The list of potential disappointments for anyone who got their hopes way up for Obama is as long as my... well, let's just say it's plenty long (and girthwise it's nothing to sneeze at, either).  You can be sure that pretty much everyone's pet promise will be on it. 

One of mine is the repeal of DADT, a disastrous "compromise" that came from the lack of political and moral will to end long-standing discrimination detrimental to the nation's defense.  To recap: back in '93 Congress mandated that gays could serve so long as they hid their sexual orientation, which had always been the case.  "Don't tell" has always been the default for gays in all walks of life.  But the law interpreted "telling" in the broadest imaginable terms.  Anyone "demonstrating a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" was still prohibited from serving in the armed forces. 

The break with past policy — supposedly — was in the military's ability to "ask".  But even this didn't effectively change.  Suspicion that homosexual propensities and/or intent had been demonstrated were rigorously subjective, and suspicion — not of actual homosexual behavior, mind you, just the propensity or intent — was all that was needed to justify an investigation.

The move actually served to codify and further systematize the military's reaction.  DADT not only did not mitigate discrimination, it gave the military additional tools to pursue it.  The very fact that civilians had had the gall to meddle in military policy, ostensibly on behalf of gays, was enough to cause a backlash in the hierarchy which resulted in a frenzy of discharges (which sounds much more erotic than it actually was). 

Obama's position on DADT, outlined by his transition team, is as follows:

Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.... Discrimination should be prohibited.... Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

You could read a lot into it, but aside from repealing DADT it's unclear what that mysterious "it" in the final phrase is, which is what worries me a bit.  Would it be too much to ask for a slightly less passive stance, like an explicit statement of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would offer the same protection afforded federal civilian employees? (Sexual orientation is not a protected class under Federal civil rights law, but it is protected for federal civilian employees and in federal security clearance issues.)

There has never been a good argument for DADT.  It was never a "compromise."  It remains a shameful chapter in both military and civil rights history in the US.  When our best allies (the UK, many EU member states, Australia, and Israel among them) have integrated gays seamlessly into their armed forces, there's no reason we can't too.

The Obama people have not really taken a stand on DADT — its repeal is not enough, and there has been no positive policy statement of what would replace it — and with reason: they're afraid to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration, of which many were a part.  But if our experience in Massachusetts is any indication, all it takes is a leadership willing to take a stand to bring about real, enduring change. We'll soon find out if Obama's is really change we can believe in.