Gay Vets To Meet With White House Next Week re: DADT

[Clio the Leo]

Gay Vets To Lobby White House
By Kerry Eleveld

A group of 125 gay veterans are scheduled to lobby White House officials on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" next Monday, May 10, at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The White House has not said who from the administration will attend the meeting, according to Alex Nicholson, executive director of the gay veterans group Servicemembers United, who helped coordinate the event.

Another meeting of 40 gay veterans will also take place Monday at the Pentagon. During that gathering, Nicholson said the vets would provide input to Department of Defense officials as they continue to conduct research into how to implement a repeal of the policy.

"The Pentagon working group is meeting with them to engage them as part of their work," Nicholson said. "That’s a not a token, they want to meet with different demographics as a part of their study." The Pentagon's review of how to implement repeal is due out in early December.

Press will not be admitted to either event.

The meetings were scheduled to coincide with repeal lobby days on May 10 and 11 coordinated by Servicemembers United and the Human Rights Campaign in which gay veterans will meet with their legislators.

"Both of these events will provide able participants the chance to meet with key leaders about DADT in advance of the formal Lobby Day program and congressional office visits," read the announcement from the two groups.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/04/Gay_Vets_To_Lobby_White_House/

and this from the comments section of this article was particularly interesting....

Actually, this event will mainly be managed by Servicemembers United, the largest org. of gay and lesbian vets in the nation. HRC is a sponsor, but so are but so are dozen other GLBT groups such as SLDN. I did my homework, and plan on being there with fellow vets to make sure we get our message to those at the White House and Pentagon personally.I recommend all vets try to make this event. There has been no other like it in history.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. Until it's fully repealed, I'm not hodling my breath.

I wish I could say Obama's been dragging his feet, but he's actually be standing still so...

[Radical Activist]

2. "research into how to implement a repeal of the policy"

It's funny. I've read several posts at DU declaring that Obama has given up or was dragging his feet too much on the repeal of DADT. But this suggests the decision to repeal has already been made and this study is only a matter of how to implement the change. So what's the alarmist language all about?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Studies have already been done. In the SOTU he said repeal of DADT this year.

This study is going to take years. At the very least, why not suspend DADT until the "study" is finished?

[Radical Activist]

4. Years? Stop the spin.

Obama said the deadline is December of this year. That's well reported.

[saracat]

5. Whoopee. BFD. He could sign an executive order but that wouldn't be

"politically" expedient.

[boppers]

6. He could sign an executive order but that wouldn't be legally binding.

We gotta get 10 USC 654 changed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

[saracat]

7. Harry Truman desegregated the Military with an executive order.

The legislation can be enacted later.

[boppers]

8. Slight differences and a huge problem

Truman wasn't up against congressional legislation (such as the above), which could cause problems later.

Say Obama issues an EO, and/or replaces the SecDef (which could also have a repeal effect, depending on SecDef policy)... what happens as soon as we get a (R) back in the seat?

Does this turn into another "Mexico City Policy" football, where each administration flips policy?

[saracat]

9. Don't even start. If you don't think Truman was up against worse, I just

have nothing to say. And there is absolutely no reason( other than political expedience) not to issue an executive order and back it up with a repeal but the president isn't going to do either. The WH has already admitted tabling this till after the elections and I will be surprised if it is done then. Civil Rights issues of any kind do not seem to be a priority to this WH.

[boppers]

10. Truman already had the troops in the military.

In case you missed that little legal tidbit, it was already legal to "serve while black".

It's not even legal to "serve while gay"...and mark my words, some moron is going to recommend segregation for gay troops.

Not the same thing.

Truman also wasn't trying to openly defy federal law by fiat, he was altering internal military policy.

Oh, and the "all Truman had to do is sign an order, and it was changed" idea is a modern myth. It took many years, policy commissions, studies, plans, redrafts of policy, reorganizations, meetings, pushback from officers, issues being tabled, issues being revised, committees, more drafts and redrafts (sound familiar)?

Here's a timeline, the whole process basically took from 1945 to 1953, 8 years:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

[saracat]

11. And this Admin hasn't even made a start.Perhaps if the WH started with an exec order now

the policy might be changed by 2016! And conditions are still similar .We have GBLT persons serving in the military already just as blacks served.The difference is they can't "tell " anyone they are Gay. But the issue is still one of integration.

[boppers]

13. Truman took three years to try the EO route.

So far, Obama seems to be using the pulpit to see if he can push the public, and congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/10/obama-says-he-will-end-do_n_316524.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/obama-gays-in-the-military_n_439698.html

Not much, but it also took Truman a few years to realize that this kind of change cannot be negotiated, then requested, but must be first demanded, then negotiated.

[saracat]

15. Well, Obama isn't "demanding" anything.And people are "sceptical"

because he also promised not to sign an HCR unless it had a Public Option and that FOCA would be the first piece of legislation he signed. His track record isn't really great. Even GHW Bush only got caught once with "read my lips, no new taxes".

[boppers]

16. I parse Obama like I parse Michael Moore...

(and like Michael Moore parses others)

Obama never actually said he would not sign any HCR bill unless that bill had a public option, but he did say a great many things that led people to that conclusion. He said "should have...", "must have...", and "I think that..." an awful lot, though.

He's big on qualifiers.

I don't know as much about FOCA (yet), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same.

GHW Bush didn't have qualifiers.

[chollybocker]

12. Now, President Obama.

The time frame is now.

[Prism]

14. We're past symbolism.

If President Obama is serious, he will join Congress and Speaker Pelosi in making DADT repeal a part of defense authorization before the November elections.

If he is not serious, he will have a lot of meetings, mention us in speeches, take some photos, and forget about us when the time to act has come.

Well, the time to act has come. When will he be joining us?