue-ribbon panel to study repeal, and then get the legislative and military machinery working together so that everything is ready for passage. He could have done that on day one. And yet he hasn't. As John Aravosis notes, the President hasn't been such a slave to precedent when it comes to certain immigration laws.

It's another immigration law that unfairly deports the foreign-born spouses of Americans who die in the first years of their marriage. The Obama administration is going to defer enforcement of that law until Congress can fix it in a few years.

Then why not defer enforcement of the HIV ban? Why not defer the deportation of the foreign-born partners of gay Americans? Why not defer enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell with a stop-loss order? Why not defer filing anti-gay briefs in support of DOMA? We've been told that in each case it's because "it's the law, and there's nothing President Obama can do when a law tells him what to do." And, Obama also adds that it would be inappropriate to order a stop-gap solution now, short of a full legislation fix. Same thing for health benefits for same-sex couples who federal employees. Remember, they said DOMA prevents that.

If the White House was just straight about this from the beginning, if they didn't come up with these unsatisfactory explanations, if they offered a real effort on gay civil rights in the first year, if they didn't rile up the community with a DOMA brief characterized by many as offensive, they would not see a pillar of the Democratic Party in open revolt right now. They had the "gays in the military" disaster they sought to avoid - only from the left. Bad job all around.

Dead Olive Branch

After seriously pissing off gays and lesbians since practically the day after the election, from choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural to making no progress on nearly a dozen initiatives promised during the campaign, from gay marriage to Don't Ask Don't Tell to DOMA to the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, Barack Obama will offer job benefits to federal employees in same-sex relationships as a kind of consolation prize.

President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.

Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”

There's a backstory to this, as the DNC is planning a fundraiser for a lot of well-heeled gays and lesbians and the Human Rights Campaign just pulled out of it, after the Justice Department filed a fairly homophobic brief defending DOMA in district court. This kind of small-ball maneuver will not mend the rift that has opened through months of disappointment with Obama's reticence to meet his promises.

Unfortunately, federal benefits for gay federal employees is not even one of the eight campaign promises Obama made to our community (there are only seven now on the White House Web site - the DOMA promise went down the memory hole about two months ago).

Joe and I have written about this before. We had predicted that Obama would either give us the hate crimes bill or benefits for federal employees as a means of showing how much he's doing on his gay rights promises, without actually doing anything on any of the eight gay rights promises he made. (And guess what? After the DOMA brief controversy exploded, they suddenly announced plans to do hate crimes in the Senate this week. And now, poof, the bill is dead again until at least August. And remember folks, this is the easy one - it already passed the House and Senate, and survived a Senate filibuster, in the last Congress.)

Who is advising the president of the United States on gay issues? This is beyond belief. These people think we're living in 1993, where our number one issue is getting 2% of the gay population working for the federal government to get some of the benefits that straight employees get. Again, it's nice. And if I were kicking back in my Birkenstocks and joining a few friends to watch Melrose Place, I might think this was a huge deal. But it doesn't compare with Obama having promised to repeal DOMA, repeal DADT, and secure passage of ENDA. There is no progress whatsoever on that front, unless you call Obama continuing to discharge gay service members, and filing hideously anti-gay rehashes of George Bush's old homophobic legal briefs, "progress."

I agree with John Aravosis that Obama and his advisors appear stuck in a 1990s mindset, wary of a Clinton-style flameout on a gay rights issue at a time when same-sex marriage has been made legal in six states and most Americans have moved beyond the culture wars. Who exactly is Obama mollifying by not pressing on gay rights issues? Seemingly, a section of the public that will never vote for him anyway.

Furthermore, these benefits are restricted through the Defense of Marriage Act, and thus will be more symbolic and marginal than thorough.

I do agree that gay rights advocates should hold Congress to the same standard as the President, though obviously the man with the bully pulpit has a great deal of influence. Harry Reid told the Advocate that a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell could happen in this Congress, and he should not only be held to that (it was actually a backtrack from a previous statement that a DADT repeal had no chief sponsor in the Senate), but pushed to do it this year. Reid tried to punt to the President by saying "We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when." You can see the President punting to Congress (I need legislation) and Congress punting to the President (we need legislative language) forever. Pressure must be maintained on all fronts.

