Posted on 12/18/2010 9:32:56 AM PST by Red Steel
Nearly two decades ago, President Bill Clinton ignited the first of the firestorms that would define his presidency by announcing an end to the ban on gays and lesbians in the military.
Today, 18 years later, the U.S. Senate took the vote that means gays and lesbians will be able to serve openly in all branches of the U.S. armed forces. As the House has passed an identical bill, a final vote in the Senate will send the legislation to President Obama, whose signature will make it law and make it a signal achievement of his presidency to date.
Thus the service of gays in the military becomes the latest issue on which the agenda and fate of the last two Democratic presidents seem to be inextricably linked. As with the health care bill earlier this year, it would be fitting for the former present to be present at the signing ceremony, which should take place next week.
We have come to refer to this particular milestone in American social history as the repeal of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. It may be a curiously inverted term for the debate, but it harks back to the last time the issue consumed Washington and tells us a lot about how change happens.
Back in 1992, Clinton had promised several prominent backers he would overturn the longstanding military prohibition on homosexuality, and he tried to deliver on that promise immediately. He thought Congress and the country would go along because he had spoken of changing the policy in his campaign.
He was wrong. Resistance arose immediately within the military and among social conservatives, and Clinton soon found many in his own party deserting him in Congress. He was forced to fall back on a compromise.
The compromise had two parts. First, the military would stop trying to discover and discharge gays and lesbians. Second, those who let their orientation be known would still be subject to dismissal.
The policy was called "don't ask, don't tell." It pleased no one, but it let everyone move on. That is, after all, the essential function of a compromise. Congress codified it in 1993.
Over the years, the policy sometimes shorthanded as “DADT” made no new friends. Those who wanted homosexuality banned in the services rankled at the DADT restraints, while the gay community saw the enforced concealment as inherently shaming and discriminatory.
More than 13,500 active service members have been discharged under the provisions of this law. But beyond that, it has come to represent the persistence of gay closeting in the culture writ large. What had begun as an effort to change attitudes became a symbol of the difficulty in doing just that.
Clinton had thought he could make the break by imitating President Harry Truman, who had stunned much of the country in 1948 by ordering an end to racial segregation in the armed forces. Truman did it by fiat, simply ordering the military to integrate "as quickly as possible." Officially, the Pentagon saluted and complied. In reality, the process was labored and took years.
Still, Clinton thought the Truman model would work for him. He reasoned that the existence of gays and lesbians in the ranks was an open secret in the military and in the society in general. He thought he was not so much altering a reality as repealing a hypocrisy. But that sort of thing can get a president in trouble, too.
Saturday's vote will be called a great victory for President Obama, and indeed he can take great satisfaction in completing the policy change Clinton set in motion almost a generation ago.
The climate for this issue has warmed considerably in the interim, thanks to a long campaign by gay activists and civil rights groups and by moderating attitudes in the public and within the uniformed services — as measured in recent surveys.
But as change continues, resistance to it also persists. That is the lesson of the national elections of 2008 and 2010. And it was the lesson of the Senate votes taken this Saturday morning.
On the same day the Senate agreed to repeal DADT, it failed to break another Republican filibuster threat against the DREAM Act. This is a bill allowing the children of people who entered the U.S. illegally allowed to earn citizenship if they go to college or serve in military.
Why was DADT repealed but the DREAM Act blocked? The difference was that four Republicans were willing to buck their party's filibuster threat and vote for the repeal of DADT, but there wasn't an equivalent showing from the GOP for DREAM.
The DREAM Act was at one time a bipartisan measure, and indeed it has attracted GOP support in the House. But in the Senate it is hostage to the same tactical game by which the minority party maintains much of the power to run the Senate — the "virtual filibuster" that requires 60 votes to do anything.
It took nearly a generation to muster this many votes for gays in the military. How long will it take to find that many for the next meaningful change in the immigration laws?
Looks like Toomey didn’t.
Thanks for the correction. I was genuinely shocked!
Yeah, I’m having my two incorrect posts removed, my post #20 is correct, I think.
This time, being openly gay will no longer get you a 4-F classification. You may just get 1-A and an infantry MOS. They wanted it and they will get it whether they like it or not.
And after the draft, they expect the anti-war protests.
Redux 1960's.
I believe they will label them “homophobes” and celebrate.
Bunch of yeasty hedge-born miscreants. (Thank you, Will Shakespeare.)
Ranks right in there with his Dem-wit predecessor's most enduring legacy: Monica's stained dress.
The usual suspects.
good book.
I’m a woman and there’s no way I could walk in those heels.
Codifying open homosexuality in the military seems an odd tact for an “administration” bowing forward and bending backward to gain the favor of the world`s muslims. Last I checked, 0bama`s muslim brethren aren`t exactly down with the sodomite thing.
Toomey’s a reliable social conservative vote, so I’ll disagree with his uncritical free trading when it becomess a real issue, and not whack him here, especially as he has yet to take his seat.
This is easily by far the worst congress in the history of our nation.
This sucks but at least they can still boot people out for conduct unbecoming.
I hope.
ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT GAYS IN THE MILITARY IS OK IS VERY SICK AND VERY UN-AMERICAN.
It should not be forgotten that the excesses and outrages of the Clintons during their tenure is what paved the way for this Communist mess Obama and the Democrats have rammed down our throats. - If anyone else says, “Oh, but the Clintons weren’t so bad, I miss them, and how I’d love to see Hillary become our President”, I think I’ll heave. Hillary’s a worse Socialist than Bill was, and “healthcare” was her intended avenue of total control, until people got sick of her holding closed door meetings intending to do it undercover. The Clintons and Obama are fellow travelers. Of course, Bill’s thing is as simple as he never intends to ever have to pay a “light” bill, and he loves his interns, literally. Hillary’s seems to be more serious and more for keeps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.