New Yorker: What kind of miltary "cohesion" is Obama supporting with DADT?

[Bluebear]

This morning, the Supreme Court turned down a case challenging the constitutionality of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Obama Administration wanted it that way, saying in a brief that D.A.D.T. was

rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.

What sort of cohesion is that? One based on soldiers bonding over their belief that no one in the room is gay? Obama has said that he feels really bad about it all, but that it’s complicated, and that the Supreme Court taking the case would have made it more so. Maybe, but it’s odd to think that gay marriage may be legal across the land before gays are allowed to volunteer to risk their lives to keep their country safe.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/close-read-the-man-in-the-camouflage-suit.html

[Mari333]

1. wtf

'rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion'


orwellian bullshit doublespeak horseshit
a line straight out of the Bush era.

[Bluebear]

2. Obama is memorializing the divisive language of "cohesion" and using it against gay service people.

It is a total disgrace.

[Mari333]

3. its backtracking and why????

'Obama has said that he feels really bad about it all, but that it’s complicated, and that the Supreme Court taking the case would have made it more so. '

how fucking condescending is that??? is it too complicated for us mere plebians to understand, oh great one? just explain your backpeddling in english, I think we will understand it if you speak slowly..
this is known as a brush off , and it smells like a load of crap so high we may all need hip waders .

[FreeState]

4. Even Fox news is pointing that out now...

Kinda of sad when its so obvious....

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/09/tommy-de-seno-don’t-ask-don’t-ask…obama-snubs-gays-again/

The knee-jerk reaction is to get caught up in the “discipline and cohesion” argument. Forget it. The more important words are the legalese “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest.” It’s a phrase of important legal meaning.

Under constitutional law, government can only outlaw a “fundamental right” if there is a “compelling state interest” to do so. For instance, I have the fundamental right to travel, but a compelling interest in stopping me from traveling with anthrax in my pocket exists. Stopping me from traveling with a blue shirt on isn’t compelling, so such a law would fail.

However, if the right involved is lesser, or not a “fundamental” right, then the government does not need a “compelling state interest” to curtail it. The curtailment of the right need only be “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” That’s an easier burden to meet.

In short, the Obama administration took the position that equality for gays is less than “fundamental.” Therefore, they don’t need a compelling interest to curtail the rights of gays, only an interest related to their goal of doing so.

The gay and lesbian community did not see this train coming at them, just like they didn’t see it coming with Bill Clinton. In fact, gays refused to see how Bill Clinton opposed them even when he did....

...snip ....

Obama has done great damage to gay rights by taking a position that their civil rights are less than fundamental. Several courts have already said so regarding marriage, and if the Supreme Court ever hears such a case, Obama has established another precedent against gays with the Pietrangelo case.

Five percent in any election is important. The smart political play for gays would be to declare themselves officially unaffiliated with both parties, and declare the first party to actually take up their cause will get their votes.

Early in his presidency, Clinton ditched his campaign promise to integrate the military and instead implemented “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” There was an incident at the White House while receiving some gay and lesbian leaders when Clinton’s staff wore rubber gloves. Before leaving office, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which holds one state does not have to recognize a gay marriage from another state, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution be damned.


(edited to add this bold and point out that Obama is now doing things that intended or not are working against marriage equality)

[Mari333]

6. wow. nt

[MarjorieG]

8. Supremes judging this not a good thing, not a good case. Better to write new law, not having to deal

with court ruling.

[FreeState]

9. Better yet would be a congress and a president that would have ended this months ago

but now as the article points out there is one more case study that can be used against GLBT americans civil rights - compliments of Obama (who asked it be not heard on the grounds that GLBT persons are not rationally related to a legitimate state interest).

[Bluebear]

11. Easy for you to say as usual. You're not losing your career.

[MarjorieG]

14. And you to insult as usual. I do care, but will not write another word on DADT.

[Bluebear]

15. Good. All you do is defend inaction.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. Really?

Thank God.

[QC]

30. Quick! Somebody post a photo thread! With puppies! Stat! n/t

[bluedawg12]

32. "The Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/Battling+...

Battling the Military Ban
In a bracing new account, historian Nathaniel Frank shows how “don’t ask, don’t tell” has utterly failed.
Source: The Advocate at advocate.com

[Mari333]

5. kicking

kicking because its important

[Bluebear]

18. .

[msongs]

7. the take over the military for jesus faction likely supports Obama's inactions 100% nt

[babylonsister]

10. I don't get it either. What is he thinking? I'm disappointed he

hasn't said a word, if only to explain why nothing is getting accomplished and people are losing their jobs.

