Obama and DADT
December 18th, 2010
01:58 PM ET

Obama and DADT

At several fundraising events last spring, President Obama found himself the target of hecklers yelling over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

 Overturning the military’s policy on gays openly serving was an early campaign promise of candidate Obama. And with his left flank pushing for action, Obama made it part of January’s State of the Union address.

 But progress was slow. And as even Obama called for Congress to repeal the law, activists complained Washington wasn’t moving fast enough.

 

Obama responded to one heckler who interrupted his remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer in May, first saying “maybe he didn't read the newspapers, because we're working with Congress as we speak.’

 Later, Obama chided the protester to laughter from the crowd, “C'mon, man, I'm dealing with Congress here. It takes a little bit of time.”

 That little bit of time ended up being an additional seven months, with the Senate vote Saturday sending the repeal to President Obama’s desk. In a week where Obama was fending off criticism from liberal supporters over the compromise on tax cut extensions, the president was able to live up to deliver a victory to the left.

 While Obama stayed out of sight of cameras Saturday, he called the Senate’s action ‘an historic step” in a written statement.

 Obama said the policy “undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend”.

 “No longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love”, he said.

 He said, “As Commander-in-Chief,  I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known.”


« Previous entry
soundoff (19 Responses)
  1. LIZ CARTER in GEORGIA

    Chris Wallace is nothing but a DEVILS' ADVOCATE, he's exactly what some claim JOY BEHAR is on her show! He leans to an obvious HARD RIGHT as he sits up there looking like DONALD DUCK, himself, and shifts blame of everything that happens in DC and is VIEWED by the STUPID MASSES as a NEGATIVE, over to the democrats and PRESIDENT OBAMA! Today, he's tried to put OBAMA in bad light claiming he hadn't opened up the case of the health issues facing the 911 FIRST RESPONDERS; fast enough for him! OBAMA IS HUMAN!

    December 19, 2010 at 10:08 am |
  2. LIZ CARTER in GEORGIA

    The other devils' advocate, Bill Kristol, on Chris Wallaces' show just sat up there this morning and tried to blame the OBAMA and the democrats for the immigration/citizenship problems facing hispanics in AMERICA! Every sane, thinking AMERICAN citizen knows that the problem stems from the RIGHT(REPUBLICANS), when it comes to so-called 'illegal aliens' acquiring citizenship here in AMERICA! Even the HARD RIGHT WING MEDIA is guilty of dismissing anything that is PRO citizenship for immigrants! LOU DOBBS!!

    December 19, 2010 at 10:46 am |
  3. Bruney

    I applaud the United States for this sow that civil rights are not dead. The symbolism of this vote shows that the land of the free is not dead after all.

    December 21, 2010 at 10:29 am |
    • Jerry

      What a joke DADT will open the world up and civil rights to whom? Those outside the military like Obama know so much but, we are not part of your social justice. So now we will see the U.S. has we drop to the seven level of hell enjoy it as CNN and its crap head writers along with some of you wanted it.

      December 21, 2010 at 8:06 pm |
      • MIchael

        Jerry, Jerry, Jerry – you might want to get a grasp on the basic concepts of the English language and sentence structure or you're just going to keep coming off as an educated bigot.

        December 25, 2010 at 1:32 pm |
      • A bullied kid

        To those like Jerry, dont be so ignorant. I hope you really believe in something whether it's Jesus, treating others in the same manner as you expect to be treated, or if you can call yourself an "Adult" The negative comments on here are of poor souls whom need to understand life, not a book. God is not in a book, he is in your heart. I dont know what your child hood was like, but don't bring others down with your unsatisfied life. The only way out of your own pain is to help others out of theirs. Plus you dont want thousands of people sending bad energy to you for your comments, I pray for you. To my friends "We were born this way"

        December 28, 2010 at 12:42 am |
  4. Truth4Once

    The only hispanics who have citizenship problems are those who are here illegally. What part of "illegal" do left wingers not understand?

    December 21, 2010 at 11:24 am |
  5. chel

    Thank you LIZ.

