"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Defeated in Senate

[FrankRep]

Senate deals blow to 'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal in 56-43 vote (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)


The Hill
Sept. 21, 2010


The Senate on Tuesday dealt a significant blow to the Obama administration’s efforts to repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military.

In a 56-43 vote, Senate Democratic leaders fell short of the 60 votes they needed to proceed to the 2011 defense authorization bill, which included language to repeal the Clinton-era “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

All Senate Republicans and three Democrats voted to block debate on the bill after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would attach several leadership priorities, including an immigration-related provision, to the defense bill. Reid also attempted to limit the amendments offered by the GOP.

Reid was one of the three Democrats — the other two were Arkansas Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor — who voted to block debate. Reid’s vote allows him to bring up the bill at a later time.

Gay-rights advocates expressed disappointment with the vote, which they saw as critical to winning repeal. A more Republican Congress may be less interested in moving on the issue.

“Today’s Senate vote was a frustrating blow to repeal this horrible law,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization dedicated to the repeal of the ban.
...


SOURCE:
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal

[specsaregood]

LOL @ the democrats. They will throw all their constituents' big issues to the wolves if they think it has a glimmer of hope to keep them from getting booted out in November.

[silentshout]

Horrible..

[dannno]

biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiigots

[angelatc]

I don't understand why Congress even need be involved. I'm not big on executive power, but Obama is clearly the Commander In Chief.

[oyarde]

This had no chance of going anywhere the way they went about it . If you want this to happen successfully , wait until the the report from the Generals is done and let them work in what they can .

[sailingaway]

my understanding is they didn't want the whole bill, it wasn't just the dadt part. They were adding in the DREAM act as well, and I know the GOP and a bunch of Dems were going to fillibuster the whole package. Was DADT split out for a separate vote?

It looks like this was still the Christmas tree bill with all the trimmings Reid was trying to shove on at the last minute to pretend he tried, when he had ignored them for nearly two years, until the election was looming. The package had something to offend everyone.

[oyarde]

my understanding is they didn't want the whole bill, it wasn't just the dadt part. They were adding in the DREAM act as well, and I know the GOP and a bunch of Dems were going to fillibuster the whole package. Was DADT split out for a separate vote?

It looks like this was still the Christmas tree bill with all the trimmings Reid was trying to shove on at the last minute to pretend he tried, when he had ignored them for nearly two years, until the election was looming. The package had something to offend everyone.

You got it .

[phill4paul]

my understanding is they didn't want the whole bill, it wasn't just the dadt part. They were adding in the DREAM act as well, and I know the GOP and a bunch of Dems were going to fillibuster the whole package. Was DADT split out for a separate vote?

It looks like this was still the Christmas tree bill with all the trimmings Reid was trying to shove on at the last minute to pretend he tried, when he had ignored them for nearly two years, until the election was looming. The package had something to offend everyone.

Which is why we need single item bills. Up/Down vote. This one thing could change politics forever.

[oyarde]

Which is why we need single item bills. Up/Down vote. This one thing could change politics forever.

Absolutely .

[Kregisen]

Which is why we need single item bills. Up/Down vote. This one thing could change politics forever.

Will we ever get them or is this something like term limits that everyone claims to want but nothing ever changes?

[Stary Hickory]

This bill had a lot of stuff in it that should not have been there not just the DADT policy. The bill ought to have been shot down and the issues voted on individullaly.

[phill4paul]

Will we ever get them or is this something like term limits that everyone claims to want but nothing ever changes?

:D

YouTube - Tootsie Pop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw)

[Rael]

Gays should be happy they dont have to serve in the military.

[Brett85]

my understanding is they didn't want the whole bill, it wasn't just the dadt part. They were adding in the DREAM act as well, and I know the GOP and a bunch of Dems were going to fillibuster the whole package. Was DADT split out for a separate vote?

It looks like this was still the Christmas tree bill with all the trimmings Reid was trying to shove on at the last minute to pretend he tried, when he had ignored them for nearly two years, until the election was looming. The package had something to offend everyone.

Right. The bill also contained a provision to end the ban on abortions on military bases.

[oyarde]

Right. The bill also contained a provision to end the ban on abortions on military bases.