[FreeState]

12. You know Im very happy with Obama in most areas (Abortion/Sex Ed etc)

but this is one area I dont get either.

[ProgressIn2008]

13. "rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion"

What the hell kind of bigoted crap is that?

[struggle4progress]

20. If you don't think sexual dynamics matter in small intense groups, you've been living under a rock

It's unlikely that the military will eliminate all possibility for disciplining on the basis of sexual behavior: the best that can be hoped is that the regulations are rewritten to become neutral with respect to preference

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

23. They are already neutral, and it's not a preference

Your slip is showing.

[struggle4progress]

24. If they were already neutral, there would be no change necessary, of course. But you know that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. The code regarding conduct is already neutral, therefore no need for change

DADT needs to be repealed, but the other existing laws are fine.

[struggle4progress]

27. That's not entirely clear to me, since the meaning of a regulation depends on the actual

context of its application, so a meaning can change with practice. Under DADT, there is a sort of official fiction that there are no gays serving, and the regulations are interpreted in the context of this fiction, since rupturing the fiction leads to discharge. What might constitute "sexual harassment," for example, in sexually-segregated barracks, could presumably change with the repeal of DADT, even though the R 600 20 Chapter 7 language appears to be neutral -- since such behaviors as "sexual jokes" or "using sexually explicit profanity" are understood in a different context. Clearly, statements such as that of R 600 20 Chapter 7-8 -- The most effective approach to training to prevent sexual harassment is through interactive discussion in small groups of mixed gender -- will need to be revisited

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

38. Why would this have to be "revisited?"

"The most effective approach to training to prevent sexual harassment is through interactive discussion in small groups of mixed gender"

[struggle4progress]

39. You don't think the military will have to carefully reexamine what constitutes sexual harassment?

Or that sexual harassment training will need to be rethought? It seems to me obvious that a gaggle of military lawyers will at least have to carefully read through existing documents and assess carefully whether any changes are required

[Bluebear]

26. But he's "struggling" for "progress"!

[struggle4progress]

28. Perhaps you could consider adopting a more cogent approach to discussion of issues?

[Bluebear]

31. I'm awaiting one post. ONE. That satisfies your screen name.

[struggle4progress]

34. This should give you some idea what I do: A comment on a poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=88438

You may remember the overheated discussions at DU that led me to this post, even if the post itself made no impression on you. I don't see much point in reviewing my history of posting at DU: you have the capability to search if you like. DU is more useful when people provide links and arguments, rather than the usual expressions of mere outrage, a steady diet of which ultimately tends to produce a kind of idiotic indifference -- so if you think you disagree with something I say, perhaps you could provide something substantive?

And, by the way ...

Interview with Saul Alinsky (Playboy 1972). Read it. Really!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=450082

[EFerrari]

35. Sexual dynamics are present in any small group.

Asking people to hide their preference doesn't change that.

[struggle4progress]

36. I completely agree. But that doesn't mean that a favorable ruling was expected from SCOTUS. And

either as a practical matter, or as a political matter, or both, related issues will need to be carefully considered in the course of repealing DADT

[unblock]

16. i think it IS rationally related to discipline and cohesion

but so is bigotry and a host of other things.

the central question for this case is who gets to decide, the courts or the executive.
the point about discipline and cohesion is a point in favor of the executive, but it's hardly the only point.

most notably, they are implicitly arguing for keeping in people who are intolerant of other people's sexual orientation. THAT more directly relates to discipline and cohesion, and i think anyone who breaks discipline or undermines cohesion should be court martialed.


a more basic question is that the courts wouldn't be telling the military HOW to incorporate homosexuals. they could have segregated units. not that i would advocate that as the ultimate solution (separate is inherently not equal), but that would make the government's discipline and cohesion argument go away.

[bluedawg12]

33. There is no complelling reason related to unit cohesion and morale by gays serving.

This was shown in 1993 by a Rand study and Clinton still signed DADT anyway.

[unblock]

37. good info.

my point was that even logically, the real problem is BIGOTS serving, not gays.

[Skittles]

17. it is pure homophobia

shame on Obama for saying it is "complicated" - while many of the issues he faces are indeed complicated, this one is NOT.

[InvisibleTouch]

19. I can't see how gay people would be damaging to "cohesion" either.

After all, the same used to be thought about women in the military: disruptive to discipline and cohesion.

All those macho straight guys are so easily disrupted? If so, they must not be as tough and disciplined as they think they are.

[Bluebear]

21. They really come off as hothouse flowers by those arguing for "cohesion"

[bluedawg12]

29. Oh mi gosh - he has power after all.

:sarcasm:

"The Obama Administration wanted it that way, saying in a brief that D.A.D.T. was

rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."