Powered by TypePad

« The WaPo On McCain v. Obama On Afghanistan | Main | Peggy Noonan Wants To Write Obama's Nobel Speech »

October 10, 2009



which would make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation

Because, after all, it's not a crime to assault people for other reasons.

Not for rough duty.

Exuberant and luxurious.

Jim Ryan

If the hatred is a distinct crime, it should be a crime even when you don't act on it.


I agree with you TM that DOMA is more politically feasible but Frank is tap dancing when he says "there is a legislative process" and progress can't happen overnight".
DADT is an executive order that requires nothing from Congress to be repealed or changed.


Geraldo tonight had on a clip of part of Obama's speech, where he was firing up the crowd over the long struggle over many years to get the Matthew Shepard hate-crime bill passed. Basically he was whipping them up to highlight an accomplishment that he had no part in bringing about.

Charlie (Colorado)

Clarice, is it really? God knows I'm not a you-know-what, but I thought it was required by 10 USC 654

Charlie (Colorado)

Basically he was whipping them up to highlight an accomplishment that he had no part in bringing about.

Well, to be fair, that's really the only kind he could mention.


I guess I'm simple this way, hang shoot or otherwise execute the people who killed Matthew Shepherd,James Byrd, Medgar Evers. Von Brunn. I forget the name of the latest abortion clinic bomber. Yet most of these advocates often oppose the death penalty, that tells me that it's a stunt. I guess I would have been a rather ruthlessprosecutor if I had gone to law school, lucky for them I didn't.

Soylent Red

"Hate" crimes really crack me up. As in, "Well the court duly recognizes that the defendant, while beating/raping/murdering the victim, at least restrained himself from hating the victim. I sentence him to probation!"

This all comes from people who don't understand that the law isn't really about the people involved, but rather the restraints to absolute liberty we are willing for the government to impose on us.

Pheh. Back to filling sandbags in preparation for the coming fall of civilization...


Chaco--in the upcoming (Oct 12,09) edition of the Weekly Standard there's a longer discussion of this:
"This is a common mistake. Actually, there is no "Don't ask, don't tell" law. The law passed by Congress in 1993 (USC Section 654, Title 10) says, "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

"Don't ask, don't tell" is of course the name given to the executive order by Bill Clinton which was designed at once to implement and to circumvent this law. That is presumably why, as the Post notes, President Obama thinks any change "should be done legislatively," since an executive order from him allowing homosexuals equal status in the military would be in defiance of the law as written by Congress. Prospects for such legislation are increasing. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has asked the president and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to "bring to Congress your recommendations" for changing "Don't ask, don't tell." There is a legislative effort in

the House, HR 1283, that is likely to come up for debate in the coming weeks, though it is doubtful, to say the least, whether "debate" is the right word. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have just published an essay in their quarterly journal (winner of the "2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition") that explicitly compares the end of "Don't, ask, don't tell" to the civil-rights struggle to racially integrate the armed forces. And what debate can there be between right and wrong?

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a tribute to our national talent for hypocrisy. Yes, President Clinton was prepared to agree, homosexual acts might be a risk to the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion, but if nobody knew about them, then what harm could they do? Since then, nobody has thought up a better way of coping with this thorny problem."


Soylent Red

BTW, tangentially...

The Morons over at A0S have been thwarted by ESPN in their attempt to write in Barry for a Heisman Trophy.

I hope they locate the AoS re-education camp next door to ours. Those guys crack me up.

Soylent Red

Yes, President Clinton was prepared to agree, homosexual extramarital sex acts might be a risk to the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion, but if nobody knew about them, then what harm could they do?

Fixed it so that it pretty well summarizes his entire administration.

Gregory Koster

It is not a Federal-hence-allowing-the-Holder-run-Justice-Department-to-butt-in-but-not-the-way-they-do-when-Black-Panters-try-to-intimidate-voters-in-Philly crime, PD. Which is why Charlie's argument about 10USC654 wouldn't matter if The Once really wanted to do something about it. Sign the Executive Order abolishing it. Anyone sues, Justice can smirk and say they don't have standing, or some such bad faith response.

Narciso, Holder's Justice is ruthless, but only to the "right" people. That's why they want all these laws, that allow Justice to meddle IF THE SECRET HANDSHAKE IS GIVEN. Otherwise, the brush. The constant protests about "integrity" from lawyers, especially prosecutors, are always funny, if you like black humor. How many career clowns at Justice resigned and went public after Justice defaulted on the Philly Panther prosecution? None. At best, they may be thinking about leaking the sordid details, but there's a career ender. Beside the end of a career, integrity counts for precious little.

The speech might have meant something if everyone had stayed in their seats, or even better, got up and walked out. All they did now was put a smile on The Once's lips and light up the "Sucker!" part of his limbic system, which is too dam bright as is.


At a minimum, Chaco, Obama could order a commission to study the program and suspend any enforcement of don't ask don't tell until further notice.

