We have the same situation today. There is no visible leadership, a lot of self proclaimed leaders, talk about incremental rights, but really no significant movement.

It might be time to put some faith in this movement and once again revisit our roots. As I recall the first March on Washington in 1979 the March did not get major Gay Political endorsement until the week of the March.

We are divided community perhaps the focus should be working towards unity, and just perhaps this March might be a step in that direction.

In my opinion, scheduling the mall is a valid critism, but I go back to Stonewall, I don’t schedules were the problem than.

I support the Call for the March, lets not get lost in the details. We all can find reasons not to confront our fears.

Thanks for replying. Could you please send me a link/transcript of where/when President Clinton “promised, in the campaign, to end the ban on gay service.” Obviously, being (significantly, hehe) older than me, you probably recall the campaign promises more vividly- but for reference, I’d like to look into that. Any help you could provide would be appreciated.

Further, simply because something is a “compromise” doesn’t mean it isn’t “progressive”. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I’d caution you from believing that to be the case. Barney Frank himself was a staunch supporter of DADT, and at the that point he was the sole out gay member of Congress. Further, a policy that is poorly implemented, is different than a bad policy.

All of that being said, I remain on your side about the importance of DADT being repealed, as soon as possible.

Clinton did sign DADT into law after having promised, in the campaign, to end the ban on gay service. George Stephanopoulos details the time in his book, All Too Human. Even he, while defending Clinton’s actions, writes that the “administration can be fairly faulted for raising hopes that couldn’t be fulfilled.” That, I believe, is a good explanation of actions that cause disappointment.

As to the substance of your comment, however, I think you are the one to mischaracterize DADT. Even at the time, it was seen as a compromise that Stephanopoulos says “satisfied no one” — not a progressive initiative.

It might have been marginally better than what had previously existed, but it also — while horribly implemented — gave folks who might otherwise have been pressured to support ending the ban on openly gay servicemembers an excuse to point to a theoretically OK policy to avoid making the change.

Finally, it’s just incorrect to write that Clinton “did the gay community a huge service by advocating on behalf of, and signing, DADT.” First, he did no such thing. Sam Nunn devised the policy, and the Joint Chiefs — and specificaly, Colin Powell — forced Clinton into a position of accepting it or having Powell talking publicly, via congressional testimony, about his opposition to allowing openly gay servicemembers. Second, I think Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has more than a decade’s worth of reports proving to you that members of our armed services are still “being weeded out and interrogated about their sexuality.”

In sum, the policy was, at best, a necessary but flawed compromise that has never been properly implemented and has allowed amazingly weak evidence to allow the continued discharge of otherwise perfectly good servicemembers. I don’t believe that I have mischaracterized DADT, either what it was then or what it is now. And I think that you overstate what it represented at the time of its passage.

I was wondering what you thought about the timing of this proposed march. Would a march in 2010 be more beneficial given that is an election year and there would be more pressure on politicians to act?

That being said, the actual reason I wanted to comment is because I continue to be dismayed by the way you, and so many others, mischarachterize Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I don’t know if it’s conscious or unconscious, but the failure to see the policy as the progressive initiative it was, at the time. Figurative witch hunts were occurring, and members of our armed services were being weeded out and interrogated about their sexuality. DADT put an end to that abhorrent practice. And while it has most certainly become archaic and outdated, at the time it was much-needed. It has certainly, in the long-run, done much more good than harm. President Clinton fouled up with DOMA but he did the gay community a huge service by advocating on behalf of, and signing, DADT.