    December 21, 2010 at 2:59 pm |
  6. MS

    DADT was a Deal Made by Clinton to allow Gays to serve , And they still could not be happy. When I served I was subjected to questions about my sexuality . I am a Hetro Male . I have to admit I think its a REAL JOKE that a guy who never served in the MILITARY can do so much to mess up things in the military. And what we all have to say is equal rights . funny it took Blacks more time to be treated far oh no , Young Black men are still profiled by White Cops. ITS A JOKE MR PRES. Retired Marine ( Oh and I served with Gays in my time they just kept there Biz Private like they should.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:20 am |
    • annie s

      Why should they keep their "biz" private? Do you have to hide your wife or husband? These are people we're talking about – human beings who just happen to have a different sexual orientation than you do. Hiding in the closet is NOT acceptable, just as it was never acceptable to treat blacks as 2nd class citizens. Welcome to the 21st Century; I hope you don't get blinded by the dust being kicked in your face by progress.

      December 23, 2010 at 12:30 pm |
  7. LIZ CARTER in GEORGIA

    @MS; YOU'RE CORRECT! HOWEVER, CLINTON WAS ALSO A PRESIDENT THAT NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY; AND WHO HAD TO MAKE A MILITARY DECISION ABOUT GAYS IN THE MILITARY DURING THAT DISPENSATION OF TIME OF HIS PRESIDENCY! NO ONE QUESTIONED THAT HIS NON-MILITARY EXPERIENCE! TIMES AND THINGS HAVE EVOLVED; HEARTS AND MINDS HAVE CHANGED! NOW, OBAMA, WHO ALSO HADN'T SERVED IN THE MILITARY, HAS HAD TO MAKE A MILITARY DECISION IN REFERENCE TO GAYS IN THE MILITARY, DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL TIME! WHAT'S YOUR POINT, MARINE?

    December 22, 2010 at 10:59 am |
  8. Juan Carlos Santos

    God's Plan for the Gay Agenda

    by

    John MacArthur

    © Copyright 2004 by Grace to You. All rights reserved.

    If you’ve been watching the headlines over the past six months, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it’s at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That’s an indication of the success of the gay agenda. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality—calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)—they do so at the expense of many souls, perhaps even their own.

    How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals and decry the sin? The Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual desperately needs.

    Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality—and many of them know—they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens—as you come close, you see right through them.

    God’s condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear—He opposes it in every age.

    In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)

    In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

    In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)

    In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

    Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God’s fundamental design for human relationships—a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).
    Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).

    As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality—ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

    Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

    So, what is God’s response to the homosexual agenda? Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

    As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

    I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reason Romans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a “degrading passion.” It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul—and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

    First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

    God’s plan for many homosexuals is salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul’s day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. Do they still struggle with homosexual temptation? Sure they do. What Christian doesn’t struggle with the sins of their former life? Even the great apostle Paul acknowledges that fight (Romans 7:14-25). But former homosexuals sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

    What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

    So my brothers believers, is a perfect time to share the Gospel to those that you would ever know they were in sin, take this a great oportunity to ministies to them. Let your testimony and your fruits work on them.

    December 24, 2010 at 9:38 am |
    • TruthBearer

      What ridiculous nonsense. Anyone who knows the bible at all, knows that there were many things considered an "abomination" during the times of the old testament, including eating shellfish (shrimp), wearing clothing of mixed fabric, and menstruating women not being hidden from public.

      Here are some other verses from the books which the above poster has quoted, but somehow seems to be less concerned with:

      Leviticus 20:9 – "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."

      Leviticus 20:18 – "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people."

      Leviticus 19:19 – "Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."

      Leviticus 11:10 – "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."

      Leviticus 11:11 – "They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination."

      What else does the bible have to say?

      Incest is acceptable:
      Leviticus 19:32 – "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

      Anyone who does not listen to their priest should be murdered:
      "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death." – Deuteronomy 17:12

      Murder women who are not virgins on their wedding night:
      "But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." – Deuteronomy 22:20-21

      Murder of innocent infants is acceptable:
      "And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." – Hosea 9:11-16

      Rape of women and murder of innocent infants is acceptable:
      "Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes ... They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children." – Isaiah 13:15-18

      The bible also condones slavery:

      Leviticus 25:44-46 – "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance."

      And you can beat them, as long as they survive:
      Exodus 21:20-21 – "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

      And from the times of the new testament:
      Ephesians 6:5 NLT – "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear."

      Now, what does nature actually have to say about homosexuality? Well, same sex partners engage in almost every conceivable means of sexual expression throughout the animal kingdom. Some species other than our own, even have 'gay marriage', where same sex partners will mate for life. Google it, there's plenty of research that's been done on the subject.

