He would be open to repealing it:
Barack Obama says if elected president he will not require that his Joint Chiefs of Staff be opposed to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.
The Democratic presidential front-runner favors repealing the policy, which was instituted during the Clinton administration. He said his priority for the Joint Chiefs will be that they make decisions to strengthen the military and keep the country safe, not their position on the policy.
“I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Obama said in an interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine.
[...]
Asked what he could reasonably accomplish for the gay community as president, Obama said he can “reasonably see” repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as well as signing legislation to ban workplace discrimination against gays. He said he’d like transgendered people to be covered by the law, but thinks it would be tough to get such legislation through Congress.
Obama also said he’s interested in ensuring that same-sex couples in civil unions get federal benefits.
posted April 10, 2008 at 11:08 am
With the war in !raq costing billions of dollars weekly,fore-closure unlimited,job out-sourcing,mass murders on school campuses, and the like, gay rights seems like peanuts. America is going down the tubes,and we are worried about gays?. War is immoral when it is about wealth for America’s contractors,and corporations. The GOP has used these Gay rights ,and abortion to keep American down in the dumps for eight years. Obama is the best candidate for America.
posted April 10, 2008 at 11:32 am
There are few things less relevant to national policy than morality. The “don’t ask don’t tell” policy was pure Clintonism, a way of salvaging his political capital right after his innauguration.
So a bit of history, if you don’t mind. During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military. This made the gay vote very happy and he carried San Francisco, Fire Island and Boys Town in Chicago by large margins. There was only little problem–Sam Nunn!
It seemed that Bill forgot that outside of the above mentioned enclaves and a few others that I don’t know about, the gay vote is not large enough to elect a dog catcher. But Congress was well aware of that fact and within a couple of days of the inauguration, Sen. Nunn had a bill prepared to write the ban into law and enough sponsors to override any presidential veto. Bill did much scrambling and no small amount of throwing things and came up with his policy as a way of salvaging the situation without the embarrassment of being stomped on by Congress right after taking office.
Now let us fast forward. Sam Nunn is long out of office and mythologies change. It is possible that now the policy could be changed with no political trouble at all.
posted April 10, 2008 at 11:40 am
It is very sad that Obama would even think of helping gays. He will do anything to get a vote.
posted April 10, 2008 at 12:20 pm
It is very sad that Obama would even think of helping gays.
Why?
posted April 10, 2008 at 2:13 pm
European and Israeli armies don’t have any of this nonsense. It’s time to enter the 21st century. For you conservative reformed people out there, maybe you should think about moving out of the the 16th century. A little progress now and then wouldn’t hurt.
posted April 11, 2008 at 2:39 pm
jeff hensley, WHY is it “very sad that Obama would even think of helping gays”???
And while we’re at it, why is it that ONLY the people that “tell” get fired and not the ones who “ask”???
This ridiculous, discrimminatory policy has hurt America. They fired several dozen Arabic language translators merely because they were gay, and American troops paid a dear price for that tragic mistake.
Grow up, America! Like greg said above, hurry up and join the 21st century. Many other countries allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military with no adverse effects.
Michele, I see you made no comment either way. Interesting, especially in light of your apparent hate-on for Obama. Do you think just by posting that you will put him in a bad light or somehting? Your thoughts?
posted April 12, 2008 at 7:39 am
“It’s very sad that Obama would think of helping gays.” What’s truly sad is that comment.
I’m a former military brat whose father served in three wars. If the author of that post isn’t willing to put his life on the line in Iraq or Afghanistan right now, he has no business criticizing the many gay men and women who are serving our country with dignity and courage, and the many more who might be willing if we would stop being such hypocrites. (If it’s O.K. for gays to serve and risk their lives, why isn’t it O.K. for them to be open about who they are like any other soldier?) Obama is right to suggest we revisit this stupid and discriminatory policy. But of course the Republican attack machine will use his comments to inflame people’s small-minded, mean-spirited and ugly attitudes, as they have done election after election–and we have all paid for the the disastrous results; but no one more than those who have made the ultimate sacrifice–gay and straight–and those who loved them.