There is a peculiar problem in that the one was mandated coverage under civil service benefit laws of same sex partners of govt workers, including defense employees..in some instances that would bring them under the DADT strictures and he's not created any means to protect from dismissal those who apply for such benefits even though apprised of this dilemma.

OTOH he has the gay constituency which as it generally has more cash to spend on political contributions, being freed up from school tuition and braces bills, etc wants action now. OTOH he has the black clergy which are as adamant in opposition as any group in America.


acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected

Obama: "I'm not doing the stuff I said I would do for you."

Fiercely Independent-Minded Individuals Who Came to the Reasoned Decision to Support Obama After Careful Consideration of the Issues and Candidates: "Hooray!"


I think if you read USC Section 654, Title 10 very carefully, there's a lot of loopholey language and lots of wiggle room for a creative executive..but as i said above, at a minimum he could sign an open ended executive order suspending automatic dismissals until further notice--he could use the manpower needs as a justification or the appontment and deliberations of a commission to deal with the problem..

JM Hanes


You stopped just short of some classic Obama weaseling:

Obama said it was no secret "our progress may be taking longer than we like." He followed this by asking supporters to trust his administration's course. "I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," Obama said. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."

In a ceremony next week, the HRC will be vesting him with their highest honor, the Good Intentions Road to Hell Medal.

I suspect similar parsing when "Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act," because I believe the Justice Dept. is currently defending it in court.

Molon Labe

Who cares if gays serve in the military? Conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue. Hell, who cares if they get married? The conservative take should be MYOB.


Might have something to do with barracks and cots and common showers etc etc etc ( you asked why someone should care). Do you really want to be pulling that killing machine Marine off a openly gay guy who got a little too friendly and was getting his brains beat out by the guy who did not take it as a MYOB affair?


Who cares if gays serve in the military?

I prefer to leave the answer to that question to someone who actually knows something about the military, unlike Obama.


To the left TOTAL sexual freedom is a core belief. No boundaries, no right or wrong. Everything goes, and all choices are valid and to be explored.

Will this lifestyle mesh with the military? What does our military want? How many members of the Human Rights Campaign are really interested in joining the military?

I see this as just a vehicle to legitimize homosexuality. Tolerance is no longer enough...acceptance is what is now demanded.


"Some advocates said they already have heard Obama's promises — they just want to hear a timeline. Cleve Jones, a pioneer activist and creator of the AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Obama delivered a brilliant speech, but added "it lacked the answer to our most pressing question, which is when."

Obvious Delta Force material.


Yeah! Quilt maker advising on military matters. This should turn out well.


I think JMH has been eating her Wheaties lately. You, my friend, are at the top of your game!

hit and run

I think that gays should demand that Obama defer acceptance of his Nobel Peace Prize until after he gets DADT repealed and gets gay marriage legalized at the federal level.

Wait, what? Obama doesn't support gay marriage?

Oh, yeah, that.


Isn't she though, Sue?


Don't know about anyone else,but waiting for JMhanes' book is getting tiresome. Come on girl,I'm knocking on a bit,I don't want to be reading it whilst they are screwing down the lid.


Frank, D-Mass., also said the gay rights community understands "there is a legislative process" and progress can't happen overnight.

I'm confused. I thought they had a 60 seat majority?


Guess this is the appropriate thread to post my mental image when seeing the Memeorandum headline in the sidebar "Michael Moore says get off Obama's back".



There are some people who find the time to do the right thing, and some never do. We can tell the difference


Regarding The Won's comment,

"Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."

This comment has far greater meaning than a promise made to gays. I don't doubt at all the direction we are heading or the destination he wants us to reach. It scares the hell out of me.


It is a matter of who has the most fun,infants in the infantry or adults in adultery.

Gabriel Sutherland

Sullivan just rips Solomonese. Health Care reform and then same sex marriage. Hmm.

I doubt he homosexual activists really care that Solomonese is a deputy of the DNC. They'll be led around by a string just like Evangelicals were by the Bush. When they have to cut it to get what they want they cut it.

Mark your calendars. One year from today Andrew Sullivan will appear on Glenn Beck's radio and television program to show support for wedge party candidates.


JMH, PuK, Bgates, and Elliott need a tv show.


Gabriel, not unless his petition for lawful residency is approved by then.


Seems to me the issue is not whether gays can make good soldiers. Of course they can; they are. The problem is the logistics and the politics once it is okay to be open about it. Are gay men and women housed in the regular barracks with straights? Are they a protected class? (If so, I see many problems here.) Does the straight guy who clocks the gay guy hitting on him in the shower get charged with a hate crime?

It's not the gayness per se but all the lefty, litigation-oriented politics that go with it that are most concerning to me.

As far as numbers go: I seriously doubt the ranks will swell with new gay members as fast as they will deplete when those opposed to the policy decide to split.

The activists' goal (and Obama's) is an ideological one, not a military one.

The comments to this entry are closed.