Comments for Your Thoughts On Truman, Obama And Gays In the Military

Your Thoughts On Truman, Obama And Gays In the Military

2009-07-01T18:09:08Z

Yesterday, I noted that the Obama administration could learn a thing or two from Harry Truman's 1948 executive order integrating the military. Readers rightly noted that I left out some important variables. First, Truman didn't rush to integrate. He took office in 1945 and waited until 1948 to do the deed. Second, Obama needs congressional approval to overturn the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, and I implied that it was his prerogative alone. That's not quite right.

On the first point, I don't think it diminishes Truman's political courage or risk taking to note that he waited until 1948 to integrate the military, a far harder task than faces Obama given the virulence of Jim Crow. It's true that there were political benefits to the integration order that helped Truman win the votes of blacks who had migrated north to states where they weren't largely prevented from voting, such as Illinois. But overall it was a gamble of astonishing proportions in an election year and far riskier than anything Obama is thus far avoiding. Truman's position helped lead to the Strom Thurmond/segregationist walkout from the party. No Democrat in Congress is going to bolt over this.
]]> here.

What do you think? How big are the political risks to Obama if he follows through this summer on ending don't-ask-don't-tell. I think they're minimal.

I thank everyone for their comments and encourage more.

Comment from cat on 2009-07-01

2009-07-01T18:51:13Z

The Army WAS NOT integrated in 1948. Only the executive order was signed then. On 03/18/51, Basic training was first desegregated. Then the rest of the Army was gradually desegregated, until 95% of it was FINALLY integrated in October 1952.

Oh, and by the way, he appointed a commission to study this about 2 years before signing the order. Gates is being harrassed about this by reporters while overseas and said a fair way to handle DADT had to be found. That should be encouraging to gays as Gates and Mullen usually dodge the question.

Comment from Grant on 2009-07-01

2009-07-01T19:32:12Z

As one of the people who ranted at you a bit yesterday about the need for Congressional action... let me continue on that line of thought.

Yes, Obama could temporarily suspend discharges by executive order during a state of national emergency, I did mention that myself the other day, but as I also mentioned that is a stopgap measure at best. The only way to get DADT to go away permanently is to have Congress take the statute off the books and that is where the goal line should be drawn... so, with that in mind, does signing the executive order to temporarily suspend enforcement before that happens help or hurt the effort to get across that line?

The argument could be made that it helps, in that the longer the discharges are suspended the more observational evidence you are able to present to say "See, look, everything still working fine... the gays aren't somehow breaking the military."

The argument could also be made that it would hurt, by taking a lot of pressure off those Congress critters who need to be the ones to get rid of it once and for all. As long as we keep having these prominent news stories like Choi and Fehrenbach being drummed out of the service for the great crime of not being heterosexual, people getting outraged about it, and Obama being able to come out and tell everyone all about how Congress needs to revoke DADT and make this stop, then the pressure is kept on and increases the odds that something will get done about it before the time eventually comes that we end up with another Republican administration less inclined to do anything about it at all. Which, yes, sucks for Choi, Fehrenbach and any others that fall victim to DADT in the meantime but might be the more beneficial big picture strategy over the long term.

Frankly, I don't know which approach by Obama would be more effective at getting Congress to take action (and there's no doubt it's a glaring injustice being inflicted on the DADT victims in the meantime even if the latter strategic argument does have merit)... but regardless of which it is the bottom line is Congress is ultimately responsible for this mess and they're the people who should primarily be taking the heat over it if we want it actually fixed instead of just temporarily patched.

Comment from IDTT on 2009-07-01

2009-07-01T20:13:16Z

It's not a true comparison to say Obama could do the same thing as Truman because it was not illegal for blacks to be in the military, they just did not serve with whites as the policy was to segragate the units. A more accurate description of what Pres Truman did was to integrate the units by going around Congress to do away with such things as all black units and all white officer commissioning programs etc. Blacks have fought and died alongside whites in America since the establishment of the colonies. This is not to say what Truman did was insignificant, just to say the focus on the how & why for President Obama's challenge needs to be different. Under the UCMJ it IS illegal to engage in homosexual behavior as its considered sodomoy. From the UCMJ:
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. and it is a Court Martial offense.

