November 1947: Clark Clifford presents a lengthy memorandum to President Truman which argues that the civil rights issue and the African-American vote are important elements in a winning strategy for the 1948 campaign.

January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation.

But the upshot is Secretary Gates considering something that looks like DADT Lite...

This is truly a sad story. Who knows if this incident may have an affect on DADT. I sure hope hope that Obama & his admin know about it.

Let's see:

1. The candidate promised to lift the ban.
2. The White House Web site reaffirmed the president's commitment to lifting the ban.
3. The White House Web site no longer reaffirms his commitment to lifting the ban.
4. The president now refuses to lift the ban.
5. The president actually affirmatively makes things worse by administratively supporting defending the ban.
6. The spokesman reiterates the president's support for lifting the ban, some day, once Congress gets around to it.

Sound familiar?

I saw this on Joe. My. God.

Glad to see a representative doing the right thing!
Rep. Patrick Murphy on the Rachel Maddow Show

...10 years of experience with the policy has made it clear that this compromise is not only a failure, but also an international embarrassment.

A committee spokeswoman confirmed that there will be hearings but that no specific legislation is under consideration.

I woke up this morning, turned on the news and I couldn't believe my ears.

My president, through the DOJ, called me a faggot today.

He told me my relationship doesn't matter.

He told me to put on my assless chaps and get back on the float.

He told me that Rick Santorum was right.

He told me it was about sex and nothing more.

He told me that he has forgotten what it's like to experience discrimination.

He told the bully it was OK to beat up on the gay kid.

He sided with the Westboro Baptist Church.

He said it was OK to keep me from my loved one's side.

He said get back to planning the weddings.

He told me I was an expense the government couldn't afford.

He vindicated Carrie Prejean.

He allowed the DOJ to use language one would expect from Mike Huckabee.

He is silent now when his voice matters most.

I defended Obama over gay rights. I was beaming when he went on Ellen. I figured there was a good reason for his actions on the DADT challenge. I tried to convince myself it was politics and nothing more. Well this is a mystery I will never be able to solve.

Why is my president calling me a faggot?

Be warned. I'm really not in the mood for apologists right now.

I know this article isn't completely related to this topic but I thought it "fit" for this thread. I wonder tho if it would be a hit w/ hetero boys if it were the case? I'd say prolly not. But I do like the concept, that's for sure. What are thoughts?

"Ironically, it pulled the unit together. A lot of them started to invite me out," Manzella said. "My co-worker was getting married; she told me that my boyfriend and I were invited to the wedding. It made me feel like I was more a part of the family."...

In 2006, Manzella's unit was sent back to Iraq, and he served his 15-month deployment with his unit knowing he was gay.

"I could have pictures of my boyfriend out, I could talk freely on the phone without having to worry about someone overhearing me and reporting me," he said.

Another sad case of an excellent soldier being "honorably" discharged. There's nothing honorable about this type of situation, imho. I know what it means, but still I'd feel betrayed & humiliated if I were in his shoes.

At any rate, I thought that these quotes were encouraging:

At least one British army brigadier publicly resigned in protest, citing "strongly held moral and military convictions" but most observers were surprised at how smoothly the new law - which was forced on the UK government by the European Court of Human Rights - was implemented.

"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," Mullen said.
* * *
"No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," he said.

"At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell policy," said Republican Senator John McCain, who was his party's presidential nominee and lost the 2008 election to Obama, a Democrat.

There's a fairly recent book about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and its impact that I'm eager to read, but I can't remember the title or the author. Can anyone help?

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.
* * *
Mullen’s heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony gave perfect expression to the nation’s own slow but inexorable progress on the issue. He said he had “served with homosexuals since 1968” and that his views had evolved “cumulatively” and “personally” ever since. So it has gone for many other Americans in all walks of life. As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.
* * *
The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

As the Obama administration proposes repealing the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

There’s less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.

Confused?

The results highlight the importance of wording on the issue. In a test, half of the poll’s respondents were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, and the other half were asked about permitting “homosexuals” to serve.

The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.