A year ago, in June 2007, all the Democratic candidates vowed that as president they would lift "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) Bill Clinton's messy 1993 compromise on gay men and women serving in the military. By banning gay people from serving openly, the policy was intended as a "loophole" through which gay people could serve without ruffling the feathers of conservatives. As young activists at an initiative called Harvard Right to Serve put it, "you can be gay in the military...only until someone finds that you are gay in the military." Hillary Clinton broke with her husband's policy in 1999, and both she and Barack Obama made the repeal of the law a cornerstone of their message to LGBT voters.

Unsurprisingly, John McCain has remained on the Republican side of the issue, claiming last year that "It's working, so leave it alone. Generally, overall, it's working....And right now we've got the best military we've ever had - the most professional, best trained, equipped and the bravest. And so I think it's logical to leave this issue alone. I really do."

In fact, DADT has resulted in over 11,000 dismissals from the military since its enactment. Besides its inherently discriminatory nature, DADT also creates an atmosphere where harassment goes unreported, and claims that allowing openly gay people to serve would lessen military capacity have been debunked by the British, Canadian and Israeli militaries, all of which allow gays to serve.

Recently, 20 students from Harvard embarked on a "Right to Serve" tour of military recruitment offices in the Northeast. At each office, an openly gay student attempted to sincerely enlist. When denied, the group staged sit-ins in the offices. The tour also targeted Senators up for reelection, pressuring them to make DADT a part of their platform. Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, told the group that now that Democrats were in control congress, the ball was in their court.

Can the Democrats muster the political support to repeal DADT? Making it a campaign issue risks driving the "social issues" wedge into the election, as happened with gay marriage in 2004. But the progressive leanings of younger voters could help-- in 2006, 72% of 18-29 year olds supported lifting DADT, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet another example of how the surge in youth voting can help advance more than just Obama.

Comments (19)

1. "Can the Democrats muster the political support to repeal DADT?"

   No and thank God!!

   Posted by ACook at 06/10/2008 @ 09:02am

2. Acerbic Mask. Not inaccurate, but acerbic nonetheless.

   I know a lot of great and proud servicemembers in the four major branches who all happen to be gay, including my ex-boyfriend. Who you love has nothing to do with your readiness to defend this nation. The flaw in this policy should have been glaring when Arabic and Farsi translators were being drubbed out for being gay. It was, to me, Clinton's greatest betrayal of the gay community.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/10/2008 @ 09:02am

3. Okay this is just getting too bizarre. Wake me when the message board is fixed.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/10/2008 @ 09:04am

4. I have a simple answer: Bring back the draft.

   I was drafted during Vietnam and men who claimed to be gay were told they asexual for the next two years. (OK. Not in those terms.)

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/10/2008 @ 09:38am

5. Just don't serve---please.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008 @ 09:43am

6. Just don't serve---please.

   Posted by lvliberty1

   scardy cat!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:57pm

7. criminal background? ok for the army

   unorthodox sexual orientation? not in this man's army

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 2:08pm

8. " But the progressive leanings of younger voters could help-- in 2006, 72% of 18-29 year olds supported lifting DADT, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet another example of how the surge in youth voting can help advance more than just Obama."

   Now...how did I know THAT angle was going to be in this story?

   LOL!

   Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 2:13pm

9. LOL!

   i forgot to turn off the javascript and my nation ad was for

   GAY CHUBBY DATING!

   LOL!

   Don't Ask, Just Pass The Doritos!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 2:22pm

10. How come we're unable to comment on "Revenge of the Neo Liberals Redux" by Christopher Hayes?

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/10/2008 @ 2:49pm

11. Now...how did I know THAT angle was going to be in this story?

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008

    It's the shtick. Just like the netroots.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 3:03pm

12. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008

    Yep, everybody's got their own...

    Ari Melber?..."netroots"

    Cora Currier/Michael Connery?..."youth vote"

    Peter Rothberg?..."this week's meeting/rally"

    John Nichols?...."Russ Feingold said flowers are nice" or "This could be it, impeachment imminent now!"

    Katha Pollitt?..."What Would Betty Freidan Do?"

    Laura Flanders?...here's 8 minutes of me talking.....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 3:09pm

13. Laura Flanders?...here's 8 minutes of me talking.....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008

    Haha I like the last one. You gotta have a schtick, that's how you make it in this business.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 3:32pm

14. Acerbic Mask. Not inaccurate, but acerbic.

    I know way too many good hard-working decent servicemembers who also happen to be gay, including my ex-boyfriend. If you are running out Arabic and Farsi translators just because of who they choose to love there's a big problem there. Their ability to serve has zero to do with their sex life or unit cohesion. It's always been bullshit and an excuse for homophobia.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/10/2008 @ 4:21pm

15. How come we're unable to comment on "Revenge of the Neo Liberals Redux" by Christopher Hayes?---Posted by wgilwood at 06/10/2008 |

    The J Street "quote" blog "unquote" only rarely allows comments.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 10:46pm

16. BTW, love to see LVLIB on this thread...

    explaining why ISRAEL allows gays to serve in its military, given his feelings about that country and its part in "God's plan".

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 10:47pm

17. Israel Bans Discrimination Against Homosexuals in Military

    By CLYDE HABERMAN,

    Published: June 12, 1993

    The Israeli Army, regarded by some Americans as a model worth studying in the debate over homosexuals in the military, said today that it had issued new orders banning discrimination against gay men and lesbians in recruiting and in assignment to sensitive security positions.

    Officers say the orders also drop a previous requirement that soldiers undergo psychological evaluation if they are found to be homosexuals or declare that fact openly.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DA1530F931A25755C0A 965958260

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 12:55am

18. http://www.godtube.com/

    the lord has found netroots!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 01:05am

19. Countries that ban homosexuals from serving in the military

    Brazil China Cuba Egypt Iran Mexico North Korea Philippines[1] Saudi Arabia Syria Venezuela Yemen

    Countries with other policies

    The United States of America (see "don't ask, don't tell")

    In Russia, those alleged to have "sexual identity problems" are to be drafted only during wartime. "Well adjusted homosexuals" are permitted to serve in a normal capacity.

    In Turkey, every fit heterosexual male citizen is required to serve in the military for time periods ranging from three weeks to fifteen months, depending on his education and job location. Homosexuals have the right to be exempt, if they so request.[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_military.png

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 01:12am