House votes to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" -- GOP, again, shows true colors

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7026085.html

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday delivered a victory to President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation.

The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.

"I know that our military draws its strength on the integrity of our unified force, and current law challenges this integrity by creating two realities within the ranks," Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., said.

Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

The House vote came just hours after the Senate Armed Services Committee took the same course and voted 16-12 in favor of repealing the 1993 law. In both cases the measure was offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Obama and leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had actively supported the repeal so that gays could serve in the military without fear of being exposed and discharged.

In a statement after the House vote, Obama hailed the day's congressional action as "important bipartisan steps toward repeal."

"This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity," Obama said.

"This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security," Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights organization, said after the Senate panel's vote.

During an all-day House debate on the bill approving more than $700 billion in spending for defense programs, Republicans repeated statements by military service chiefs that Congress should not act before the Pentagon completes a study on the impact of a repeal.

Congress going first "is the equivalent to turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, 'Your opinion, your view, do not count,'" said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Democratic supporters stressed that the amendment was written so that the repeal would not go into effect until after the Pentagon publishes in December the results of a survey on how service members and their families view the change, and until the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military's ability to fight.

The chief sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., who served in the Iraq War, said that when he was in Baghdad "my teams did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay if they could fire their assault rifle or run a convoy down ambush alley and do their job so everyone would come home safely."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that of the 13,500 members of the military who have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell," more than 1,000 filled critical occupations, such as engineers and interpreters.

He compared the arguments of the opposition to 1948 speeches in Congress when lawmakers warned that integrating the troops would undermine morale in the military.

The drive to repeal the ban still faces a tough road ahead in the full Senate, where Republicans are likely to filibuster it.

"I think it's really going to be very harmful to the morale and effectiveness of our military," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a leading opponent of the repeal.

The Senate probably will take up the bill next month.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait for the December report.

Under "don't ask, don't tell," military leaders don't investigate a service member's sexual orientation as long as the person does not disclose that he or she is gay or has a same-sex relationship, which are grounds for dismissal.

Also on Thursday the House rejected an amendment to the defense bill that would have cut $485 million from the bill designated for a second engine for the new F-35 fighter jet.

Gates strongly opposes the extra engine as wasteful and unneeded, and the White House issued a statement Thursday saying the president would be advised to veto the final bill if it includes funds for the engine. But supporters of the engine made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce PLC contended that the competition between engine makers would save money in the 30 to 40-year life cycle of the $100 billion project.

Every step toward more rights for more people is a step in the right direction. I can't even believe there were laws saying "if you don't love the opposite sex, we forbid you from dying for your country!" Surprisingly, the Republicans are on the wrong side of progress-- again. "... Need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members." Nothing like a good slice of thinly veiled bigotry to start the day.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Also on Thursday the House rejected an amendment to the defense bill that would have cut $485 million from the bill designated for a second engine for the new F-35 fighter jet.

Gates strongly opposes the extra engine as wasteful and unneeded, and the White House issued a statement Thursday saying the president would be advised to veto the final bill if it includes funds for the engine. But supporters of the engine made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce PLC contended that the competition between engine makers would save money in the 30 to 40-year life cycle of the $100 billion project.

Kudos to Obama and Congress for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" but it really pisses me off that they used it to slip in an earmark/defense contractor welfare -- whichever you want to call it.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I didnt realize the GOP was hidng the fact they arent a pro-gay agenda party.
Good thing this bill exposed those true colors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I didnt realize the GOP was hidng the fact they arent a pro-gay agenda party.
Good thing this bill exposed those true colors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hah. exactly what I came into this thread to post.

the GOP voting against this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with a pulse.
 

Danube

Banned
Dec 10, 2009
613
0
0
Republicans cans still recognize that normal does in fact exist and that the military is for national defense and not social transformation (downward). This is a why disordered left hates them.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Republicans cans still recognize that normal does in fact exist and that the military is for national defense and not social transformation (downward). This is a why disordered left hates them.
I agree, how can we expect white and black soldiers to serve alongside eachother? the military is not for social experiments.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,226
45,394
136
Republicans cans still recognize that normal does in fact exist and that the military is for national defense and not social transformation (downward). This is a why disordered left hates them.

A person's sexuality does not affect their ability to pull a trigger or to administer care to a wounded person. Only the backwards moralistic dinosaurs among us persist in the belief that this change would somehow be damaging (which they can only articulate in the vaguest sense), despite all the evidence being to the contrary.
 

Daedalus685

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,386
1
0
Women are not put in combat

They are in Canada. Some of the women infantry here on base could kick my ass three or four times up the street. More power too em if they can hack it. Unlike some places they must meet the same physical requirements to do the same jobs as men mind you.

We have plenty of pilots, infantry, commanders, etc. that are women. Something like 16% last I heard. Won't see many (any?) in JTF2 though... for obvious reasons.