Obama Needs To Act On DADT

The Supreme Court declined to get into the political fight over the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and hear a challenge to the law from a former Army captain. This has two implications:

1) It makes it far less likely, at least to me, that the same Court would hear a challenge to Prop. 8 which former adversaries Ted Olson and David Boies have been pushing. Typically the Court stays out of political fights, and given the similarities between these court challenges, I just wouldn't expect this Court to weigh in, even if the violations of equal protection are made pretty clear. It's a conservative Court, regardless of the Sotomayor nomination.

2) It's time for the President to step up. The courts won't bail him out.

It's time for Obama to step up. He doesn't have to wait for legislation, although legislation to overturn DADT should be passed ASAP. Obama is the commander-in-chief. He has tools at his disposal to prevent further discharges. He can issue an Executive Order according to a study by the Palm Center. If Obama wants to make a real statement during LGBT Pride Month, instead of just a proclamation, taking action to prevent further discharges under DADT would be a good one -- a very good one.

We're waiting, Mr. President.

CA-10: Dan Choi Endorses Anthony Woods

The President is under fire from the LGBT community for slow-walking their issues and turning away from campaign promises. It's getting a little ugly, and the President risks a lot of goodwill for a community that worked hard to elect him, especially in the wake of several victories on marriage equality in the New England area and Iowa and the historic level of activism after the passage of Prop. 8.

Central to this debate is the issue of gays in the military and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Obama keeps insisting that he wants to change the policy, and his nominee for Secretary of the Army, Republican John McHugh, reportedly supports this change as well, saying that he has "no interest as either a Member of Congress or as … secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve.” A recent poll shows overwhelming support for allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military, even among conservatives.

But the President could end this policy today by putting a moratorium on implementing the policy of throwing out qualified Americans from serving in the Armed Forces. Two of those Americans, Iraq war vets Dan Choi and CA-10 candidate Anthony Woods, are teaming up, as Choi announces his endorsement of Woods.

“For 10 years, I have known Anthony Woods as a leader and an officer of the highest caliber,” said Choi. “From defending our nation abroad, to fighting for our highest ideals here at home, Anthony Woods exemplifies the real world perspective that is needed to bring about real change in Washington, and I am proud to support his candidacy for Congress.”

An Arab Linguist, Lieutenant in the New York Army National Guard, and West Point Classmate of Anthony Woods, Choi rose to national prominence earlier this year when he openly declared that he was gay on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show.” The Army quickly launched discharge proceedings against Choi, who has vowed to fight his termination from the military under the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy,” and re-deploy with his unit.

Like Choi, Woods also served in Iraq, commanding 81 soldiers and earning both the Bronze Star and Army Commendation medal during two tours of duty. Woods was also discharged after challenging the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and would be the first openly gay African American ever elected to the United States Congress [...]

Choi will join Woods at two events in Northern California this month---the first on June 26th in Davis, and the second on June 29th in San Francisco.

Obviously, Woods is more than a single issue candidate. But the imagery of someone replacing Ellen Tauscher, who is currently carrying the bill in the House to repeal the DADT policy, who was kicked out of the military using that policy, is undeniable, and can increase pressure on the President and Congress to finally do the sensible thing and remove that layer of discrimination in our armed services.

Memorial Day And Diversity

Yesterday I went to Arlington West, a makeshift memorial next to the Santa Monica Pier with crosses for each of the dead in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During Memorial Days my thoughts always turn toward the dead, and the stark differences between the old men who devise and authorize war and the young men who fight and die in it. This weekend the President tried to contextualize the holiday and the responsibility to honor those who serve.



I was struck by this passage:

Our fighting men and women – and the military families who love them – embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.

And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country.

And that is a sacred trust I am committed to keeping as President of the United States. That is why I will send our servicemen and women into harm’s way only when it is necessary, and ensure that they have the training and equipment they need when they enter the theater of war.

