Almost Seventy Percent Support Allowing Gays to Serve in the Military
Kevin Drum comments on the latest polling on gays in the military:
There’s a rule of thumb that says social policies are resistant to change until they garner two-thirds support from the public. Allowing gays to serve openly in the military has now officially passed that point. That means it’s safe to keep your campaign promise and act, Mr. President.
I wrote about the administration sad inaction on this front a little while back for The Daily Beast. Recall, however, that there is a congressional element to this. So if you’re upset about the status quo, don’t just get upset at the White House, get upset at your House member and your Senators too. Given an adequate volume of complaining, people will do the right thing here, but it’s obvious that there’s a kind of vague preference to just let this slide.
24 Responses to “Almost Seventy Percent Support Allowing Gays to Serve in the Military”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am
FWIW:
June 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I dropped Sen Casey a line a few weeks back asking him to repeal DADT. His response, in a nutshell, was “I’m gonna wait to find out which way the wind is blowing.”
Get out there and tell your reps what you want. Some of them might even be listening.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I first read the top group in the poll as “Rational Adults.” O_o
June 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Given an adequate volume of complaining, people will do the right thing here, but it’s obvious that there’s a kind of vague preference to just let this slide.
My sense is that the White House — and probably Democrats in Congress, too — want to avoid giving the GOP easy ammunition to label them as far left liberals — prior to the big domestic battles on health care and climate change. Not saying that I necessarily think foot dragging on gay rights issues (or other areas such as torture) is admirable, mind you. But I do think there’s at least an arguable political justification for choosing one’s battles, and making gay rights a priority in 2010. Maybe I’m simply an uninformed optimist, but my strong sense is that on gay rights, at least, the momentum is going in the right direction, and the forces of reaction are fighting a battle they’re doomed to lose. But climate change and healthcare involve corporate America’s profits — and it’s all too easy to imagine vital change in these areas being thwarted by K Street, not to resurface again as actionable issues for another decade or more. Indeed, I think our blog host is on record as being at least on a couple of occasional decidedly pessimistic about the possibility of the right kind of legislation in these areas being enacted. Here’s hoping he’s wrong.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I don’t think he’s scared of the public or Republicans on this issue. I think he’s scared of the generals.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
86% of liberals
If only we had a Democratic Congress and President!
June 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
ObaFuhrer directed his Justice Department (god knows he has carried on Bushit’s policy of making it simply a personal extension of the Oval Office) to intervene and ask the Supreme Court to uphold DADT on the basis of all the same old tired prejudices.
What a surprise!
This is YOUR ObaFuhrer who thinks gay Americans are second class citizens deserving of no more and sometimes far less than second class rights.
This is YOUR ObaFuhrer who chose a sexist homophobic “minister” to pray for him at his coronation.
This is YOUR ObaFuhrer who paid homophobic ministers to preach their hate in his black South Carolina campaign.
This is YOUR ObaFuhrer who is nothing but a lying ghetto hustler.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
This is all about making the military more fair to gays. Well, excuse me for living, but to hell with the military. In my lifetime they’ve done nothing but involve us in wars, cost us a lot of money, and bring undying shame on the national name. Let them stew in their own juices.
If you’re gay, find some other thing to do with your life. Trust me, it won’t be hard to find something of more value to humanity than being in the military.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Serial Catowner: I know, right? And believe me, gays: you don’t even want to get married! Soon your spouse is going to be nagging you to do chores and all that shit…just leave it alone, is my advice! Trust me, it’s better not to even have the choice.
Apparently in Serial Catowner’s world, “let [the military] stew in their own juices” means “let them discriminate against whoever they want.”
June 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I wonder what JT thinks about gays? What policies he would enact towards them?
June 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The military has not involved us in any wars since China’s entry into the Korean war. Presidents and congressmen involve us in wars.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I’d like to see the subset of “current active duty military” or “veterans”. The best opinions on the subject would be those of the people most affected by the policy.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Obama seems to be working assiduously to flip the military itself as a political constituency, so he’s probably not going to be too far out front on this one.
(holy cow, a preview button!)
June 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I think this is what serial catowner was trying to say:
I can’t say I disagree. I’m strongly opposed to DADT, for the blatant and unnecessary discrimination in society at large that it legitimizes. But on the other hand, it seems like we’re missing the point if we wring our hands over human rights violations within the military but don’t deal with the vastly greater number perpetrated by the military.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Surest way to end DADT? Reinstate the draft.
