Peacetrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:07 PM
Original message |
I said this 16 years ago.. and I think I was right on this.. Bill Clinton |
|
made the gravest of errors with the military "don't ask. don't tell", if he had done a Harry Truman and just signed into law that gays could openly join the military without repercussions, we would have gone from there, and with a wider and faster moving awareness that is possible today, we would have probably had equal rights in the marriage arena in states that have had it on their ballots.
|
snooper2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:09 PM
Response to Original message |
1. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
The Clinton's were the first gay family don't you know :evilgrin:
|
Peacetrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
No seriously people make mistakes, and hopefully we can all step back an understand that and maybe move forward a little more together than apart. For reference, I voted for Bill Clinton twice.
|
cboy4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |
2. As angry and disappointing as it was, there are some |
|
understandable factors that went into the decision.
Not defending it .. just saying he was pinned a little.
DOMA is a different story.
|
roguevalley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
11. Sam Nunn. Remember that slag heap? What an awful time and a |
|
missed opportunity. When you lead, you *lead*. So much for triangulating.
|
rpannier
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:12 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I was in the service when he first took office |
|
Don't ask Don't tell came after he tried to get Congress to agree to allow openly gay soldiers to serve.
|
Peacetrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. He could have overode congress on that one.. Truman did |
|
That is when the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party (Thank you Jesus)and joined the Republicans
|
rpannier
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
He didn't.
The Marine General's testimony sunk any remote chance he had of getting Congress to go along with him. Don't remember the General's name: He was the one with the son who is gay and he <the general> opposed letting gays serve openly
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Congress was going to pass a federal law, override Clinton's veto, and take the matter out of his hands.
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message |
6. We'd have had a federal law forbidding gays in the military and an amendment banning |
|
gay marriages, actually.
Clinton took office on a promise that he would overturn the ban on gays in the military, and he immediately tried to make good on that ban by issuing an executive order. Since the ban was a policy and not federal law, only an executive order was required. Sam Nunn and others rose up in protest and started a firestorm, then vowed to pass a federal law banning gays in the military. He had the votes, easily, and Clinton with his 38% approval rating had no way to stop him aside from threatening a veto that Nunn had the votes to override.
So Clinton worked out DADT as a compromise to prevent Congress from passing a federal law. Just enough Congresscritters agreed to support that policy to destroy the veto override, so Nunn dropped the bill. Consequently, DADT is a policy, not a federal law, and can be more easily overturned.
Same with DOMA. That was Clinton's compromise to block the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, with the belief that it's easier to change a law than an amendment.
My own conclusions are that if Clinton had not backed DADT or DOMA, we'd have a federal law making it a crime for gays to serve in the military, and a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages.
I blame Sam Nunn, the sellout Dems in Congress, and Republicans for the need for those compromises. They aren't things I approve of Clinton doing, but my greatest scorn is dumped on those most responsible.
|
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
15. Passing an amendment is extremely difficult |
|
Edited on Fri Dec-19-08 06:01 PM by karynnj
Consider that the Equal Rights amendment never passed enough states.
As to don't ask, don't tell - just waiting to later in his Presidency and working it out first with the military and the Senators might have produced a better policy rather than what did happen.
|
NorthCarolina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message |
9. The Conservative Congress would not have allowed it as they fear |
|
that allowing GLBT citizens to openly die in the line of duty for their country would make it virtually impossible to continue to deny them equal civil rights that they seek.
|
Jennicut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Yeah. I understood why he compromised as the military had no respect for him |
|
at all but at the same time he just should have gone over them.
|
nsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
12. I don't think Clinton would have had the power to do that by executive order. |
|
The ban on gays was in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would have taken an act of Congress to change it.
|
villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Clinton never really stopped caving, after that... |
|
And his administration never lived up to its promise, as a result...
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 05:29 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I don't intend to sound mean but I get really tired of people who don't understand this issue |
|
sodomy is against the UMCJ which means the Congress, not the President, but Congress had to change the law. This isn't my opinion. It isn't something in dispute. It is an unalterable fact.
|
BootinUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
as someone who defends Clinton around here (crazy huh?).
|
Peacetrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. You can sound mean, it will not hurt my feelings, a good discussion |
|
is what informs us all.. :)
I still think he could have stood his ground and brought it to the front. It would have been battled out
Truman did, it cost him dearly no doubt, but it was the right thing to do.
n February 1948 President Truman called on Congress to enact all of these recommendations. When Southern Senators immediately threatened a filibuster, Truman moved ahead on civil rights by using his executive powers. Among other things, Truman bolstered the civil rights division, appointed the first African American judge to the Federal bench, named several other African Americans to high-ranking administration positions, and most important, on July 26, 1948, he issued an executive order abolishing segregation in the armed forces and ordering full integration of all the services. Executive Order 9981 stated that "there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also established an advisory committee to examine the rules, practices, and procedures of the armed services and recommend ways to make desegregation a reality. There was considerable resistance to the executive order from the military, but by the end of the Korean conflict, almost all the military was integrated.
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-19-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
18. Note Truman didn't use an executive order to pass civil rights |
|
or desegregate schools. He couldn't since both would have taken laws. Clinton couldn't be Truman on this issue because he didn't have Truman's power. Truman deserves buckets of credit and if Clinton had been able to hold off until he had his own chair of the joint chiefs he might have been able to make things work but he still would have needed Congress.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message |