...because of how untrue it is. Not the part about soldiers and airmen embodying the finest of America, or our past failures to responsibly honor them. It's the part where the President claims to be committed to "keeping the sacred trust" for everyone who serves. Because for a segment of the military population, that's not true. Since the President has taken office, dozens of able-bodied, eager and willing men and women have been fired because of who they choose to love. The White House clearly wants to avoid the issue. But they cannot claim to honor every American who serves when they segregate and punish some for the thinnest of reasons.

I know Democrats are simply spooked by the past, and the spectre of the gays in the military debate in 1993 is enough to swear them off gay rights at the national level for decades. But at some point, the discontinuity in rhetoric becomes too much to bear. It's time to end the policy of official discrimination in practically the last place where it's publicly allowed, our armed forces. The latest missive from the Pentagon suggests that the pressure is starting to move Obama in the right direction on this. I hope so. 2009 is not 1993. Times have changed and people have changed. Democrats cannot stay trapped in their boxes and expect to keep receiving the votes of the diverse Americans who support them and expect to be supported as well.

How Many More Times?

Rachel Maddow hosted another American hero tossed out of the military because of who he chooses to love. At the same time, the Pentagon has no plans to change the policy.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell today said there are no plans to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits openly gay troops from serving in the military.

President Obama vowed to repeal the controversial 1993 policy during the campaign, but according to Morrell, there have not been serious discussions between the White House and the military about doing so.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen are "aware of where the president wants to go on this issue, but I don't think that there is any sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Morrell said.

Morrell indicated that the White House has not formally sent a request to Congress to abandon the policy. He said there have only been "initial conversations in their early stages" about the situation.

Morrell is a Bush-era holdover, by the way, so it's entirely possible he's spinning and/or lying. But I don't think so.

As Steve Benen says today, there's a solution sitting on the table that the President could enact today if he were serious about changing the policy.

The White House continues to say the president supports repealing DADT, but is looking for Congress to change the law. Fine. In the meantime, as the LA Times reports today, the president has short-term alternatives: "Under the 'stop-loss' provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service in a time of national emergency, the report said. The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand troops as gay and thus excluded from service, the report said. And Obama and his Defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 law banning gays in the military."

I realize the administration would catch some flak for this. Obama should do it anyway.

There's simply no excuse for throwing out people who are willing to serve and provide skill and talent to the military. One can only conclude that the President doesn't want to make any changes. He's making a huge mistake.

By the way, Rachel, I've got another guest for your show: Anthony Woods.

No Middle Ground

The Obama Administration won't challenge a legal ruling on gays in the military, but will fight it in the lower courts.

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 [...]

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."

There's something to be said for following the law and past precedent. But first, the President could easily put a moratorium on firing gay and lesbian soldiers today, and second, this respect for the law hasn't extended to many, many other policies that the President has overturned. Only in the area of gay rights, it appears, must those laws be followed to the letter.

As Joe Subday notes, the LGBT community is organized and impatient, and these games of "we want to repeal it, but until then we'll follow the law" won't fly for much longer.

There's a case in the pipeline on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already, which challenges Section 3 of that law. The lawsuit, Gill, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., was filed in March. The head of the Office of Personnel Management is gay, coincidentally. Will the Obama administration defend DOMA in court, too? Will the gay head of OPM defend DOMA?

If the White House thinks signing the hate crimes bill is enough, which it appears they may do soon, they're wrong. And, a beautiful proclamation about gay pride won't cut it either. The times have changed and the President and his people need to catch up -- fast.

It seems that Obama's fetish for a middle ground actually hurts him here. Either gays and lesbians have the same rights as all Americans or they don't. There's not a "common ground" position to take.

Stop Making Them Second-Class Citizens

Following up on the gay marriage talk, it really grates on me that social conservatives can still use the words of Democratic leaders who are too milquetoast to argue fervently for equal rights. We're not even talking about just marriage, but the entire umbrella of gay rights, things that the nation has come to a consensus on long ago, like banning discrimination against gays in employment or stopping the insane policy of firing willing public servants at a time when we need as many eager members of the military as possible because of their personal relationships. Hearing the White House hem and haw on these issues, which are uncontroversial to the vast majority of the public, just really makes you sad. Democrats continue to tie themselves up in knots with fear of actually producing for communities like the LGBT base, despite the fact that social conservatives have become totally marginalized and nobody who listens to James Dobson would vote for a Democrat anyway.

