Not really, actually.

As I recall (and I could be remembering this wrong), the diplomatic corps has been gay friendly for a long time. I think they were among the first institutions to provide rights and recognition for gay partners.

The Foreign Service and the military are two very different things and they attract very different people. I know a lot of lifers retired early during the Bush years because, for the first time ever, they felt unable to do their jobs because of who was in office (traditionally, political appointees like certain ambassadors would change adminstrations with but consul generals and the rest just went about their business regardless).

They must be hugely relieved to be able to do their jobs again.

Frankly, I'm at least a little bit glad that Obama hasn't wasted 90% of his political capital in his first 100 days on idiocies like DADT, for all kinds of reasons:

1. Not eager to watch a repeat of what happened to Bill Clinton

2. Landscape on GLBT issues has changed enough in the intervening 16 years that gays appear headed for full equality regardless of whether Obama insists on pushing the issue forward immediately

3. There are two wars on; perhaps we could fix (which really means eliminate with extreme prejudice) DADT once Obama manages to end at least 1 of W's wars?

4. Which would you rather have first: gay marriage as an unstoppable political reality (which appears to be happening now), or gays being newly allowed to go get slaughtered by the next Republican war adventure?

The Pride party is something to celebrate, sure. But given that Iraqi GLBTs have been systematically hunted down for a year or two now (by a command issued in, IIRC, 2007), a better step for the embassy to take would be a little more weighty than a big disco ball and lypsinkas.

Where's the sanctuary program, the easing of immigration laws, the asylum for people clearly at risk for their lives?

Again, we can see an analogy with the suffering of peoples past - analogous, not equal. The few safehouses that exist aren't concentration camps, nor anything like them. But there's some evil vibe akin to ethnic cleansing in the air. Iraqis deserve protection before they need pride.

I am glad they are having a Pride themed party, but does it really need to be all about drag, lip-syncing, and dressing like a "gay idol"? Those old stereotypes are so 20 years ago!

...doesn't that party sound kind of weird? Like a halloween party, but "play gay stereotypes! and pretend you're gay by being something out of a fire island joke on tv!" instead? I dunno, strikes me as a little offensive more than campy...

Unless you've got a lot of gay people on staff. Then it is very very campy and reminicent of many a gay pride parade.

This is why everybody on the right thinks that eveybody on the left is a pansy. This isn't political, it's a military matter. Obama is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. What you do when you're the senior officer and something needs to be changed is GIVE THE FUCKING ORDER. Then you tell anybody who complains about it to SHUT UP AND SOLDIER. It worked for Truman when the military needed desegregating. It'll work now. It's what worked when I was in and I doubt anything has fundamentally changed in the last 20 years. You're given and order you say "Aye, aye, Sir" and then bust your ass to carry it out...usually complaining the whole time, but you DO IT.

"What you do when you're the senior officer and something needs to be changed is GIVE THE FUCKING ORDER. Then you tell anybody who complains about it to SHUT UP AND SOLDIER. It worked for Truman when the military needed desegregating. It'll work now. It's what worked when I was in and I doubt anything has fundamentally changed in the last 20 years. You're given and order you say "Aye, aye, Sir" and then bust your ass to carry it out...usually complaining the whole time, but you DO IT."

Indeed...that IS true. But, a lot of people are not looking at some of the ramifications. Now, if Obama does this, and then someone who doesn't like it makes EEO complaints that some gay person is hitting on them, what do we do then? And there are other ramifications...how do you team up two soldiers on a long overnight job if they are both gay? Do you just trust that they will not fool around?

There are a lot of implications that one has to think about before doing something like this.

Funny thing is, no one ever thinks about it until they are in the position where they could actually DO it...or are currently in the military where they can see what might happen because of it.

I am glad though that this will be kept to the embassy compound, in the streets of Baghdad it could create a pretty ugly and messy kind of counter parade.

"I'm sure Mullah Muqtada al-Sadar will be jumping out of his beard. I am glad though that this will be kept to the embassy compound, in the streets of Baghdad it could create a pretty ugly and messy kind of counter parade."

I wouldn't worry about that...or have you never heard of "Man Love Thursdays"?

The embassay is not a military institution. Just another cheap shot/cheap way to frame an article?

I'm all for the the removal of DADT. It makes sense to apply pressure to the pentagon. But I'm getting more than a little sick of the left demanding that Obama overstep his authority when it applies to things we want. It wasn't correct whent the bush admin did it to further their agenda and it wouldn't be right for Obama to do it. The ends does not justify the means.

They need to get on it but issuing an executive order to overrule statute is the wrong way to go. (And since this is statute and not military policy as the case with segregation there is a limit to the comparison and especially when we're talking about the remedy.)

I want to see full equality under the law for all people regardless of gender or orientation - like yesterday!!! But I also want a government that respects the rule of law and appreciate that Obama is walking back some of the executive power grabs that Bush took liberties with. Just because it is a good and worthwhile casue would not make a unitary executive decision overriding congress appropriate.

Think of it this way- going about it the right way is a better way to ensure that winning equal rights will be sustainable and not overturned with a pen stroke by the next adminstraiton that disagrees. Duh.