Obama today reaffirmed, at a gay rights dinner tonight, his promise to end the Clinton compromise "don't ask, don't tell" policy (regarding "openly gay" military members) by the end of his term and called for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He was characteristically vague as to a specific time frame.
I don't like specious arguments he's making to justify his position, which implies the relatively small percentage of gay Americans, in particular those whom are vocal about their choice of lifestyle, constitutes a necessary manpower resource to achieve military objectives. However worthy the military service of more discreet gays, all those who serve their country honorably are equally critical in contributing to the success of military missions.
Personally, I don't think that the private lives of military personnel have anything to do with their professional performance. When I was in the Navy several years ago, it was commonly known that a fellow female instructor was lesbian, and nobody had a problem with it. (In fact, she was a friend, loved Disney World, and accompanied me on my first visit there.) I met another (an administrative aide) while working at the Staff Judge Advocate office in Orlando before separation.
What I'm more concerned about is any risk to military discipline and impact of "open gay" activities relative to traditional restraints against active military (or other federal employee) engaging in partisan or special interest group activities. I am also concerned about the fact that Obama, who never served in the military himself, is making commitments without any meaningful discussion with the military brass or polling the rank and file.
As for the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms the traditional definition of marriage in federal law and ensures that states are not forced to recognize gay "marriages" from other states: I oppose its repeal; traditionally marriage has been regulated at the state level, and there is no doubt in my mind there is an attempt to undermine state sovereignty through reciprocity arrangements with gay "marriage" states. I have been reluctant to support a federal marriage amendment, precisely for the reason that the Defense of Marriage Act protected state regulation.
Remember the (former Miss California USA) Carrie Prejean kerfuffle regarding her politely expressed disagreement with the concept of gay marriage at the last Miss USA contest? One of the things she and media conservatives have repeatedly noted was Obama's own verbal support for the traditional definition of marriage, but as I noted at the time--Obama refused to support restoration of the traditional definition of marriage in California (after the earlier state Supreme Court decision) and now, once again, as in 1996, during his first campaign for the Illinois state senate, Obama is making clear his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.
It is quite clear through many state referendums on the issue that most Americans support retention of the traditional definition of marriage. Personally, I don't think a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act would survive a filibuster by Republicans and moderate Democrats, but if it was to happen, I would be among the first to announce support for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage. This is not to say that there aren't legitimate questions regarding the nature of hospital visits and rights of inheritance for domestic partners with alternative lifestyles.