Andrew Sullivan has an important piece on these issues.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs gave non-answer after non-answer on civil unions and Obama's clear campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; non-answer after non-answer on the military's remaining ban on honest servicemembers. What was once a categorical pledge is now - well let's call it the toilet paper that it is. I spent yesterday trying to get a better idea of what's intended on all fronts, and the overwhelming sense - apart from a terror of saying anything about gay people on the record - is that we are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more.

It's not only wrong, it's no longer even smart politics. The gay community has money, ground troops and power, and they are increasingly organized. What you rile up on the right gets more than made up for from the energy and effort from the left. Not to mention, it's the right thing to do.

Obama Needs To Step Up And Help Repeal DADT

I highly recommend this segment on the Rachel Maddow show with Dan Choi, a gay veteran and Arabic linguist now being thrown out of the military after coming out on an earlier Maddow program. This is the system that John McCain considers to be "working well." At a time when the military has been forced to loosen their recruitment guidelines to allow admittance for 42 year-olds and the mentally ill, 13,000 members who want to serve have been discharged because of who they choose to love in their personal lives. It's a needless violation of these men and women's dreams and career goals, an unnecessary intrusion into their lives, and a costly policy that doesn't improve unit cohesion or readiness in any way.

Here's Dan Choi discussing his removal from the Army:

CHOI: Well, when I got the letter, I was extremely angry. I was angry -- I mean, the letter is basically saying bottom line, Lieutenant Dan Choi, you're fired. You're a West Point graduate, you're fired. You're an Arabic linguist, you're fired. You deployed to Iraq, you're willing to deploy again, doesn't matter. Because you're gay, that's enough grounds to kick you out.

But the biggest thing that I'm angry about is what it says about my unit. It says that my unit suffered negative good order -- negative actions -- good order and discipline suffered. That's a big insult to my unit.

I mean, all the insult that the letter can do, to say that I'm worthy of being fired, you know, that's nothing comparing to saying that my unit is not professional enough, that my unit does not deserve to have a leader that is willing to deploy, that has skills to contribute.

Choi plans to fight the policy, an opinion he apparently shares with the President. Yet Obama has shied away from meaningfully committing to overturning the policy. He keeps fussing with the language on his website, advocating not a "repeal" but a "change" of the policy. Plus, he could end implementation of the policy and essentially put a moratorium on all discharges right now until the policy review is completed and Congress takes action. I understand that Obama must be looking at the model of Bill Clinton, who came out for full participation of gays in the military in 1993 and eventually had to accept this policy, and he doesn't want to make the same mistake. But there will never be a "good time" to repeal DADT. At some point, leaders lead, and while Eugene Robinson mainly talks about gay marriage in this piece, the exact same statement could be made about DADT:

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy ripe for repeal, it's time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is [...]

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise.

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments -- it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage reenlistment -- are often the same, almost word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. It was bigotry then, and it's bigotry now.

Obama should also make the obvious case that forcibly discharging capable, fully trained servicemen and servicewomen for being gay, at a time when our overstretched military is fighting two big wars, can only be described as insane.

Congress needs to act to fully repeal DADT, and Rush Holt, among others, have committed to that option. One of them is, interestingly enough, Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral talking about primarying Arlen Specter in the Senate race in Pennsylvania. While Sestak may be moderate on a few issues, he has always been out front on the issue of DADT repeal.

SESTAK: First, Lieutenant, thanks for your service to our nation. And I think this is indicative of the kind of quality of man and woman that we have lost. Look, I went to war, and we knew by survey that when I went to war that we had a certain percentage in that carrier battle group, and when I was on the ground briefly in Afghanistan, that were gay. And now we come back to America and say they don't have equal rights. I've never understood it. This is something where we have to correct this. It's just not right.

MADDOW: When the president says, Admiral Sestak, when he says that it could be slow going in part because it has to move through Congress -- and again, we know this because he wrote it in a handwritten letter to somebody who is currently being kicked out of the military, as Lieutenant Choi is -- he's essentially saying that Congress will be part of the reason that this needs to go slow. But you're saying that this could actually happen quite quickly.

