Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Murphy appeared on Rachel Maddow to discuss his new role as lead sponsor of H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Watch:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lsrn1Xp6qU[/youtube]
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday and briefly discussed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). Full transcript of each exchange below the video clip.
Colin Powell:
KING: And Secretary Gates is now saying he’s exploring some flexibility in the current policy, waiting for whether Congress passes a law reversing it — some flexibility that, under some circumstances, perhaps some openly gay or some people who have been outed, perhaps, should be allowed to stay and serve. What would you do?
POWELL: Well, the policy and the law that came about in 1993, I think, was correct for the time. Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed.
I am withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the joint chiefs of staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made.
It is not just a matter of old generals who are, you know, just too hidebound.
There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all the issues should be illuminated. And I hope that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders, working with the secretary of defense, will give this the greatest consideration and make their recommendation to the president and to the Congress.
Admiral Mullen:
KING: Two questions, sir. And let me start with the advice you give the president.
Do you still believe the policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should stay, and is that your advice to the president, even though that is contrary to the promise he made in the campaign?
MULLEN: Well, what General Powell talks about is the policy and, in fact, the law. And with respect to that, we clearly are carrying out both that policy and law, and will continue to do that until it changes.
Secretary Sates spoke recently about reviewing the policy to see if — to make sure that we were executing it in the most humane way possible. It’s very clear what president Obama’s intent here is. He intends to see this law change.
And in my advice, you know, I’ve had conversations with him about that. What I’ve discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way.
We’re at a time where we are fighting two conflicts. There’s a great deal of pressure on our forces and their families. And yet, again, the strategic intent is clear.
And if we get — and I am internally discussing that with my staff on how to move forward and what the possible implementation steps could be. I haven’t done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times.
While I’m hesitant to parse words, it’s beginning to sound more and more all the time that all we’re going to get is a “change” in the policy, and not an outright appeal… if anything at all.
President Obama hosted a reception yesterday at the White House celebrating LGBT Pride month and commemorating the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. Speaking before a crowd of nearly 300 people, Obama spoke at some length on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Matthew Shepard Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
President Obama’s remarks in full below…
The New York Times published an editorial today criticizing Obama’s controversial defense brief for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which cited decisions involving incest and underage marriage to make it’s case. From the New York Times:
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”
…
If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.
The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.
The controversy is definitely picking up steam, with coverage in the Wall Street Journal, CBS News and of course on the Rachel Maddow Show. Let’s hope Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is asked about it today.