      As for homosexuality in our own species, Kinsey found in the 1950s, that there is a broad spectrum of sexual identities and orientations that are a natural part of life. Some people are homosexual, more are heterosexual, and some lie somewhere in between. That's just the way it is.

      Further, recent Swedish research has found differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual males. If you truly want a comprehensive picture of the natural beginnings of homosexual people, look up biology and sexual orientation on Wikipedia, there is a very comprehensive and well thought out presentation of fact.

      So my Sisters and Brothers, I urge to you watch with a keen eye, these so called "Christians" who aim to abuse, harm, and destroy, our fellow human Sisters and Brothers in Life. Beware of those who would select quotes from a religious test, solely to lie and speak untruth as truth. Beware of anyone who would ignore Truth, in an attempt to spread Falsehood and Lies. Disregard textual writings which have no place in modern history.

      And remember this, always:

      Luke 10: 25-28:

      25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

      26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

      27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”

      28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

      December 24, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
    • MIchael

      You need to back up and deal with the facts about what the original text of the Bible actually states.

      By the way, every single piece of the following information is a verifiable fact:

      LEVITICUS:
      The word translated to "as with" actually means 'bed' (ie, every other time it's found in Leviticus it means "bed") so the correct translation is "a man shall not lie with another man on a woman's bed". Leviticus 15 gives a long list of forbidden bed issues since the woman's bed was considered sacred due to her monthly cycle. Both of your beloved Leviticus scriptures are NOT found in the Moral Code but are found in the Holiness Code, a code meant to keep the Jews pure for their rituals and had nothing to do with morality and had absolutely nothing to do with anyone whom wasn't a Jew. There are 613 Holiness Codes yet the only two people ever mention are the two the supposedly condemns homosexuality. The Hebrew word for abomination, "towebah", is only used in the Bible to convey ritually impure offenses and the correct term for a moral abomination, "zimmah", was not used.

      GENESIS:
      The only instance you can point out to in Sodom to condemn homosexuals is a story about attempted gang rape and it's absurd people use a story about gang rape to make a blanket condemnation of homosexuals. If the men were homosexuals Lot would have offered his sons, instead of his daughters, to the mob unless you somehow think Lot was with completely dumb and/or was placing limits on what he would do to please God.

      CORINTHIANS:
      The terms Paul used were "male bed" and "soft". Paul did NOT use any Greek term to describe homosexuality and the passage is so vague it was condemning masturbation instead of homosexuality less than a hundred years ago. The Greek term for "soft" is only used to describe morals or fabrics and the Greek culture back then viewed the heterosexual male as "effeminate" and the homosexual male as "manly". The interesting aspect of Corinthians, IMO, is it is a direct reference to the two Leviticus scriptures and the translators or the Bible were not able to change "male bed" here as they changed "bed" to "as with" in Corinthians.

      ROMANS:
      This is a letter condemning Pagan idolatry and these cited scripture is condemning male temple prostitution. Both male and female temple prostitution is widely condemned throughout the Bible. The reason why homophobes always start off the passage with "Because of this" (or "For this reason"), which is an incomplete paragraph to begin with, is because if you read the entire statement one realizes this has nothing to do with orientation and everything to do with idolatry.

      Jesus ran across a homosexual, via the Roman Centurion, and said of him, "Never have I seen faith greater than this" and Jesus did not chip in with "go and sin no more". Anyone's whose seen 'Spartacus' knows what some Roman soldiers did with their younger male slaves and the Greek term "pais" describes the younger male lover in a homosexual relationship. Jesus also mentions homosexuals in Matthew as "born eunuchs" when discussing which men aren't meant for marriage and once again there is not one ounce of condemnation in His voice.

      The biggest romance, the most passionate love story found in the Bible between two humans is between two men, David and Jonathan. There is even a scene where Jonathan "exceeds" which, when researching the original text, means "climax". Ruth and Naomi also had a homosexual relationship.

      If homosexuality was such this vile sin one would think homophobes could not only find more than six references of condemnation but have at least one which wasn't in the context of idolatry or actually stated "sex between men" in the original text.

      I can assure you God has the hang of creation by now but if we were to believe homophobes you would think God has no Earthly idea as to what He's doing since He keeps f'n up by creating so many homosexuals.

      December 25, 2010 at 1:50 pm |
    • MIchael

      You need to back up and deal with the facts about what the original text of the Bible actually states.