SESTAK: I think it could, yes. I think the president as commander in chief needs to be the one that says to the military -- and I understand what Secretary Gates said recently about the plate is kind of full -- that's not the Defense Department's decision. This is the commander in chief's decision to say we need to change it, which he has [...]

And I know there's several of us veterans here -- Patrick Murphy, Eric Massa, myself, you know, warriors, veterans, like the lieutenant, that want to, as Ellen Tauscher, who is the primary mover of this, goes off to the State Department, that we can pick it up as co-sponsors, and hopefully rapidly move it. If it's a law, I think we should do it by due process.

Just as fascinating, the aforementioned main sponsor of the bill, Ellen Tauscher, is moving to the State Department, and among the candidates readying themselves to replace her is gay veteran Anthony Woods, who served two tours in Iraq as a platoon leader before coming out to his superiors and being discharged from the military. Woods would rather not be pigeonholed as the gay DADT candidate, and he has much more to offer than that. But clearly he becomes a powerful symbol in this debate, one that the President could end quickly with a little leadership.

Could Obama Stop The Firing Of Gay Military Members?

This talk about a potential gay or lesbian Supreme Court justice bubbled up over the past couple days, leaving us with the perverse dichotomy of allowing a gay or lesbian to preside over the nation's highest court - in fact, thinking it absurd to even question someone's fitness along those lines - but not allowing a gay or lesbian to serve their country as an Arabic linguist.

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.

Or is it?

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

That's a compelling case. Especially considering that there's documentary proof that Obama has expressed his commitment to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Sandy - Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment. — Barack Obama.

I get the sense that Obama likes, or is at least comfortable with, the tangle of needing Congressional action. He can claim his hands are tied and until Congress acts, he is powerless. But the above article has another opinion - Obama could block implementation. It would be controversial, to be sure. But leaders don't bow to controversy.

CA-10: Exclusive Calitics Interview With Anthony Woods

The race to replace Rep. Ellen Tauscher in Congress received a jolt yesterday with the announcement of Lt. Gov. John Garamendi that he expects to be a candidate for that seat. And just today, Joan Buchanan has decided to enter the race as well. But these are not the only candidate poised to jump into the race. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Anthony Woods, a young West Point graduate who served two tours as a platoon leader in Iraq. Woods was born in the district on Travis AFB in Fairfield, to a single mother who worked as a housekeeper. He was raised in the area, and after his stint at West Point, he volunteered and took command of two separate platoons that shipped out to Iraq, once in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06, engaging in service for which he received the Bronze Star. Returning to the states, he took graduate studies in public policy at the Kennedy School for Government at Harvard, and in his second year, he entered into a relationship that made him realize the absurdity of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Tired of shutting down his gay identity and hiding himself, he came out to his commander - "I wasn't going to lie about it anymore" - kicking off a lengthy investigative process that resulted in an honorable discharge (for "moral and professional dereliction of duty") in December 2008. Woods was also forced to pay back his education benefits. (A full bio on Anthony Woods can be found here.)

Here is someone willing to serve his country, able to perform honorably on the battlefield, yet because of his identity as a gay American cannot be a member of the military. The insanity of this official policy has been well-documented around here. What is striking about Woods is that he foregrounds the concept of service instead of the injustice of the policy, and would rather not dwell on that incident but instead find a new way to serve. He is close to making a decision on whether to enter the 10th District race, and on the flip, you can read a paraphrase of the rest of my interview with him.

Calitics: I suppose there's a tension between having this incredibly compelling story and not wanting to be pigeonholed into being "the gay candidate" or the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" candidate. How will you smooth over that tension, if you choose to run?

Anthony Woods: I think it's much more important to the people of this district that I didn't have health care until I was 18 years old. I believe the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is wrong, and I won't shy away from taking strong stands, but I don't want to be seen as a single issue candidate. All of my life experience will help me, from being raised by a single mother to not having health care to having to strive for a good education to my experience with veteran's aftercare to my service in Iraq.

Calitics: Let's talk about Iraq for a second. You served two tours there. What do you think of the President's policy, to honor the status of forces agreement and commit to a full withdrawal of all forces by the end of 2011? Is that too soon, not soon enough?