As I read this, it shows me just how much Pres Clinton pulled a bait and switch with DADT. Along with Article 31 (prohibits self incrimination) Clinton basically said, "Gays can serve in the military so long as they don't do anything gay (whatever that means) or admit that they have". There is also a DoD policy that outlines what homosexual behavior is but it's the fruit from the poisoned tree that is Article 125. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a lawyer, so my take on the UCMJ could be wrong, but my basic premise is Truman's EO did not allow blacks to serve in the military as long as no one knew they were black. President Obama does not have to discontinue a policy, he has to change a military law. That requires congress, the best he can do is a half measure that would not solve anything and probably piss everybody on both sides of the issue off. Just my opinion.

Comment from IDTT on 2009-07-01

2009-07-01T20:17:18Z

Awesome post!

Comment from nfrank on 2009-07-01

2009-07-01T20:41:32Z

The UCMJ does not prohibit homosexual behavior any more than it prohibits heterosexual behavior. It does not specify. It bans sodomy, which is defined as anal and oral sex (among other acts), and studies suggest that about 80% of the military (same as civil society) engage in oral sex. I'm not ignoring the fact that homosexual sex acts tend to be different than heterosexual sex acts on the whole, but it's not right to read UCMJ as banning homosexual behavior. Trust me: most straights violate the UCMJ constantly, and plenty of gays never engage in anal sex.

Again, as our study shows (linked to by MC in his post, above), Obama can halt all discharges without Congress. As to the politics of it, yes, it is a fair debate to consider which steps would be the most effective way to get national buy-in to end the ban entirely. Having written a book on the politics of the Clinton-era policy, I'm of the mind that Obama needs to show the military who's boss by acting like Commander-in-Chief; issue the executive order that Clinton should have issued 16 years ago; and then, as Grant allows for above, work with Congress to kill the policy by pointing to the sky that's still standing.

Comment from nfrank on 2009-07-01

2009-07-01T20:43:16Z

Sorry, I guess I shouldn't mix metaphors with a "standing sky" but rather say that it's still... floating?

Comment from IDTT on 2009-07-01

2009-07-02T00:44:17Z

Nfrank, I agree with your post (except President's can't issue E.O.s that over turn a law). I mistakenly worded my post to give the appearance that I think sodomy and homosexual activity is always one and the same (I don't). Sodomy is specifically mentioned in the UCMJ and the defnition of it implies that all homosexual acts are sodomy. You bring up an excellent point that I should have made and that's, for the military at least, the interpretation of what is natural is subject to today's norms. Basically, as long as its thought of as sodomy, then it's going to be illegal and punishable under the law. Not very many people think getting or receiving oral sex is an unnatural act anymore (blessedly so if you ask me!). Do you think it would be easier to change or do away with the laws punishing the behavior or get universal acknowledgement that homosexual activity is not "unatural"? I can't see that happening and I rather see Congress take away the legal means to discriminate. I just don't see how we can get any real and lasting change w/o addressing the absurdly subjective wording of the law.

Comment from RobM1981 on 2009-07-02

2009-07-02T18:27:50Z

And, of course, the issue that some men will be "eying" some other men during the times they are naked together (showers, physicals, etc.) doesn't factor into this.

If you accept that gay men find other men sexually attractive, then you must accept the same kinds of issues that men and women live with. Last I checked male and female soldiers do not take showers, use latrined, relieve themselves in foxholes, etc. together. Those situations, in and of themselves, would be considered harassment.

But let's keep talking regulations and ignore common sense.

Are homosexuals satisfied with the same arrangments made for females in the military? Would they accept not being assigned to many places, like submarines and line-infantry, due to the obvious sexual tensions and inappropriate situations that this would engender?

Or are we simply looking to tell the heterosexual men "Sure, they like looking at your genitals - get over it..."