Just imagine how porous a draft would be if DADT was still in place. “Sorry Mr. Draft Board Chairman. I would love to serve my country, I really would. But you see….I have sexual feelings towards men.”
Perhaps a few generations ago, fear of being labeled as gay was motivation enough for draftees to avoid that sort of claim. But TODAY? Seriously. What Gen-Y hipster is going to be afraid of being labeled gay if it gets him out of Iraq?
And I can see a whole new business opportunity for the “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” dudes. “Gay Consultants” would pop up in every city promising to make your guy gay in just 6 easy steps. Guaranteed to fool any draft board!
Imagine the comedy if the Pentagon actually set about trying to prove that draftees were straight and not gay. And imagine the response in the other direction. Thousands of straight guys putting up gay youtube videos and myspace pages to prove they were gay.
There’s definitely some good reality TV there.
What fun.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The people most affected are gays wishing to join the military. Somehow, I think they’d be for getting rid of DADT.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Chris Walden Says: I’d like to see the subset of “current active duty military” or “veterans”.
A Zogby poll conducted back in 2007 found “73 percent of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23 percent) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21 percent of those in combat units.”
I suspect the numbers to have only increased since then. When the armed forces are reduced to recruiting known gang members, convicted felons, militia/supremist group members – how can having out gays/lesbians be worse for unit cohesion?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I imagine a poll of white bus passengers in Selma would have shown substantial opposition to letting blacks sit in the front, but shockingly that wasn’t taken into account in changing the policy.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Ditto. If Obama was afraid of public opposition to his plans to eliminate DADT, he probably wouldn’t have campaigned on it.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
The military has not involved us in any wars since China’s entry into the Korean war. Presidents and congressmen involve us in wars.
This is literally true, but on the other hand, there’s what Pres. Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex.” That’s more than just the military, and it would be inaccurate to imply otherwise, but using “military” as a shorthand for the military-industrial complex seems accurate and fair. Or at the very least, it seems more intelligent than complaining about joining “industry” would.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Matt Y:
I wrote about the administration sad inaction on this front a little while back for The Daily Beast. Recall, however, that there is a congressional element to this. So if you’re upset about the status quo, don’t just get upset at the White House, get upset at your House member and your Senators too
Matt, this is ridiculous, Obama made a pledge during the campaign and another one earlier this year, then he cowardly sent out a underling to basically say “not so fast, wait another year” a week ago. I know you are an Obama cheerleader, but this is just disingenuous
June 8th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
What Gen-Y hipster is going to be afraid of being labeled gay if it gets him out of Iraq?
As a Gen-Xer who is on the border of being Gen-Y and a queer, I can tell from this comment that you don’t know anything about people under thirty except for what you’ve been told by television.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
As a Gen-Xer who is on the border of being Gen-Y and a queer, I can tell from this comment that you don’t know anything about people under thirty except for what you’ve been told by television.
Ummm… I teach at a large public high school in suburban Central Texas. I have openly gay and lesbian students. No one really cares. I don’t see them getting any more grief than any other student subpopulation that is outside the dominant mainstream. Not saying life is perfect for a gay high school kid. Obviously not. It’s not perfect for the goth kids either or most other kids who don’t 100% fit in. But it is light years different from when I was in HS in the early 80s. Kids are a lot more tolerant.
In any event, the point I was making was that everyone would be in on the joke. I honestly don’t think DADT could survive an unpopular draft like we had in the Vietnam era. If the choice was the infantry in Vietnam or Iraq…or [wink wink] letting everyone know you are gay. I think it would be an easy choice for a heck of a lot of 18 year old kids.
Would open up an ENORMOUS can of worms for the pentagon. How would they define being gay? By ones thoughts or by ones actions? What about bisexuals? No. I think DADT would die a rapid death if we ever faced a draft again. Especially during an unpopular war.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Former USAF here. In my opinion, and those of many I served with, DADT is an insult to the professionalism and integrity of men and women in uniform. We want the person serving next to us to be the best they can be, and when you see people like LTC Fehrenbach discharged under DADT, you know we’re needlessly throwing away the best. Like Matt says, write your representatives.