Where the People Lead, the Leaders Will Follow
By Aubrey Sarvis
The poll was conducted May 7-10 and released Friday. The results show that 69 percent now favor open service as opposed to 63 percent in an earlier poll conducted Nov. 19-24, 2004. The biggest increase in support came from conservatives (up twelve points to 58 percent), weekly churchgoers (up eleven points to 60 percent), and Republicans (up six points to 58 percent). So much for the conventional wisdom. One by one the stereotypes held by those on both sides of this issue are falling. Call it the domino effect. But whatever you call it, the "issue" is rapidly becoming a non-issue.
Yes, I know the battle is not yet over. We have to fight harder than ever now that we're on the verge of slaying the dragon of gay discrimination in the military. Some dragons, like some cats, have nine lives. Elaine Donnelly and her noisy ideologues of the right will always be with us--like death and taxes. Among a few of our political and military leaders the prospect of lesbians and gays serving openly in the military still brings on what the Victorians would call "nerves" (and what Freud would call "hysteria"). Nonetheless, slowly and often tentatively our leaders are catching up with where the American people have been for some years now. In a bit of role reversal, where the people lead, the leaders will follow. A few of them are seriously lagging, and probably never will catch up.
But some of them are ahead of the curve. That's where I put President Obama. True, he's not yet Moses ready to part the Red Sea and lead us to the Promised Land. He's moving in quiet increments toward his goal, which I firmly believe is to see "don't ask, don't tell" repealed. However. we're still anxious because we need specifics. We need to know how he intends to do it.
We certainly welcome the latest and most encouraging example of the president's thinking: the strategic, well thought out, and politically astute appointment of the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John M. McHugh (R-NY), as Secretary of the Army. He is steeped in the ways of the Pentagon. He has been a friend to the Pentagon, to privates as well as generals, and over the years has worked with a parade of Joint Chiefs. He understands how they think and what they need, and how they get it. He also understands why they don't always get what they want (or want what they get).
Representative McHugh voted for "don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 but like a lot of other people reflected in the Gallup poll he has evolved over the years. When the Advocate's Kerry Eleveld asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about it last week, Gibbs replied, "it's obvious from . . . statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the President are in agreement on changing a policy they both don't think is working for this country right now."
Many other military and civilian leaders have come to the same conclusion. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili, retired Admirals Charles R. Larson, twice superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, and Jamie Barnett; former Senators Bob Kerrey, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, and Alan Simpson--all now oppose the law. They are only mirroring the thinking of most Americans on the subject.
The urgency for Congress and the President to act on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" was underscored today when the Supreme Court refused to accept a petition from one of the plaintiffs in the Cook v. Gates case challenging the constitutionality of the DADT law. That case was originally brought by SLDN lawyers and pro bono attorneys at the law firm of WilmerHale on behalf of twelve service members who were discharged under DADT, and all of whom proudly stated they would be willing to be reinstated and serve again if the law were invalidated. The Cook plaintiffs lost in the trial court and in the First Circuit and today's action effectively means that these twelve plaintiffs have exhausted all of their legal remedies.
They still want to serve, but only Congress and the President can make that possible.
06-09-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |
9 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on June 11, 2009 at 09.07 am
David V,
You have spoken like a true leader. Thank you for your service, your leadership, your integrity, and your courage.
David V. PO1 USN in Pearl Harbor Hawaii on June 11, 2009 at 04.38 am
Final thought from the peanut gallery; for all those who have been booted from the military for DADT. I am sorry that things turned out that way for you. Hopefully, you can live with some closure, once DADT is done.
For me, I don’t see how we can call this the land of the free if we don’t allow our citizens (and military) to choose their own sexual preference without consequences. A homosexual is no more a threat to good order and discipline then any other male, female white , black, asian, catholic, jewish, or muslim person out there now. I’d proudly serve with anyone who carry’s out his/her duty with honor, professionalism, integrity, and fidelity no matter their sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
David V. PO1 USN in Pearl Harbor Hawaii on June 11, 2009 at 04.26 am
First I am very tired of all these websites and polls arguing on how the civilians feel about this. They are not the ones who deal with the effects of DADT. Secondly, I am not homosexual, I don’t hate gays, or dislike them. I simply find that their lifestyle choice does not fits my values and morals. However, I am a deckplate leader in the Navy. The way that I carry myself reflects on my subordinates. You will never see me not support a sailor or marine under me even if they were gay. The military preaches to the leadership and to our junior personnel to emphasize Equal Opportunity in the workplace. Simply based of that DADT should be killed. How can we teach EO when we are segregating these people. It is an oxymoron in a sense. My only thing to say is DON’T DO YOUR BUSINESS ON MY SHIP OR MY DUTY STATION!!! Wait til you get home. I don’t tolerate heterosexual relations at work , and I will not tolerate homosexual relations at work either. I treat everyone the same. It’s about time the military does. These half-assed policies just don’t cut it anymore. Also the only problem I can see for homosexuals if DADT does go away, look for a lot more Article 125 charges to be brought up.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on June 10, 2009 at 10.18 am
Let’s all review some basic facts in dissecting Tom Carpenter’s ridiculous post.