Yes .

[specsaregood]

The package had something to offend everyone.
Bipartisanship at its finest. So what you want, but at least they got nothing accomplished and at this point, that looks like a win.

[Monarchist]

I don't understand why Congress even need be involved. I'm not big on executive power, but Obama is clearly the Commander In Chief.

Because Congress also writes and passes laws for the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the body of laws that members of the military fall under.

[oyarde]

Because Congress also writes and passes laws for the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the body of laws that members of the military fall under.

Congress should have the wisdom to let the commanders make the recommendations .

[JustinTime]

My dad was in Vietnam and he knew several draftees who went to great lengths to appear gay just to get kicked out, and the army had to be really convinced, you couldnt just say "Im gay" like you can now.

[wizardwatson]

My dad was in Vietnam and he knew several draftees who went to great lengths to appear gay just to get kicked out, and the army had to be really convinced, you couldnt just say "Im gay" like you can now.

DADT is a good policy as compromises go. I'm against it being repealed.

If we have openly gay people in the military there's no end to the necessary segregation that would result. We have women/men barracks. Are we to now have straight men/straight women/gay men/gay women barracks?

The military is no place to demand "civil rights".

Where does it end? Freedom of speech in the military?

[paulitics]

I can't believe people on here can't see through the dirty tricks that were played here. This was all about the DREAM ACT, not" Don't ask Don't Tell." That was just a pawn in this scheme.

They wanted to get the DREAM act passed, but knew they had to get every democrat on board, so they attached "don't ask don't tell".

They had to attach this shitty legislation to the defense bill, to have any prayer for it to go through.. Meanwhile the media has made it 99% about "don't ask don't tell", which was only a pawn to get democrats on board.

[fedup100]

The dems knew it wouldn't pass that wasn't the reason for the vote. They wanted to show the invaders they are on their side which equals votes in November by invaders for commies.

They are now using legislation as code to communicate with each other as the two forces unite to finish the country off.

p.s. it use to be called treason.

[oyarde]

The dems knew it wouldn't pass that wasn't the reason for the vote. They wanted to show the invaders they are on their side which equals votes in November by invaders for commies.

They are now using legislation as code to communicate with each other as the two forces unite to finish the country off.

p.s. it use to be called treason.

I think you may have it .

[johngr]

YouTube - Bill Hicks- Gays in the Military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E)

[libertarian4321]

DADT is a good policy as compromises go. I'm against it being repealed.

If we have openly gay people in the military there's no end to the necessary segregation that would result. We have women/men barracks. Are we to now have straight men/straight women/gay men/gay women barracks?

The military is no place to demand "civil rights".

Where does it end? Freedom of speech in the military?

Gays are already allowed in the military, they just can't tell anyone about it. They are already sharing barracks space and showers with straights.

So this policy change would do nothing but keep gays from being tossed out if they were found to be gay (or said so). Is it really that much different to be showering with a closeted gay who you think might be checking out your junk, or an open gay? Frankly, I'd rather have the guy be openly gay because then if I was the homophobic type, I could run away, lol.

As long as gays are citizens, and are forced to pay for the military, and can perform the job, they should not be kept out- I would phase it in, starting with non-combat units first (just as they do now with women), but I think we need to move forward.

BTW, most modern western armies in the world already allow gays to serve- Israel, Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ireland, Norway, Austria, Romania, South Africa, Italy, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and many others (including a number of "macho" culture South and central American countries).

The ones that don't allow gays to serve are Iran, North Korea, the USA, China, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other mostly third world repressed dictatorships.

[oyarde]

Gays are already allowed in the military, they just can't tell anyone about it. They are already sharing barracks space and showers with straights.

So this policy change would do nothing but keep gays from being tossed out if they were found to be gay (or said so). Is it really that much different to be showering with a closeted gay who you think is checking out your junk, or an open gay. Frankly, I'd rather have the guy be openly gay because then if I was the homophobic type, I could run away, lol.

As long as gays are citizens, and are forced to pay for the military, and can perform the job, they should not be kept out- I would phase it in, starting with non-combat units first (just as they do now with women), but I think we need to move forward.

