HuffPo: MLK Jr., Civil Rights, DADT—The Urgency of Leading
"MLK Jr., Civil Rights, DADT--The Urgency of Leading"
HUFFINGTON POST
January 18, 2010
Watching President Obama's stirring Martin Luther King day speech at the Vermont Street Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, I thought--and not for the first time--yes! the President wants to do the right thing in opening military service to all qualified men and women.
He just has to do it.
I felt the same way two years ago when on the same occasion he told the crowd in Martin Luther King's Atlanta church, "Unity is the great need of the hour . . . because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. . . . I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny." He deplored discrimination against gays and lesbians then, too.
Yesterday the President said, "The urgency of the hour demands that we fight discrimination, whatever form it may come. That means we fight discrimination against gays and lesbians . . . ." He has said much the same thing more times than I can count. Martin Luther King Jr. talked the talk. He also walked the walk.
Having your heart in the right place, while at least a beginning, is not enough for this President of the United States. His vision of America, his eloquence of speech and the power of his office make it possible, make it incumbent on him to lead the way in overturning the last federal law that discriminates against a class of Americans solely by their sexual orientation: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But there is ground to cover between the desire and the deed--and arms to be twisted. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), for example, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who 17 years ago played an instrumental role in crafting the DADT law, said over the weekend that he's opposed to repealing it--the wars, the disruption, and so on. You can see Mr. Skelton's interview here on C-Span.
A commentator in the Kansas City Star, "DWatson," asked the Congressman, "As a father of three men, could you explain how you would feel if one of them turned out gay and was treated with contempt by the fear that's being demonstrated by our military over gay people? This is the same contempt that was shown to African Americans during WWII. . . . Do you really think there were no gay cadets around you when you were at WMA (Wentworth Military Academy)? Mr. Skelton, I remember you going after a cadet 2nd lieutenant at WMA because he was dehumanizing a subordinate. I remember you telling this cadet what he was doing was not right, and if he continued you would make sure you would have his rank for his actions. Mr. Skelton, when are you going to stand up like President Harry S Truman did for the African Americans, and stand up for gay people who have honorably served their country, and even died for their country? When are you going to tell the military to get over their pettiness and grow up?"
On Sunday New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd quoted the two lawyers who in 2000 were on opposite sides before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, the conservative Ted Olson and his liberal adversary David Boies, now joined together as co-counsel in the challenge to California's ban against gay marriage playing in the federal district in San Francisco.
"I've got a grandson who's a senior in college, and he can't imagine fighting over this issue," Boies told Dowd. "It's like explaining to my daughter that there was a time when women didn't have the right to vote and couldn't own property. . . . I hope my Democratic president will catch up to my conservative Republican co-counsel."
It's a generational thing. (Rep. Skelton is rapidly approaching 80. The president, however, is 48. No excuses, as my friends at the Human Rights Campaign Committee say when it comes to repealing DADT.)
Dowd wrote, "What [Obama] doesn't realize is that legalizing gay marriage is like electing a black president. Before you do it, it seems inconceivable. Once it's done, you can't remember what all the fuss was about."
Exactly. When that day comes, the President said yesterday, it "will be a victory for dignity and decency, for our common humanity. This will be a victory for the United States of America." The President was speaking of health insurance. I am speaking of DADT. The same words apply, and when that law is finally junked it will be a moral victory for the President as well as the nation--and people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
I have faith that it will happen--but it will be very difficult this year without the President's leading the way.
01-18-10 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |
4 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.ad in Midwest on January 20, 2010 at 10.54 pm
Rich- Unfortunately you are correct. Perhaps not solely because of the loss of the 60th Senate seat, but because we are not a high priority for voter’s. Our ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ that we defend for the citizens of this nation do not overshadow the selfish narrow minded near term self gratifying needs for which we are so quickly sent into harms way.
That said, President Obama has decided to tackle issues that are monstrous in an economy this is unforgiving. We are but an afterthought in his political agenda.
We are not the low hanging fruit of change that will define his Presidency.
While I appreciate the sacrifice of those at SLDN and all that they do, I am not expecting any change for the foreseeable future with regard to DADT.
Serve with Pride; Serve in Silence.
Rich on January 19, 2010 at 10.31 pm
Well, we now all have a good case study in the importance of urgency and leadership. With the 60th democratic vote in the Senate gone, we can pretty much guarantee that DADT repeal will not be addressed in this Congress—not that there was much of a chance anyway. Let’s all close those closet doors for another decade or so.
Bill on January 19, 2010 at 01.31 pm
Thanks to Aubrey Sarvis and SLDN for a thoughtful article. He concludes about our government ending DADT that “I have faith that it will happen—but it will be very difficult this year without the President’s leading the way.” Yes. One can see the homophobia and hatred against gays in the military by a vocal minority that responded to the Sen. Skelton interview referenced above and found with comments at http://thehill.com/homenews/house/76427-skelton-opposes-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell?page=1#comments. I have concluded, watching politicians in 2009 avoid like the plague the issue of ending DADT, that there are only 2 routes for success, and they both come from our president: Obama should review the Jan 16-22 Economist magazine, cover article “Time to Get Tough, Lessons from Obama’s first year,” and then Obama must realize that he is not chairman of the board for the military. He is commander. To end DADT he then must (1) either issue an executive order suspending DADT indefinitely until a paralytic Congress can act, or (2) order his generals (all subordinate to him) to demand of Congress that the law be changed. Generals who do not follow his order should retire. Congress will respect a demand from the military to end DADT as wasteful, unjust and dysfunctional. For his own education, Obama should also review President Truman who fired a wayward McArthur during the Korean war and earlier ended legalized racism in the military. Yes, ending DADT will cause a firestorm from the right, but recent experience from almost all our NATO allies show it will be brief and inconsequential. For the uneducated on issue of gays in military service, I refer them to a book, Nathaniel Frank’s Unfriendly Fire.
Fact Check on January 18, 2010 at 05.16 pm
“‘That means we fight discrimination against gays and lesbians . . . .’ He has said much the same thing more times than I can count.”
Hmmm. The number of times he has [except when responding to questions] actually said anything about FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION against gays would probably be relatively easy to count.
A huge part of the reason people mistook him for a genuine Messiah for the Gays was that they “heard” him says things he rarely did. More often than not he only spoke of not “blaming” gays, of tolerance, etc.
Contrary to your memory, and self-deluding gay media reports at the time, neither the word “discrimination” nor “gay rights” appears in that speech at King’s church.
All he said was, “We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.” Period.
In classic Obama Speak for which his unique skill goes all the way back to his days as the editor of the “Harvard Law Review” during which both sides of an argument thought he supported them, gays could hear “fight discrimination” and “for gay rights” and homophobes could hear “hate the sin love the sinner.”
Gay servicemembers need far more than embraced, just as Victor Fehrenbach needed more than a handshake and a promise of pie in the sky when he met and asked Obama for help.
Yes, he did write enough checks about ending DADT for us to demand he cash them now, but if his pro-DADT actions of the last year don’t persuade you that it’s a waste of breath to appeal to more of his better nature than actually exists, I don’t know what would.