This makes complete sense. Adapting a program that openly accepts homosexuals does take some maneuvering. The way the military is set up is for the least distraction possible. You are not allowed to bunk with the opposite sex for the reason of keeping your mind on the mission and to lesson sexual harassment possibilities. If we were to openly admit gay people tomorrow all barracks (and basically the entire military policy on housing people of like minded sexuality) would have to be redone. It would definitely cost a lot of money. We need to definitely do this, but we need to do it in a way that is feasible to continue the efficiency of the military mission. I completely agree with abolishing don't ask don't tell and accepting gay military members on a face value, but like anything else it is a complicated issue that needs to be thought out and that will cost money. Obama is very smart to not jump on this and to figure out how it would work.

I mean *lessen*

I wonder what exactly he means by "process". I'm not trying to attack him specifically, but politicians always say inexact things like this that make it sound like they've got no real plan for how something is going to be done.

While what he says makes sense, it was a "safe" answer. It seems like he's setting it up so that down the road he can be like "well, i wanted to overturn it, but its just going to be too much of a process, cost too much or the military officials just aren't into it.." so that it's all off of him.

this has always been a touchy situation. i think that the point here is that they are trying to do what's best for everyone's safety as well as keeping the focus on the task at hand. people shouldn't be made to feel like they aren't able to serve their country and know that their personal lives will be safe at the same timem. i think that its' really key for the candidates to reaffirm that everyone's side is being factored in, and that there will be ample protection.

i do agree with what Geri said though - it's all about what sounds good at the moment though - and that he's making a point to voice his side now so he can backtrack later when things aren't necessarily in position to make any different changes. that's the way that politics are, and it's kind of funny since we are always hearing about how people change the side that they are supporting - even mid campaign.

If anything I think his focus right now is and should be on the economy and getting to office. I doubt he wants to stir up any fires on an issue like this when he already has the Democratic vote.

I agree with Harmony that changing the law WOULD require a lot of planning, so it makes sense (and it is completely honest) that he would have to consult other people. I think it would have been pandering if he would have said he would immediately change the law. This answer might not be as satisfying, but it is realistic.

Myself, I think that we should use the UK as a guide, being as they have allowed gay folks into their military since 2000 (and those soldiers have even served with our soldiers in the middle east).

It seems like he should want to make a big deal out of it. His view is with the majority, a huge majority of 75%, and McCain is on the wrong side of the issue.

The past 2 elections have been about social issues, not major issues. We know how well that turned out!

Makes sense to me. Can't happen overnight, and like Jill said, sounds like he's just being realistic.

But he's on the right side of this social issue, both in that he's right, he's in the majority, and his opponent holds the opposing and unpopular view.

This isn't a loaded question, just curious. Didn't he already say he would repeal it?

Obama? Yes, he's been consistently against the policy.

Thanks torg.

You are welcome. I think the point of the story is that he's saying he won't just get sworn in and then turn and say, "Alright, homos! You're in the army, now!"

Who knows. Seems like the news is kind of slow aside from anything financial.

Right, Torg. All I took from the article is that he is going to do it responsibly.

I took from the article that he doesn't want to turn this into a banner issue right now with everything else going on.

I don't blame him. Next thing you'd see a commercial about how Obama supports sodomy in the US Army.

What I always found odd about the "don't ask don't tell" policy is that I don't think many gay men/women would walk around broadcasting their sexuality if this policy wasn't in place. The fact that people seem to think it's going to be a distraction is kind of ridiculous I mean if that is the case then women are a distraction to straight men in the military.....they date, marry, and have kids all while serving our country and that's not equally distracting?

Pop! "Next thing you'd see a commercial about how Obama supports sodomy in the US Army."

...off topic, but he looks really good in that picture

(if guys can check out Sarah Palin, I should get to check out Obama)

Zeze, yeah he looks a little fuller not as thin

and Pop I want you to go away now j/k ahahahah " Obama supports sodomy in the US Army." best quote ever!

LOL, that looks like a scene from 24 or Criminal Minds.

He does look good in that picture, and I think it's right to say that he won't make such a decision unilaterally.

As an openly gay man I respect the position of President on this issue and I do agree with a measured approach on the subject. Making abrupt and sweeping changes will only compromise military integrity, personal safety of individuals, political cooperation, favorable public opinion, and political future. A President Obama would be doing the right thing by working closely with the Joint Chiefs and Congressional leaders and doing what Obama does best.

seriously my first thought was dayum he looks good in this picture lol glad i wasnt the only one who thought so

While it is good to hear him not making a huge issue out of this during our current economic strain, this was an article for gay publications...not, something to the general population. And the interview was probably weeks if not months ago...so...I don't see the problem with him expressing his stance and wish he would. Not answering the questions seems like a very politics as usual move.

Does anyone else think that of all the "gay issues" that this is the one with a great deal of controversy but really shouldn't be the one changed first. The amount of LGBT people who want to adopt, marry, get insured, or keep a job far outweighs those that wish to enter the armed forces....so why not prioritize the tasks at hand.