DADT: Compromise, Faith and Full Equality/DADT: Muddy Waters

DADT: Compromise, Faith and Full Equality
by David Mixner
Copyright by David Mixner
May 25 2010
http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/05/dadt-compromise-faith-and-full-equality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidMixnerCom+%28DavidMixner.com%29


RainbowFlag "Compromise" is a word that is so complex that even the dictionary has a problem defining it. On one hand it is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent...". The second definition is "a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial - a - of principles." Even the great minds of our century have struggled with the concept with opinions ranging from "a consensus of wise people to make progress" to "bending ones principles needlessly." Most often the concept of compromise demands agreement from the public and those that have continued with dissent are relegated to a fringe community of thought.

Even those thinkers from the past from whom we seek knowledge have differences of opinion on compromise. Edmund Burke wrote, "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter." Then you have Mr. Gilbert Chesterton, the turn of the last century author, wit and social critic who said, "Compromise used to mean that a half of loaf is better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf; is better than a whole loaf."

The importance of understanding compromise is not some abstract principle as we debate the newly proposed legislation regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Unless we understand the complexities of what is taking place we will quickly become rigid in who is reasonable and who is not. The concept of full equality must not be lost in the rush to reach consensus but neither must we refuse to take advantage of a step in the right direction. To immediately label those who have labored to reach some agreement for this Congressional session as 'sell-outs' demeans the work of well-meaning people. On the other hand, to ignore legitimate and powerful concerns of substantive people by brushing them aside with "you can never please those people, they will always be unreasonable" is to kill thought and debate. Neither of these responses serve justice and equality.

So let's take a look at what is being proposed and attempt to retrieve what is good and be vigilant on legitimate and powerful concerns as we proceed into the next year.

First and foremost, this does not end "Don't Tell, Don't Tell" now.

Second, the LGBT community would be very foolish indeed not to realize that the constant pressure generated by our community and its allies have forced the President, Congressional leaders and community leaders to the table to seek solutions. Secretary of Defense Gates' letter was supposed to seal the debate for this year. Because our community refused to accept that as an option we have forced those who are timid to find some courage. After all, courage is just a lack of options.

Third, we might have an opportunity to remove Congress from the food chain. If we can remove the legislative barrier as a factor than that is some progress. Such action would removed an important obstacle in the struggle for freedom. There is no question that Congressional action that would have given full equality to our brave LGBT service members should have taken place instead of this compromise. However, clearly that is not going to happen. Nevertheless, we should at least take Congress out of the equation if we have the opportunity.

Fourth, make absolutely no mistake about this fact: this compromise at this point does not protect our LGBT service members. They are still left totally exposed. Unless the President issues a 'stop-loss' order or an action by the Secretary of Defense, it is likely that those charged today will be forced out and others will continue to face persecution until further action is taken. The current policy will continue until at least after the study is completed and signed off by the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. If they cannot reach consensus on the results of the study then "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will continue to be the law of the land. The removing of Congress as a factor with this compromise is extremely conditional with a number of 'if's' and 'but's.'

Fifth, there is simply no timeline for when full equality will be mandated. Yes, the offensive study is scheduled to be concluded by December 1st. However, the conclusion of that study could state that the military needs a year to two to implement the results. This would mean the current policy could proceed for a period of undefined time. Of course, the President could at that point issue a 'stop-loss' order until the implementation is completed. Don't forget the President could also do that today.

Sixth, with the removal of any non-discrimination language from the compromise, we could leave our soldiers in real limbo concerning their rights, benefits and privileges. Exactly what will be the new guidelines once this legislation is passed? What are our service members rights? Do the provisions of the compromise let stand "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" until further action next year?

In the end, it is apparent that as a community we are being asked to proceed with "total faith" in the President and his willingness to take decisive action next winter. This compromise gives us no guarantees, doesn't end current discrimination and leaves hoping for the best in others. " Faith" is going to be tough for many people since some of us remember how in 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was touted as a major compromise and progress. Yes, it is wrong to live in the shadow of the past since it is 18 years later and it is a different world. However it is also wrong to ignore the lessons of our history - which tell us that most times when we have been asked to have "faith", we have been given darkness.

Ironically, even this compromise might have trouble passing as the Republicans have insisted that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be maintained as the policy. As a community, we should do everything in our power to seek improvements in this compromise because we are clearly not going to achieve any more than that this session. Asking important questions and raising legitimate concerns are a moral necessity.

I am hungry for full equality. For a hungry person some bread is better than no bread. However it is impossible to fully enjoy that meal if you have no idea if there is any more bread coming tomorrow. Living without freedom does strange things to a person; it changes them forever. Our decision makers should never forget that partial freedom is totally and completely unacceptable. We won't rest until we have full equality and freedom. The desire for full equality doesn't mean we aren't pleased with steps toward progress. It simply means there is no such thing as a partially free person.

Wise and thoughtful minds are required now, not a lot of noise, patting on the backs, celebration and confetti. We can work for the best today while continuing the fight for tomorrow.


DADT: Muddy Waters
by David Mixner
Copyright by David Mixner
May 26 2010
http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/05/dadt-muddy-waters.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidMixnerCom+%28DavidMixner.com%29


On Monday the issue was pretty clear cut. Senators and House members were working overtime to achieve an all out appeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The proposal then was to prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community within the military. New polls surfaced showing that 78% of the American people support lifting the ban. The White House was silent on repudiating Secretary Gates' attempt at derailing our progress but we were moving forward anyway.

On Tuesday the entire situation is filled with muddy waters. Throughout the day there were calls back and forth attempting to understand the compromise. Everyone wants to believe but no one could point out what we won in the compromise. Instead of an all out repeal, we now have this complex piece of legislation filled with 'if's', 'buts' and 'maybe's.' The discrimination section against LGBT soldiers was removed, DADT would remain in effect until next year at least and even then there were no mandates, timelines or protections for us.

So suddenly overnight we are expected to switch from a strategy of all out repeal to one that is much less attractive and filled with loopholes. Now explain again what we gained? Over and over again I have been told we now have the President endorsing the legislation and this increases our chances with the compromise. Could not have the President joined 78% of the American people and supported full repeal? Is there something here I am missing?

Believe me I want to believe this is good for us and that at least some progress is being made but as each hour passes, it grows darker and more difficult. No one can give a clear answer on what we gain through this strategy. Certainly Congress keeps its oar in the water until the report is done. DADT is not repealed until the report is done. There is no mandate or timeline for after the report is done. All day long I have made calls asking for clarification and shockingly they don't even have good sound bites down. Everyone has a different answer for what we gain.

Let's go back to Monday