******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Did Dems Already Dodge Gay Activist Boycott?

Just a couple of days ago I wrote of the fundraising boycott of the Democratic National Committee and Obama campaign apparatus by liberal gay rights activists. The boycott was in reaction to almost complete inaction, and in some cases what was perceived as insulting conduct, by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.

That was then, this is now.

Barney Frank came to rescue and promised that legislation to rescind the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) law would be attached to next year's defense appropriations bill, which would come to a vote in the spring or summer and take effect October 1. One month prior to the 2010 mid-term elections.

That was easy. Boycott language toned down, small victory claimed. The boycott is still on but donations now are being funneled to Democratic candidates through other means so the boycott is "largely invisible."

All may not be well, but it is better for Democrats than two days ago. An uprising in the ranks not quashed, but minimized and marginalized based on a mere promise.

What is the chance Democrats are going to risk a fight over a gay rights issue in an election year? Can you say California Prop. 8 and Maine Question 1? Can you say "bring out the base"?

What is the chance that edgy Democratic Congressmen and Senators are going to want to inject gay rights issues into a defense appropriations bill in an election year? 64 Democrats in the House threw the entire abortion rights movement under the bus in a heartbeat last Saturday night. Good luck with that.

What is the chance the Obama administration and Democrats will completely back down when faced with the troops in the field being defunded over a gay rights issue? That's a bet I'd be willing to take, and I don't gamble.

"Next year" is one of the lamest dodges in existence, but it's all Democrats are willing to give right now. And considering that "next year" is an election year in which Republicans are ascending and Democrats are in full-blown defensive mode, "next year" may just have to wait, again.

Will Obama keep the promise Barney Frank made about DADT? Sure, right after Obama keeps his promise not to give Fox News an interview in 2009.

Related Posts:
Democrats Sold Their Party's Reproductive Soul
Gay Activists Launch Boycott of Dems
100% Plus Taxation Key To Permanent Dem Majority

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. If things keep going the way they are for Dems, by next October, they'll do ANYTHING and attach ANYTHING to ANY bill they have to in order to hold the House and Senate. Mark my words, these guys will die before they give that power up. Part of it is their love of power, the other is their worship of Obama, who must be defended at all costs.

  2. After the Fort Hood Massacre, it's getting hard to say that gays should not be able to serve openly in the armed forces. The Army twisted itself into a pretzel to find ways NOT to dump a crazy, incompetent jihadist sympathizer, lest it upset the handful of Muslim troops (who likely would not be upsat anyway), but can't acknowledge the Sgt. Melinda and Pvt. Jennifer have a thing for each other?

  3. Your post states some excellent reasons why the Dems might get weak in the knees about supporting the right of gay Americans to serve openly in the US military. But, Nancy and her friends are not for gays per se but for themselves - everyone knows that.

    On the other hand, this is a perfect opportunity for Republicans to stand up for gay Americans. What a brilliant move that would be. They won't though.

    A pox on both their houses.

  4. I wouldn't generalize all gays as being Obama-diehards. Yes, we bought into the hype. But my support (and the gays in my social circle) of Obama effectively ended when he revealed his Bait-n-Switch stance on DADT. There's also a huge I-Told-You-So defection to Hillary. The truth is, some of us have already ENDED our support of Obama and his party back in Spring with the Money-as-Confetti Stimulus spending. And now there's the monstrosity that is Obamacare. Gays should know better by now when Obama makes a promise. e.g.,"...you'll get to keep your own private healthcare."

    If anything, Obama's DADT switcheroo should serve as warning to the 'Straight' folks who are still betting the economy, healthcare and national security on such a Flake. I can't figure out the gays that are still up for these political One Night Stands with Barney Frank. He's just gross.

    Conservative gays certainly won't be voting for any Liberal Democrats in 2010. And that's a promise.