AW: I think the President's policy is right on point. The end of 2011 gives us enough time to wind down this war. I didn't support the war from the beginning - I entered the conflict to bring my platoon home and to serve my country. In 2008, at my commencement address at Harvard I questioned the war and some people didn't like that. But I have always believed that the longer we stayed, the longer we would delay that sense of urgency among the Iraqis to make the choices necessary to take responsibility for their country. So setting a definite timeline of leaving will provide that internal pressure for the Iraqis to reconcile.

Calitics: The Senate Armed Services Committee released their long report about interrogation tactics by the military, and this is the latest in a series of disturbing disclosures about torture. How do these reports make you feel, as someone who served, and what do you think ought to be done in the name of accountability?

AW: You know, I first got to Iraq shortly after the revelations at Abu Ghraib, right after our reputation in Iraq and around the world was sullied. The tactics undertaken by the previous Administration directly put me and my soldiers at risk. They did not make us safer at all. I'm glad that the President put the memos out there, so we can all see the truth. At first I agreed with the decision of the President not to go after CIA personnel who followed orders they believed to be legal by the Justice Department, but with the more facts that come out, I think there's a major need for accountability. Someone needs to have a reckoning for these actions committed in our name. I'm very big on accountability and trust.

Calitics: Have you made a final decision yet on running in this race?

AW: I haven't made a final decision, but I'm real close. If I do decide to run, I will make this race about issues that are personal to me. The challenges we face today are not new, you can see them over the last 30 years. The struggles I faced early in life are the same struggles families are facing right now. The fact that I didn't have health insurance until I was 18, or that my mom's premiums are skyrocketing today, these are all the same problems. And I think there's a need for some new leadership around them.

Calitics; Let's talk about health care, since you have personal attachments to the issue. What would you like to see in a major health care reform?

AW: I support universal health care with a public option. I would like to see an increase in SCHIP to cover all children, an early buy-in for Medicare, maybe at 55 years of age, and subsidies for those in the middle, so they can purchase quality health insurance. And everyone should have that public option so that they don't have to rely on a private insurer that may deny them coverage for a pre-existing condition. I think this is a major issue for families, but also a huge issue for businesses, who have such a burden of health care costs that it's stopping them from being competitive.

Calitics: How has you experience with the VA system colored your sense of this issue:

AW: Very much so. Veteran's aftercare is in kind of an ugly state right now, so I wouldn't want to model the VA system completely. But I do think we can address a lot of the bureaucratic slowness in that system and apply it to the overall health reform.

Calitics: Another big issue we're seeing debated in congress is energy. The legislation being debated in Congress right now is massive, and includes renewable energy standards, cap and trade, etc. I don't want you to have to summarize the whole thing, but what parts of energy policy are important to you?

AW: You know, having been to Iraq, I would say it's not out of the question that a big reason why we were over there instead of other trouble spots in the world is because of their oil reserves. The case can be made. And so I would like to stress that our national security is tied up with our energy security. We have to move beyond the dependence on fossil fuels like oil. Offshore drilling is just a band-aid, it will not solve the problem. I think we have to look to other sources of energy like wind and solar and biodiesel, and it's crucial to our national security in the future.

Calitics: One thing I see not mentioned in these debates is the need for more livable communities, so that people don't have to commute such long distances to get from home to work. The 10th has a lot of bedroom communities, do you think smart growth and livable communities make sense?

AW: Since I left the district, I've lived in places like Boston and Washington, DC, where there is a major focus on public transportation and mass transit. California definitely needs to focus on that, and we need that right here in this community. I also like what you're saying about smart growth. We can build commercial space closer to where people live, and through information technology we can increase telecommuting. There are a whole number of ways to decrease commute times and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to invest in things like high speed rail, in infrastructure projects that also have the added benefit of aiding our environment. Obama did a good job in that aspect in the stimulus package.

Calitics: Last question. Obviously, there's a lot of attention in this race, from the likes of State Senators and State Assemblymembers and even the Lieutenant Governor of California. You've never held elected office. What will be your pitch to people in the 10th to give you the opportunity to serve?