If you can do the job, then do the job..
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

obama is doing this for political points. Just like putting 1200 national guard troops near the mexican border.. even though they will not do anything.

Why couldn't obama wait for the DOD review?

Even Gates said the vote should wait.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/05/brown_to_vote_n.html

The Pentagon review, established by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in March, is designed to determine any changes in personnel policies, benefits, and the military justice system that might be needed to ensure openly gay service does not disrupt military operations and gay troops are not discriminated against.

Gates has insisted it is not meant to gauge whether the troops support overturning the 1993 that only permits gays to serve if they keep their sexual orientation secret.

Gates' spokesman said earlier today that the Pentagon chief is relieved that Democrats have agreed that any repeal would not go into effect until after the Pentagon review, but said he remains concerned about moving too quickly.


The republicans at least seem to be listening to the ones in charge of the military... unlike obama who has no clue. People need to remember... being a soldier, marine, sailor, or airman does not mean you simply have a government job... there is a little more to it than that.
 
Last edited:

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

obama is doing this for political points. Just like putting 1200 national guard troops near the mexican border.. even though they will not do anything.

Why couldn't obama wait for the DOD review?
this isn't being driven by Obama, it's being pushed by Joe Lieberman and a few others in congress.

Obama would be happy as a clam doing nothing, but it's nice to see that some congressmen and senators would like to get something pushed through before democratic majorities are eroded in the fall.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Will be interesting to see if there is a fillibuster in the Senate given that ending DADT has about 75% support in polling. So far I'm not aware of any Senate repubs supporting it.

- wolf
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
this isn't being driven by Obama, it's being pushed by Joe Lieberman and a few others in congress.

Obama would be happy as a clam doing nothing, but it's nice to see that some congressmen and senators would like to get something pushed through before democratic majorities are eroded in the fall.
LOL... knew you wouldn't give Obama any credit for it.
 

Danube

Banned
Dec 10, 2009
613
0
0
I agree, how can we expect white and black soldiers to serve alongside eachother? the military is not for social experiments.

One reason blacks vote 70% against homosexual marriage is because
they quite naturally take offense at seeing a history of chains, servitude and family breakup compared to guys who take offense that every society around the globe finds their attraction to each others rears odd. Comparing a benign trait like skin color to a behavior like homosexuality (or any behavior really) is comparing apples and walnuts.
 
Last edited:

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
One reason blacks vote 70% against homosexual marriage is because
they quite naturally take offense at seeing a history of chains, servitude and family breakup compared to guys who take offense every society around the globe finds their attraction to each others rears odd.
LOLWUT?

Comparing a benign trait like skin color to a behavior like homosexuality (or any behavior really) is comparing apples and walnuts.
I agree with this.
 

Danube

Banned
Dec 10, 2009
613
0
0
A person's sexuality does not affect their ability to pull a trigger or to administer care to a wounded person. Only the backwards moralistic dinosaurs among us persist in the belief that this change would somehow be damaging (which they can only articulate in the vaguest sense), despite all the evidence being to the contrary.


The FDA has banned homosexuals from donating blood for life because homosexuals Carry so many diseases. It's not just AIDS but MRSA (large epidemics in homosexual communities), hepatitis, syphilis (65% of new cases are homosexual men). EMT's obvioulsy wear rubber gloves for protection from tainted blood - but now soldiers have to be perhaps cut and bled on by someone who might have the same diseases the EMTs must protect themselves from.

Plus - after any forcing of homosexuality on military (because they don't want it) there would be the obligatory sensitivity training and then other new agendas for special living arrangements etc. Its a circus the military doesn't need.

The Catholic church had to disallow homosexual entry to the priesthood in 2005 because so many joined for the wrong reason that normal guys didn't want to go to seminaries anymore - and the church had the homosexual abuse scandal (it wasn't pedophilia). Homosexuality is a compulsion that will ultimately bring harm to the ranks if given sanction.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
LOL... knew you wouldn't give Obama any credit for it.

maybe I'm missing something, but all the leadership I've seen on moving this forward has been coming from the senate and house.

One reason blacks vote 70% against homosexual marriage is because
they quite naturally take offense at seeing a history of chains, servitude and family breakup compared to guys who take offense that every society around the globe finds their attraction to each others rears odd. Comparing a benign trait like skin color to a behavior like homosexuality (or any behavior really) is comparing apples and walnuts.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,192
18,867
146
Why I hate the right: Social conservatism.

Why I hate the left: Fiscal liberalism.

But the left has clearly been FAR more successful than the right in their agenda. Social conservatism has been consistently losing ground while fiscal liberalism has been consistently gaining ground.

Both need to lose.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
i have 3 nephews that have served in iraq and afganastan.

this story about DADT came on tv. they all agreed that they didn't give a shit what the sexual orientation was of the guy next to them. long as he did his job he could fuck goats for all they cared.

I personally think it should be repelled. who fucking cares who is gay or not?