  5. DADT should not be fought for by Republicans as stated in an above post. What is to gain? Will the liberal gays switch their party and suddenly vote with conservatives. I don't thinks so. It would end up hurting soldiers in combat arms of the military. Gays openly serving in the military would be a disaster.A military organization functions best when the differences among individuals in a unit are minimized. Soldiers look, act, dress, and train alike. Why break down all of these differences only to inject the greatest difference of all-individual sexual identity-into a unit? Civilians can easily'avoid unwanted sexual attraction from people of the same sex. But in the military lifestyle of forced association, such options seldom exist. Of course, the military wants the best person it can get in a job-but only if that individual's abilities contribute to the overall good of the team more than his personal differences detract from. ect,ect,ect.

  6. First of all I am a very straight woman and I have worked with homosexuals in at least one workplace. I do not like the in yer face type, but the remainder of them are professional and courteous.

    Second, I have been reading at least 2 blogs where the blog owners are homosexual and/or lesbian. One blog is conservative (some of the contributers are Republicans) and they get a very hard time from the liberal gays. The other blog that I like to read belongs to gay men from Chicago who are Hillary fans, and when they saw what happened to her during the nominations they switched their support to John McCain because of Sarah Palin and Twig. Within the past week, thanks to the Ft. Hood terrorist attack and massacre, they have come to the decision to drop their allegience to the Democratic Party. Good for them because they have had the clear foresight to see that they were being used by the Democrats.

    Third, the Ft. Hood terrorist attack has helped me to define where I would stand on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy (as it would apply in Australia just as much as it applies in the USA and elsewhere). Whilst I understand the reasons for not wanting homosexuals in the services, I do not think that such reasons are valid. What I have been reading about the way in which Malik Hasan was enabled, the fact that no one did anything concrete to investigate and to end his career in the army before it was too late, despite their suspicions etc. has in same way brought me around to seeing that homosexuals are not being treated equally by the armed services.

    There was a recent case where a member of the armed services came out as a gay person and as a result he lost his commission to serve. He was a very highly qualified specialist and I dare say the military could not really afford to lose this person. However, because he came out he was forced to leave the armed services. He did not harm anyone, he did not kill his fellow service members, and he was treated in a bad way. Now compare that to the treatment of Hasan, especially in light of the fact that Hasan's medical superiors had doubts about him. For the sake of ethnic diversity they did nothing.

    Whilst I agree with the reasons outlined with Terry regarding gays openly serving in the military, I am just uncertain that there is such a high risk when people are behaving in a professional way without reference to their sexuality in the work environment.

    I think that it is time to re-evaluate the policy but without the politically correct overtones that comes with the desire for diversity. I think that this is something that is up to our military to state whether or not they are comfortable serving with men and women who are being more open about their sexual orientation. I would suspect that hiding that sexual orientation makes it more dangerous for other serving members than vice-versa.

  7. Actually, Sgt. Melinda and Pvt. Jennifer shouldn't be in a relationship, as it's a fraternization issue. However Sgt. Melinda and Sgt. Jennifer? Sure. Especially if they are hot.

    All seriousness aside; I can support "same sex" marriage as a liberty issue, but after 26+ years I still go back and forth on gays serving openly in the military. That said, I thought DADT was a weaselish law when it was adopted.

    A question which never gets addressed - is service in the military a RIGHT or a privilege? If a right, then can anyone be barred? If a privilege how do we as a society decide who gets in and who is kept out?

  8. I fully respect Terry’s point of view. After all, it’s one I essentially shared for many years. However, my opinion on this subject began to change after I watched DADT for years. It (for all intents and purposes) caused the end of witch hunts by military leadership against gays in their units and onboard ships.

    Fortunately since DADT, no naval vessels have sunk due to having gays serving aboard. No Marine unit has failed in its mission because of discipline disasters caused by homosexual behavior while taking the objective. All our military technology works as smoothly, or better, than it ever has before. Yet everyone openly acknowledges that they’re there.