AW: We're at a time when we're frustrated with the solutions we have, but we keep sending the same politicians back to Washington to work on those solutions. That doesn't make sense to me. I have respect for everyone who will be in this race, but these are old problems that have not been solved by the same people. It's time for a fresh perspective, and new energy, and a new generation of leadership. That's what I believe we saw with Obama's election last year, and that's what I think people are still wanting to see. And while I think that elected office is obviously important experience, I'm also coming at this with a different set of experiences. I was a platoon leader in Iraq, I have taken strong stands in my life, things that cost me personally. I have dealt with the health care system, the veterans aftercare system, the education system. I believe I am ready to serve this district with courageous leadership drawing on my personal experiences.

Calitics: Thanks for your time.

AW: Thank you.

CA-10: Anthony Woods

We've been hearing rumors about this for some time, but Lisa Vordebrueggen went public, so now we can begin to tell this story. Anthony Woods, an African-American, openly gay Iraq War veteran with two tours of service who publicly came out to challenge the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, may enter the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10.

Harvard Magazine’s January-February edition features a very interesting story about Woods’ decision to leave the Army. Woods has a masters degree from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Woods was born on Travis Air Force Base and attended high school in Fairfield, according to a spokesman. He is now considering moving back home and running for Congress.

Woods was traveling and unavailable for comment today but as soon as I have an opportunity to speak with him at length, I will file an updated post about him.

I was able to speak with someone knowledgeable about Woods and his decision-making process today, and he told me that he would figure out whether or not to run "in the coming weeks." With no timetable for Tauscher's confirmation, certainly Woods, who also staffed for New York Gov. David Paterson, has some time.

Everyone who I've talked to about this characterizes Woods as a deeply impressive individual. He fought in Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq for two tours before deciding to take a stand on their discriminatory policy with respect to gays and lesbians. Here's a bit from that Harvard Magazine article Vordebrueggen cited:

In early November, Woods learned he would be “eliminated” from the army on the grounds of “moral and professional dereliction” and required to repay $35,000—the amount of his scholarship to attend the Kennedy School.

A military career may seem a curious choice for a young man who is gay or even questioning his orientation. But for the son of a single mother, growing up in an Air Force town in northern California, acceptance to West Point was an honor—and an opportunity—beyond compare. Woods focused on the professional to the exclusion of the personal; with the country at war, that wasn’t hard. But two years at Harvard gave him space to think—and to face his dismal prospects for upward mobility in an organization with an explicit homosexuality ban and a strong culture of marriage and children. Even if he had stayed closeted, he says, “It wasn’t going to be possible for me to fit the mold, and I knew that because of that, there was going to be a glass ceiling.”

Even after the invasive court-martial process—the military conducts interviews with friends and family to verify homosexuality, presumably to prevent fraud, for instance by soldiers who wish to avoid an additional tour in Iraq—Woods is reluctant to malign the officers who carried out his investigation. He says they are simply implementing a policy. Change might come from Congress, but Woods believes the Supreme Court is a more likely venue: “I think it’s going to take a landmark court case, like Brown v. Board of Education.”

That we would bar talented people who want to serve their country from that option makes absolutely no sense at all. But perhaps this is a blessing. Perhaps Woods can return to his hometown and find another way to serve - as part of a fresh group of lawmakers who have a new insight to these time-worn challenges we face and maybe some new strategies to tackle them. I hope to interview Woods very shortly should he decide to enter the race. Stay tuned.

Don't Ask About Don't Ask Don't Tell

Robert Gates, on Fox News Sunday, argued for a delay in implementing any change to the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy on gays in the military.

Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."

The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.

Of course we're in the midst of two wars right now, but I have to agree with Matt Yglesias - this is a truly weak excuse.

It’s simply the nature of the military that this “a lot on our plates right now” excuse will almost always be available. In retrospect, the 1990s were a period of relative peace and quiet for the military, but at the time it was seen as a stressful period of multiple deployments (to Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia) around the world mixed with efforts at containment in the Gulf and the Korean peninsula. The Joint Chiefs are never going to say “eh . . . we don’t really have much going on these days.”