1. As of today, Gays don’t have equality in America. This is true despite Obama—“the fierce advocate of Gays”—being President and the Democrats having control of Congress. Thus, the odds are/were no better seeking relief for Gays with the Judiciary than with Congress and the Executive.
2. A loss in the Supreme Court could have set Gay rights back decades, but it equally could have established Gay rights/Gay equality once and for all, all across this land.
3. Some of the “brightest legal minds in the country” also support discrimination against Gays, and supported discrimination against Blacks. Translation: just because some elite Harvard lawyer says something does not make it true. Indeed, there were many in the Black civil rights movement who favored state-by-state legal challenges rather than a federal challenge. If Blacks had accepted their legal advice, Blacks would still be segregated.
4. Finally, SLDN was legally ethically prohibited from opposing certiorari in this case, because they had previously represented me in the case.
5. It is because of apologists/appeasers like Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Sarvis that Gay Americans don’t have equality yet.
Mark Delapole in Colorado on June 09, 2009 at 06.51 pm
Congress does need to act BUT the President has a lot of lattitude into the enforcement of the DADT issue. All Whitehouse administrations take liberties into the energy and resources they put into enacting and enforcing legislation, and he could have easliy saved the careers of hundreds of servicemembers while Congress puts around.
Tom Carpenter in Los Angeles on June 09, 2009 at 05.31 pm
What Mr. Pietrangelo fails to point out is that a loss at the Supreme Court could have set us back for decades. He chose to pursue his lawsuit against the advice of some of the brightest legal minds in the country. All you have to do is count and you can figure out that this Court is no friend of equal rights for LGBT Americans. Almost automatically, you have Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito on the side of the government. The Obama Administration and SLDN were correct in asking the Court to deny certiori. Let DADT be resolved where it was created, in the Legislative and Executive branches of government.
William McPherson on June 09, 2009 at 03.58 pm
Racial segregation was not a federal law when President Truman signed his executive order de-segregating the armed forces. DADT is a federal law and cannot be “entirely done away with by executive order.” The act of Congress instituting DADT requires another act of Congress to repeal it.
Drew Ward in Melbourne, Florida on June 09, 2009 at 12.13 pm
The sad thing is that Obama is hoping congress will do his dirty work and repeal the ban through legislation. But that’s not why we elected him President.
DADT is one of the few anti-gay policies that can be entirely done away with by executive order. Harry Truman had the guts to remove racial prejudice from the military—a move which can likely be argued did more than any other to pave the way for equal rights for African Americans and indeed for Obama’s election as President. Yet Mr. Obama seeks to pass the buck on an issue for which he received massive support during the election.
He should remember that there are millions and millions of GLBT voters and they can just as easily support a Republican who is pro-gay as they can a Democrat who goes back on his word.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on June 09, 2009 at 10.30 am
What Mr. Sarvis fails conveniently to mention is that SLDN filed a brief in the Supreme Court case—Pietrangelo v. Gates—he mentions OPPOSING certiorari. He also fails to mention that the Obama administration also filed a brief opposing certiorari. DADT could have been ended right in this case—but SLDN and Obama supported DADT’s constitutionality. SO, I hardly see how Obama/the Democratic majority in Congress are ever going to repeal DADT when they support it.
If any reader believes the b.s. that Mr. Sarvis and President Obama are peddling, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on June 09, 2009 at 10.30 am
What Mr. Sarvis fails conveniently to mention is that SLDN filed a brief in the Supreme Court case—Pietrangelo v. Gates—he mentions OPPOSING certiorari. He also fails to mention that the Obama administration also filed a brief opposing certiorari. DADT could have been ended right in this case—but SLDN and Obama supported DADT’s constitutionality. SO, I hardly see how Obama/the Democratic majority in Congress are ever going to repeal DADT when they support it.
If any reader believes the b.s. that Mr. Sarvis and President Obama are peddling, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.