    Based upon the odd (to straight folks) behavior of the more militant of the gay community as exampled by the disgusting conduct of certain persons dressing in weird customs and invading Catholic Churches in San Francisco with the object of causing sacrilegious insult, the viewpoint of many such as Terry should not be surprising to gay rights activists..

    On the other hand, any military person would have to agree few if any such odd characters can make it past the recruiter never mind boot camp. And why would they try? You have to be a pretty patriotic, motivated and determined individual to volunteer for your nation’s armed forces especially during time of war. Pansies and weak-willed individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, don’t generally make the mistake of joining the Marine Corps..

    Finally, we all need to consider what “openly gay” military service really means. Does it mean that otherwise professional soldiers, sailors or Marines are going to now prance about trying to solicit sex from the friends and fellow service members? Does it mean that gay soldiers are going to wear a special blinking light atop their helmet? Does it mean they will wear a special gay flag patch on their pocket flap? Or does it really mean that the many, many gay men and women already serving in the armed forces no longer need to sneak around and lie about who they are. That doesn’t work anyway, does it? Astute leaders and intelligent persons up and down the chain of command know all about the other service members in their unit, don’t they?

    It’s hard to believe but only 60 some odd years ago most military leaders were adamantly opposed to having blacks serve in white units. Patton went way out of his way simply to allow an all-black tank regiment to serve in the front lines. Not until after the war did the services become integrated. Seems shameful today, doesn’t it?

  9. 2470144 makes some very good points. It is great to be able to discuss a topic such as this with civility in today’s political climate. Military service is a privilege, not a right. Access to the military has never been fair. Because victories in combat are achieved by cohesive units, the armed forces routinely sacrifice individual interests to ensure unit cohesion. Military service is legally restricted or denied entirely to patriotic Americans who are too tall, too short, too fat, color blind, flat-footed, and mentally or physically handicapped in any way. There are other restrictions; single parents, for example, are not allowed to enlist. This is no reflection on the inherent worth of these people as human beings; they are simply not suited for military service. Professional military judgment and experience indicate that mixing known homosexuals with heterosexuals degrades cohesion and combat effectiveness. It is not the individual qualities of the homosexual, but rather homosexuality itself, which is incompatible with military service.

  10. Hmmm...Terry. Your point that "homosexuality itself" is incompatible with military service seems at first glance to be self-evident.

    But again this logic requires some supporting data (which I freely admit probably does not exist to support any conclusion on either side of this argument). In other words, homosexuality is certainly not a physical impairment. As well, it is not really similar to a parent who might at any time need to abandon custody of a child.

    Instead we can all agree that gays are enlisting and serving - most of them, just like most heteosexuals - with professionalism and honor.

    So, at the crux of this issue is what we might expect to happen at the end of DADT. The gays are there now. They are serving in all types of units in all the services in combat and in support. So, what do we think might happen if the day arrives that these folks are no longer afraid that admitting who they are will cost them their career?

    That is the $64,000 question. It's a prfound question with reasonable concerns for any intelligent military leader. I can't answer it. But, my opinion is, I personally don't think anything will happen. The mission will continue as before. Barney Frank and his ilk will not and never would join the Army. Only patriots will.

  11. The point I made is that serving in the military is a privilege not a right and that people are denied serving for a variety of reasons including homosexuality. I am not doubting a homosexual's patriotism or their ability to contribute nor was I speaking of the individuality of their service but their affect on cohesion, military effeciency, ect. The mere fact that they are "their now" says little on how units, morale, commanders, cohesion is influenced. The majority of military personnel with all of their expertise agree with the policy.This really is a secondary issue for me. The real problem I have is the left's obsession with identity politics, multiculturalism, and diversity which they use to create voting blocks and endless promises.

  12. DADT is a pittance. Even if acted on, it won't save them or him. DOMA and ENDA are far more important and encompassing than splinter group focused DADT