As Matt notes, racial desegregation policies were carried out by the military at the height of the Cold War. The "we have a lot on our plates" excuse is too commonly used to delay important changes, particularly with respect to civil liberties. And let's flip this on its head. At a time when troops are stressed by multiple deployments, don't we have too much on our plate right now to dismiss willing soldiers for no other reason than their sexual orientation?

Moratorium Time

Jim Moran is right to go on offense about this nonsense:

The Army fired 11 soldiers in January for violating the military's policy that gay service members must keep their sexuality hidden, according to a Virginia congressman. Democratic Rep. Jim Moran said he has requested monthly updates from the Pentagon on the impact of the policy until it is repealed.

In a statement released on Thursday, Moran said the discharged soldiers included an intelligence collector, a military police officer, four infantry personnel, a health care specialist, a motor-transport operator and a water-treatment specialist.

"How many more good soldiers are we willing to lose due to a bad policy that makes us less safe and secure?" asked Moran, a member of the House panel that oversees military spending.

The President says he supports repeal of DADT. He says he's undergoing a policy review with Pentagon officials to get the best outcome. Well, how about a moratorium on discharges like this until that policy is set? Everyone agrees the current policy is wrongheaded, and we can't afford to lose more good soldiers at this time. Why are we still firing people for who they are?

...for that matter, gay couples should get spousal benefits. The governor of freakin' UTAH agrees with this. It's uncontroversial, and it's the fallback position for Republicans who don't support gay marriage but don't want to look like bigots. Why not do the right thing, Mr. President?

The Long Slow March Of Progress

The Obama Administration is going slowly but making progress on its efforts to get rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." It's insulting that you have to step this lively, but that's the political environment in which we live.

WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama has begun consulting his top defense advisers on how to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the military.

But the administration won't say how soon that might happen or whether a group of experts will be commissioned to study the issue in-depth, as some Democrats have suggested.

The move enables Obama to say he's making good on his campaign promise to reverse the law, but doesn't lock him into doing so anytime soon. The carefully calculated statement, released this week by White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, leaves enough wiggle room to prevent the hot-button issue from consuming Obama's foreign policy agenda, which is dominated by ending the Iraq war and salvaging operations in Afghanistan.

Somehow, they were able to initiate all kinds of small-bore stuff, like allowing photos of coffins back from overseas at Dover AFB, for example. This deliberation is about politics, not a question of capacity.

But it may be out of their hands. Ellen Tauscher took time out of demanding that there be more homeless people in America to introduce a bill repealing DADT. Last year she got 148 co-sponsors, including many Republicans. I could envision a legislative solution here faster than an executive one.

Not 1993 Anymore

Gays in the military was one of the early issues that tripped up the Clinton Presidency, for a variety of reasons, mainly because military brass like Colin Powell came out against it and undermined it. If President-elect Obama decides to institute the long-overdue proposal this year, he'll have some top generals and admirals supporting him:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders -- including the former head of the Naval Academy -- have signed a statement calling for an end to the military's "don't ask-don't tell" policy, according to a California-based think tank that supports the movement.

Retired Adm. Charles Larson, the former Naval Academy superintendent, tops the list of 104 retired general and admirals who want the government to repeal the policy, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced Monday.

"Don't ask-don't tell" was made law in 1993 after opposition ballooned to newly elected President Bill Clinton's plan to lift the military's complete ban on gay service members. The new policy stopped the practice of asking potential service members if they are gay but still required the dismissal of openly gay service members.

The Palm Center, which circulated the statement calling for the repeal of the "don't ask-don't tell" policy, is looking to President-elect Barack Obama to address the controversial issue of gays in the military.

The center points out that Larson, a four-star admiral who supported the measure in 1993, has changed his view on the policy. "There were a lot of witch hunts and a lot of people were turned out on that basis," he is quoted as saying in a Palm Center release.

I would say that Obama's leadership on this issue would be a powerful symbol of how far we've come and how ready the nation is for change. Obama has expressed that he would seek legislation on this rather than signing an executive order, in order to build consensus. It's beyond time for this. Don't ask don't tell is a joke, and we're actually hurting our readiness by rejecting those perfectly willing to serve. This can happen, too. It's not 1993 anymore.