BTW, most modern western armies in the world already allow gays to serve- Israel, Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ireland, Norway, Austria, Romania, South Africa, Italy, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and many others (including a number of "macho" culture South and central American countries).

The ones that don't allow gays to serve are Iran, North Korea, the USA, China, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other mostly third world repressed dictatorships.

Russia does not accept if I recall . I thought Ahmadinejad said there are no gay people in Iran ? Are gay people allowed in Saudi ?

[oyarde]

Or do they just kill them ?

[libertarian4321]

Russia does not accept if I recall . I thought Ahmadinejad said there are no gay people in Iran ? Are gay people allowed in Saudi ?

Even the relatively backward Russians got rid of their anti-gay policy several years ago.

Many of the countries I listed have allowed gays in the military for decades.

If they can figure out how to do it, I think we can too. It's just a matter of being willing to try.

[libertarian4321]

I served nearly 3 decades in the Army both active and reserve, and up until about a year ago, I bought into all the "it will upset the discipline" rhetoric that you get from the military leaders and the social conservatives.

I was talking to an old HS friend several months ago, who I found out was now gay (well, he's probably been gay all along, but he didn't let me know). When I told him that I thought allowing gays in the military was wrong, he asked me a simple question: Think back over your career in the military- can you think of any instance where knowing the soldier next to you was gay would have prevented you from doing your job?

I thought about it and I couldn't come up with anything, other than possibly my initial officer training where I was in a barracks situation (that's 6 weeks out of a 30 year career). Most soldiers are NOT "in foxholes"- for every combat arms guy out there, the Army has probably 4 or 5 support soldiers who are not in some "band of brothers" situation- they just show up and do their job every day- cooks, clerks, doctors, truck drivers, mechanics, supply specialists.

It wouldn't matter one bit if the cook or the mechanic or a doctor was gay. Hell, the gay cook would probably do a better job- serve that cheese burger or chipped beef with flair :)

So I'd propose starting with allowing open gays in all military specialties that are not combat arms (basically, the same jobs that women are currently allowed to do). Maybe at some point consider opening the whole thing up- or maybe just certain combat jobs (does it really matter if a fighter pilot is gay? why?).

[phill4paul]

Could Bi-Sexual individuals serve part-time?

[oyarde]

I served nearly 3 decades in the Army both active and reserve, and up until about a year ago, I bought into all the "it will upset the discipline" rhetoric that you get from the military leaders and the social conservatives.

I was talking to an old HS friend several months ago, who I found out was now gay (well, he's probably been gay all along, but he didn't let me know). When I told him that I thought allowing gays in the military was wrong, he asked me a simple question: Think back over your career in the military- can you think of any instance where knowing the soldier next to you was gay would have prevented you from doing your job?

I thought about it and I couldn't come up with anything, other than possibly my initial officer training where I was in a barracks situation (that's 6 weeks out of a 30 year career). Most soldiers are NOT "in foxholes"- for every combat arms guy out there, the Army has probably 4 or 5 support soldiers who are not in some "band of brothers" situation- they just show up and do their job every day- cooks, clerks, doctors, truck drivers, mechanics, supply specialists.

It wouldn't matter one bit if the cook or the mechanic or a doctor was gay. Hell, the gay cook would probably do a better job- serve that cheese burger or chipped beef with flair :)

So I'd propose starting with allowing open gays in all military specialties that are not combat arms (basically, the same jobs that women are currently allowed to do). Maybe at some point consider opening the whole thing up- or maybe just certain combat jobs (does it really matter if a fighter pilot is gay? why?).

I agree that it could be instituted in non combat arms . I would start with that and see how it goes . Will everyone be happy that that is all to start ? No .

[oyarde]

Could Bi-Sexual individuals serve part-time?

Lol , yes , in the Guard or Reserve .

[oyarde]

I served nearly 3 decades in the Army both active and reserve, and up until about a year ago, I bought into all the "it will upset the discipline" rhetoric that you get from the military leaders and the social conservatives.

I was talking to an old HS friend several months ago, who I found out was now gay (well, he's probably been gay all along, but he didn't let me know). When I told him that I thought allowing gays in the military was wrong, he asked me a simple question: Think back over your career in the military- can you think of any instance where knowing the soldier next to you was gay would have prevented you from doing your job?

I thought about it and I couldn't come up with anything, other than possibly my initial officer training where I was in a barracks situation (that's 6 weeks out of a 30 year career). Most soldiers are NOT "in foxholes"- for every combat arms guy out there, the Army has probably 4 or 5 support soldiers who are not in some "band of brothers" situation- they just show up and do their job every day- cooks, clerks, doctors, truck drivers, mechanics, supply specialists.

It wouldn't matter one bit if the cook or the mechanic or a doctor was gay. Hell, the gay cook would probably do a better job- serve that cheese burger or chipped beef with flair :)

So I'd propose starting with allowing open gays in all military specialties that are not combat arms (basically, the same jobs that women are currently allowed to do). Maybe at some point consider opening the whole thing up- or maybe just certain combat jobs (does it really matter if a fighter pilot is gay? why?).

I got to where I really liked that chipped beef.

[phill4paul]

I got to where I really liked that chipped beef.

Lol. Call me crazy but every now and then I'll pick up a can at the store for some "shit on a shingle.":D

[oyarde]

Lol. Call me crazy but every now and then I'll pick up a can at the store for some "shit on a shingle.":D

I do the same .

[Brian4Liberty]

This bill had a lot of stuff in it that should not have been there not just the DADT policy. The bill ought to have been shot down and the issues voted on individullaly.

It figures. Didn't follow this other than knowing that they were trying to sneak the Dream Act in the Defense bill, and noticed that the media ignored that part.


Gays should be happy they dont have to serve in the military.

How gay do you have to be?


My dad was in Vietnam and he knew several draftees who went to great lengths to appear gay just to get kicked out, and the army had to be really convinced, you couldnt just say "Im gay" like you can now.

That's an easy out. Maybe they should combine this with gay marriage. You have to be married to prove you're gay. :p


I can't believe people on here can't see through the dirty tricks that were played here. This was all about the DREAM ACT, not" Don't ask Don't Tell." That was just a pawn in this scheme.

They wanted to get the DREAM act passed, but knew they had to get every democrat on board, so they attached "don't ask don't tell".

They had to attach this shitty legislation to the defense bill, to have any prayer for it to go through.. Meanwhile the media has made it 99% about "don't ask don't tell", which was only a pawn to get democrats on board.

Yep, that's how it usually works...

[oyarde]

It figures. Didn't follow this other than knowing that they were trying to sneak the Dream Act in the Defense bill, and noticed that the media ignored that part.



How gay do you have to be?



That's an easy out. Maybe they should combine this with gay marriage. You have to be married to prove you're gay. :p



Yep, that's how it usually works...

The tax payer funded abortions for military in this bill should have been enough to keep anyone from voting for it . I could care less what anyones individual position on abortion is . Most do not want to pay for it . You want one ? Pay for it .

[tropicangela]

What the LGBT community is watching, Lady Gaga's speech on it -

"Lady Gaga says straight soldiers who are prejudiced toward gay servicemen should be discharged. "

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/09/20/lady.gaga.dadt.rally.cnn.html

[oyarde]

What the LGBT community is watching, Lady Gaga's speech on it -

"Lady Gaga says straight soldiers who are prejudiced toward gay servicemen should be discharged. "

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/09/20/lady.gaga.dadt.rally.cnn.html

Lady Gaga . lol .

[Stary Hickory]

Ok for all people here who are ignoring the logical conclusion to this do not be a freaking hypocrite. If you are for forcing gays and straights against their will to barrack and shower together then you must also extend this to WOMEN AND MEN.

That is what I cannot stand hypocrites. Go all the way or don't try at all you just look like an ass.

[libertarian4321]

What the LGBT community is watching, Lady Gaga's speech on it -

"Lady Gaga says straight soldiers who are prejudiced toward gay servicemen should be discharged. "

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/09/20/lady.gaga.dadt.rally.cnn.html

Integrating gays should be done the same way blacks and women were integrated. Soldiers can feel any way they want about it. They don't have to like it, but they do have to obey orders and do their jobs.

Any soldier who doesn't like it can get out.