A Deal on DADT?

[metta]

Moments ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." Fifteen votes were needed to pass the measure. This historic action is the first time Congress has ever taken a vote to repeal the ban on openly lesbian and gay service members in its nearly 17 year history.

 

[MercuryJones]

If you're referring to me, I never said Obama doesn't need to "work on Congress."

When Obama said he had to work on Congress you responded as follows:

At the end of the second video Obama says, about what Kip Williams said:

"... he said do it faster, man. It's like, I'm dealin with Congress here! It takes a little bit of time."

Obama is such a pathelogical liar he can't help himself.

Congress is trying to get it done now, it's Obama who's dragging his feet.

Your bitterness is making a fool of you. You say Obama needs to work on Congress, and when he agrees with you call him a liar.

 

[MercuryJones]

They choose between the [STRIKE]puppets[/STRIKE] candidates the money men [STRIKE]have bought[/STRIKE] will support. So we get garbage no matter which way we go.

Even under this premise, American voters voted for the "puppet(s)" who said they wanted to repeal DADT.

 

[hotatlboi]

The full House will be taking a vote on DADT around 10pm ET.

Edit: Vote beginning now.

 

[hotatlboi]

So far only 2 Republicans voting for it.

 

[hotatlboi]

Make that three

such an improvement

 

[hotatlboi]

This is the vote breakdown.

Democrats - Yea: 229 Nay: 26
Republicans - Yea: 5 Nay: 168

So, all you Republicans on here, don't tell me that Republicans (at least the current ones) are supporting your interests, because that is BS pure and simple and this vote shows it. The Republican party has spoken and discrimination against gays continues to be the order of the day for them.

The Republican's voiced opposition to this in debate was that they wanted the review to be completed so the military could decide. Of course that's a red herring since that's exactly what the language in this bill does, it allows the Pentagon to repeal the policy at their discretion. Of course we all know the real reason for their opposition and it had nothing to do with that meaningless technicality. If this vote had been taken after the review, all those Republicans would still have voted no, it would just have been a different justification.

 

[JayHawk]

Obama is in 'control' of the DADT repeal as much as he has the gulf cleanup well in hand. I expect the same level of competence in most of his dealings. I also wonder if he will actually follow thru with 60 years of promised support to South Korea now that those war drums are rattling.

 

[Apollo]

Obama is in 'control' of the DADT repeal as much as he has the gulf cleanup well in hand. I expect the same level of competence in most of his dealings. I also wonder if he will actually follow thru with 60 years of promised support to South Korea now that those war drums are rattling.

So far he has Hilary giving full support to South Korea agaisnt N. Korea. I've read nothing yet of Obama even trying to be diplomatic with N. Korea over the sinking of that S. Korean ship.

Oh and YAY on the amendment getting through. It's a glorious day.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hope I've got this right.... these seem to be the valiant Republicans who understand what it means to be an American:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii)
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.)


Take a moment to send them a thank-you.





Here's a quick link for finding them.

 

[JB3]

Hope I've got this right.... these seem to be the valiant Republicans who understand what it means to be an American:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii)
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.)


Take a moment to send them a thank-you.





Here's a quick link for finding them.

Woot! Biggert's my rep!

 

[TickTockMan]

Hope I've got this right.... these seem to be the valiant Republicans who understand what it means to be an American:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii)
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.)

Thank you. I was about to ask who they were.

 

[Apollo]

Hope I've got this right.... these seem to be the valiant Republicans who understand what it means to be an American:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii)
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.)


Take a moment to send them a thank-you.





Here's a quick link for finding them.

Go Ron Paul!

 

[Kulindahr]

Go Ron Paul!

Paul's position on this has been the same from the start of DADT: it's an unconstitutional distinction between Americans.


Wish he held to that on marriage.

 

[Apollo]

Paul's position on this has been the same from the start of DADT: it's an unconstitutional distinction between Americans.


Wish he held to that on marriage.

me too, but he is still a repub type sadly.

 

[Kulindahr]

A buddy looked at the list as I posted it and said they didn't look like very American names.

"Ron Paul -- a guy with two first names", and, "Biggert -- sounds made-up for a movie" were the politest comments.

Odd, the ways in which things a guy doesn't know about people come out.

 

[MercuryJones]

Paul's position on this has been the same from the start of DADT: it's an unconstitutional distinction between Americans.

Wish he held to that on marriage.

The difference being its no skin off his nose if more gay people die defending him. But recognizing them as full and equal citizens.... well what's the profit there?

 

[Kulindahr]

The difference being its no skin off his nose if more gay people die defending him. But recognizing them as full and equal citizens.... well what's the profit there?

You shifted gears there -- "no skin off his nose" and "profit" are two different things.

 

[construct]

I finally found it on Thomas. It's H.AMDT.655. As I read it at the earliest, the repeal could take effect Jan. 29, 2011. Well, I suppose the DoD report could come in under deadline and my "earliest" date could be moved up. In any case, it doesn't return us to the status quo ante as the GAO suggested in opinterph's post. It would only become effective after new policy is in place. We'll see.

 

[opinterph]

In any case, [the repeal of DADT] doesn't return us to the status quo ante as the GAO suggested in opinterph's post. It would only become effective after new policy is in place.

That GAO report was published in 1992. One of the things I’ve noticed in reading commentaries from sites that continue to oppose open service by gay or bisexual persons is a recurring emphasis to note that such individuals are not now, nor have they ever been, eligible to serve in the US armed forces. While DADT eliminated some of the mechanisms that previously ferreted out gay or bisexual recruits/service personnel and thereby prevented them from serving in the US military, it did nothing to create or endorse a right for them to assume any eligibility to serve.

It therefore seems reasonable that repealing DADT without a replacement policy that specifically sanctions service by gay or bisexual persons would effectively restore the status quo that existed prior to enactment of the DADT legislation.

I finally found it on Thomas. It's H.AMDT.655.

Ugh. Even with your description, I have not been successful in locating the language of the amendment.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that if the amendment to repeal DADT is passed along with the defense authorization bill to which it is now attached, it is reasonable to presume the current policy as described in Department of Defense Instruction Number 1332.14 (revised in March 2010) will remain in force and effect until a new policy is fully implemented to further amend or replace it.

Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Military Services under the terms set forth …

May 28, 2010: Video statement from Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, regarding DADT:

​