      By the way, every single piece of the following information is a verifiable fact:

      LEVITICUS:
      The word translated to "as with" actually means 'bed' (ie, every other time it's found in Leviticus it means "bed") so the correct translation is "a man shall not lie with another man on a woman's bed". Leviticus 15 gives a long list of forbidden bed issues since the woman's bed was considered sacred due to her monthly cycle. Both of your beloved Leviticus scriptures are NOT found in the Moral Code but are found in the Holiness Code, a code meant to keep the Jews pure for their rituals and had nothing to do with morality and had absolutely nothing to do with anyone whom wasn't a Jew. There are 613 Holiness Codes yet the only two people ever mention are the two the supposedly condemns homosexuality. The Hebrew word for abomination, "towebah", is only used in the Bible to convey ritually impure offenses and the correct term for a moral abomination, "zimmah", was not used.

      GENESIS:
      The only instance you can point out to in Sodom to condemn homosexuals is a story about attempted gang rape and it's absurd people use a story about gang rape to make a blanket condemnation of homosexuals. If the men were homosexuals Lot would have offered his sons, instead of his daughters, to the mob unless you somehow think Lot was completely dumb and/or was placing limits on what he would do to please God.

      CORINTHIANS:
      The terms Paul used were "male bed" and "soft". Paul did NOT use any Greek term to describe homosexuality and the passage is so vague it was condemning ma$turbation instead of homosexuality less than a hundred years ago. The Greek term for "soft" is only used to describe morals or fabrics and the Greek culture back then viewed the heterosexual male as "effeminate" and the homosexual male as "manly". The interesting aspect of Corinthians, IMO, is it is a direct reference to the two Leviticus scriptures and the translators or the Bible were not able to change "male bed" here as they changed "bed" to "as with" in Corinthians.

      ROMANS:
      This is a letter condemning Pagan idolatry and the cited scripture is condemning male temple prostitution. Both male and female temple prostitution is widely condemned throughout the Bible. The reason why homophobes always start off the passage with "Because of this" (or "For this reason"), which is an incomplete paragraph to begin with, is because if you read the entire statement one realizes this has nothing to do with orientation and everything to do with idolatry.

      Jesus ran across a homosexual, via the Roman Centurion, and said of him, "Never have I seen faith greater than this" and Jesus did not chip in with "go and sin no more". Anyone's whose seen 'Spartacus' knows what some Roman soldiers did with their younger male slaves and the Greek term "pais" describes the younger male lover in a homosexual relationship. Jesus also mentions homosexuals in Matthew as "born eunuchs" when discussing which men aren't meant for marriage and once again there is not one ounce of condemnation in His voice.

      The biggest romance, the most passionate love story found in the Bible between two humans is between two men, David and Jonathan. There is even a scene where Jonathan "exceeds" which, when researching the original text, means "climax". Ruth and Naomi also had a homosexual relationship.

      If homosexuality was such this vile sin one would think homophobes could not only find more than six references of condemnation but have at least one which wasn't in the context of idolatry or actually stated "sex between men" in the original text.

      I can assure you God has the hang of creation by now but if we were to believe homophobes you would think God has no Earthly idea as to what He's doing since He keeps f'n up by creating so many homosexuals.

      December 25, 2010 at 1:58 pm |
  9. Albert

    Yes, historic in the sense that we have opened the doors for pedophiles and other perversion to lower the morals of this world.

    December 24, 2010 at 1:48 pm |
  10. k.lebert

    Our Founding Fathers left Europe to create something different, something unique. Repealing DADT was another giant step toward returning to what we've spent centuries trying to escape. Slowly but surely we are becoming an effeminate, spineless society.

    December 26, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
  11. Mark

    In short, I have a pretty big issue with this whole deal. Should gays be allowed to serve? Sure...however, I don't want to know about it. I think this is opening up a serious can of worms and the very laws that they are seeking to change could very well be the very laws that are protecting them. I served in the military and personally I don't want to be in a shower room with a gay man no more than I would with a straight woman. I am not a homophobe either. I actually have friends who are homosexual. However, I believe homosexuality is wrong and it is nothing more than a choice; a lifestyle that they have chosen to act upon. I'd like to have sex with lots of beautiful women, but I choose not to. It's a choice! I believe it is against what God intended (as are many other things). As x military, I believe that this is a mistake. There should be a better way, but this isn't it.

    December 28, 2010 at 12:49 am |
  12. whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com

    Obama and dadt.. Bang-up :)

    April 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm |