DADT Repeal Passes in Senate

[Londo_Jowo]

I received 3 Honorable discharges during my 12 years of service to the US. I saw people use DADT as a means of getting out of service when they didn't want to complete their obligation.

 

[LumbergTech]

Actually quite a few Republicans (15 I think) backed this in the House as well. Wouldn't have been enough to pass it in January because it never would have come to a vote, but good to see none the less.

As for the comment about military/violence/morals, I disagree with what you said, but let's try to keep this post on topic.

it was 8

 

[LumbergTech]

well at least one good thing happened

 

[CallMeJoe]

it was 8

According to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, there were indeed 15 Republican votes for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

Of course, 15 of 179 is 8.4%, which is not exactly an impressive minority of the Republican caucus.

 

[sunzt]

Its nice that the Democrat party has moved away from its bigoted homophobes like Bill Clinton whom could have prevented this from ever being policy. I guess its OK to support bigotry for like 20 years and then say you're against it. Perhaps one day the Democrats will start treating women with respect as well.

TRO.. TRO.. TRO...

TROLLLAGE!

 

[Lemon law]

I received 3 Honorable discharges during my 12 years of service to the US. I saw people use DADT as a means of getting out of service when they didn't want to complete their obligation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The issue is not about your rather honorable service to this country.
2. Nor is the issue about some military members perhaps exploiting false claims of being gay to wiggle out of their prior military obligations after they found out military service was not the bed of roses they were promised in an all volunteer army.

The issue is and remains, should a gay person be allowed to serve their country or not. In exactly the same manner Londo_Jowo was allowed to serve.

Where does this shit come from that somehow Gay people are automatically unpatriotic. When sexual orientation is no predictor.

As for the so called "Gay" issue, its hereditary, we get it from our children. And we always have, from earliest historical writings to the present.

As a poster usually used to taking a minority position, I now find myself taking no joy in being being heterosexual and thus part of the 25 or better to one majority. Which is why I am happy DADT is finally repealed. Especially when many so called Gay military service members tossed out were in critical MOS groups in very short supply.

We can find rats in any group, but we should look at individual content of character issues instead.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Lemon Law my reply was to JoS. I could care less if gays serve in the military however, I'm glad the loop hole won't exist for those who try to get out of their obligation.

 

[Carmen813]

So you think the military is not oversized and should be enlarged with more gay recruits, and/or that it never does any unjustified violence. Whatever, we disagree.

But the 'on topic' card is out of place. You seem to think it belongs played anywhere you disagree.

Craig, come on man, you are better than this type of post. I merely want this thread to be about DADT repeal, which I think many civil libertarians, liberals, and even many conservatives should be quite excited to see. I'm happy to have a discussion about the military with you, which I have done numerous times in other threads.

 

[Carmen813]

it was 8

Picked up 8 on final passage, overcoming filibuster had 6.

 

[Carmen813]

I saw it used exactly like that many times when I was in the Navy.

I suppose I shouldn't have used an absolute when making that statement. I'm sure some people were using it as a way to a dishonorable discharge, but I highly doubt that consisted of a majority, or even a substantial percentage, of the people who were discharged using this policy.

Irregardless, I'm glad that it's gone, that gay members can openly serve, and that there is one less discriminatory law in existence.

 

[Sinsear]

Now, if gays had the good judgement not to enlist in an oversized military that can make them commit violence some of which is not moral, they'd be better off.

Don't worry, no one was expecting your gay ass to enlist anyways.

 

[Steeplerot]

Oh well. there is still ONE manly-man good christian conservative family values occupation left for the closeted haters:

Sitting on your ass listening to rush and foxnews bs. rabble rabble!

 

[Steeplerot]

Just wanted to point out the obvious of course seeing as a few social conservatives took one on the chin in post election bipartisan spirit.

This will go down in history books as a huge victory for America and Civil rights and Liberty thanks to DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT OBAMA!



Anyhow, for real congrats to all service-members who are one step closer to no longer being second rate citizens. About time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Now what's Klinger supposed to do to get out of Korea?!

Klinger wasn't gay, that would have been far to risky for television at the time.

He was just a cross dresser.

 

[JD50]

Just wanted to point out the obvious of course seeing as a few social conservatives took one on the chin in post election bipartisan spirit.

This will go down in history books as a huge victory for America and Civil rights and Liberty thanks to DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT OBAMA!



Anyhow, for real congrats to all service-members who are one step closer to no longer being second rate citizens. About time.

In before "ZOMG you said democrat not democratic", although Steeplerot will probably get a pass since he's a fellow socialist.

Back on topic, it's about damn time. :thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

I have to agree with TheRedUnderURBed, I can remember the GOP taunts that Obama really didn't do anything for the gay community. Promising one thing and doing another.

As yet another GOP bullshit talking point bites the dust, now and forever forward.

 

[Thump553]

Just wanted to point out the obvious of course seeing as a few social conservatives took one on the chin in post election bipartisan spirit.

This will go down in history books as a huge victory for America and Civil rights and Liberty thanks to DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT OBAMA!



Anyhow, for real congrats to all service-members who are one step closer to no longer being second rate citizens. About time.

Totally agree, but I admit to a sense of mild disappointment that the vote wasn't something like 97-3. If the GOP were true conservatives and not so-called social conservatives, they would have been in the forefront pushing for this change.

 

[Lemon law]

Klinger wasn't gay, that would have been far to risky for television at the time.

He was just a cross dresser.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just another piece of Non Prof John bullshit, as he forgets the fictional open Gay Murphy Brown was on TV at much the same time. Long forgotten is all the reactionary foaming at the mouth that Murphy Brown inspired. And later rascals like Sponge Pants Bob. Mr. we could use a man like Hubert Hoover again.

Sic temper Ignoramous, as Fox News, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh still champion the forces of ignorance and stupidity. Its a never ending battle.

 

[ProfJohn]

Idiot Lemon Law
MASH 1972-77
Murphy Brown 1988-98

BTW Brown was NOT gay, she was as single mom and that is what caused the controversy. And for the record the actress that played Murphy Brown agreed with Dan Quayle.

 

[JD50]

I have to agree with TheRedUnderURBed, I can remember the GOP taunts that Obama really didn't do anything for the gay community. Promising one thing and doing another.

As yet another GOP bullshit talking point bites the dust, now and forever forward.

How was it a bullshit talking point? It's one of the few things the GOP WAS right about. Obviously not anymore, but at the time it was true.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, come on man, you are better than this type of post. I merely want this thread to be about DADT repeal, which I think many civil libertarians, liberals, and even many conservatives should be quite excited to see. I'm happy to have a discussion about the military with you, which I have done numerous times in other threads.

Thank you, and had you just said that, I wouldn't have posted what I did, but you didn't.

You specifically responded to my saying the military is oversized, andjoining it puts you at risk of possibly having to commit unjustified violence, by saying you disagree.

And so I pointed out what you said you disagreed with. I don't see that as a reason for being disappointed in that post, but rather perhaps your own.

You seem to have had your dislike of having any other aspect of the issue than celebrating the end of discrimination - which I also joined - lead you to say too much.

We can either leave it as my comment, or we can discuss it - you say you want the former, but by disagreeing with those two points, you're doing more than that.

If you're commenting on my comment, which of those two points do you disagree with?

 

[ProfJohn]

It is sad that the Democrats waited till almost their last day in power to pass this bill.

Why not pass it earlier???

 

[Craig234]

And for the record the actress that played Murphy Brown agreed with Dan Quayle.

PJ, I have pointed out countless times your inaccuracies, that you misrepresent facts to argue your point - and then that it's frequent enough to suggest dishonesty.

Let's look at this example for why I say that - it'd be nice if you 'get the point' and improve, but if you haven't so far, it'll likely just be for other readers to get the info.

Candice Bergen wrote this response to someone who said something much like you did, a presumably fellow right-wing propagandist, former speechwriter for Quayle:

To the Editor:

The first time my name appeared in The New York Times linked with Dan Quayle's -- when he accused the character I played, Murphy Brown, of glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy -- I decided not to reply. I had no desire to heap ridicule and scorn on the Office of the Vice President, especially when Mr. Quayle seemed to be doing a fine job of that all by himself.

But this latest broadside from the Quayle camp is too much to let pass. Lisa Schiffren (Op-Ed, June 12), a former speechwriter for Mr. Quayle, misused several quotes from an interview I did with The Los Angeles Times to suggest that I was admitting that Mr. Quayle was a lone visionary whose speech had been right all along.

She quotes me as saying that family values ''was the right theme to hammer home,'' that ''I agreed with all of it except his references to the show,'' and that ''the body of the speech was completely sound.'' Since that quote serves as the crux of her argument, let me print what she left out: ''it was an arrogant and uninformed posture, but the body of the speech was completely sound.''

In fact, Mr. Quayle hurled an accusation at a show he had never seen in an effort to turn it into a political Monday night football. At no point did ''Murphy Brown'' glamorize single motherhood or disparage the role of a father in raising a child. Ms. Schiffren is now a ''full-time mother of two and an occasional writer.'' Not every woman has the luxury to make that choice. Perhaps next time she'll put her talent toward a candidate who would work to eliminate that problem.

CANDICE BERGEN

The Wikileaks entry has an appropriately balanced comment - what you pointed out PLUS the other comment you left out. You should write more like that.

In reality, Bergen agreed with at least some of Quayle's observations, saying that while the particular remark was "an arrogant and uninformed posture", as a whole, it was "a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did."

So, she did find that Quayle's speech had things to praise about 'fathers not being dispensable', she strongly disagreed with claims she 'agreed with Quayle' as you said.

She felt he 'heaped ridicule and scorn on his office' and that he is a politician who does NOT support policies good for working mothers.

Rather, she believes that he 'ignorantly' tried to use the issue wrongly for political gain.

 

[Craig234]

It is sad that the Democrats waited till almost their last day in power to pass this bill.

Why not pass it earlier???

You have got to be kidding. Usually it's idiocy or ignorance, but sometimes, it's both.

*Republicans filibustered this for the entire session*.

Remember 'wait for the military's study' as the demand from Republicans and the compromise position when Democrats tried to pass it over a year ago?

That study was *just released*. And you attack THE DEMOCRATS.

You are shameless, but you hurt your cause as an embarrassment to it.

 

[Craig234]

Klinger wasn't gay, that would have been far to risky for television at the time.

He was just a cross dresser.

Oh, come on, let me spell this out for you too, especially since I considered the same Klinger point.

Klinger was a heterosexual who wanted out of the military and was trying to use the ban on gays/cross-dressers to get out, by PRETENDING to have that orientation.

The point isn't that he was gay, it's 'poor Klinger, now he can't get out by pretending to be another orientation, because now other orientations are allowed.'

Of course, the conflation of gay and cross-dressing was probably some combination of public ignorance, and that it's a lot better for the show to have him in amusing cross-dressing scenarios, rather than trying to commit gay sex acts or otherwise provide evidence he's gay.

You may be right that the public wouldn't have been ready for a gay Klinger, but that wasn't the story plot anyway - the story wouldn't have use for an actually gay Klinger.

The whole point was his faking it, not just that the public wasn't ready for gay.

The show had an anti-war message, and the point here in part was to show how someone really wanted out of the military and the war.