Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:01 PM ET, 12/15/2010

House votes again to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 7:01 p.m. ET
House lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday to end the "don't ask, don't tell" law, giving new momentum to an effort backed by President Obama, Pentagon leaders and gay rights activists to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military this year.

The House voted 250 to 175 to repeal the 17-year Defense Department law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in uniform. The 75-vote margin was wider than a similar vote in May. Fifteen Republicans voted for the bill while 15 Democrats opposed it.

President Obama heralded the vote, saying in a statement that ending current military policy "is not only the right thing to do, it will also give our military the clarity and certainty it deserves. We must ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally by their country."

Wednesday's vote sends the bill back to the Senate, where a vote will not occur until next week at the earliest, according to a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

The bill's language originally appeared in an 800-page defense authorization bill passed by the House in May. But the bill failed a procedural vote in the Senate last week, requiring the House to vote again on a new measure to end the ban.

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the new bill last week, believing it will earn broader Republican support after the Senate completes consideration of the New START Treaty and government spending. Forty-seven senators, including Reid, are cosponsoring the bill.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Wednesday she would join Republican colleagues Scott Brown (Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) in voting to end the ban if the Senate votes again on the bill.

The House voted first on the new bill because its cosponsors, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) believed doing so would allow the Senate to consider it more quickly as a privileged resolution requiring fewer days of debate.

"It's time to end a policy of official discrimination that has cost America the service of some 13,500 men and women who wore our uniform with honor," Hoyer said Wednesday. "It's time to stop throwing away their service -- their willingness to die for our country -- because of who they are."

Most House Republicans opposed Wednesday's vote. In a conversation with reporters before the vote, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif), who is slated to chair the House Armed Services Committee in the next Congress, said Democrats "were more concerned about 'don't ask don't tell,' I believe, than about the military and about carrying out our responsibilities for those who are laying their lives on the line every day to protect us. That's a bad system."

In a bit of levity, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) later echoed McKeon's sentiments on the House floor: "Maybe that's why our approval ratings are somewhere between used car salesman and embezzler," he said. (A record low 13 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, according to a Gallup Poll survey released Wednesday.)

A new version of the defense bill without language ending "don't ask, don't tell" is expected to come up for a vote in the House later this week.

In a joint statement, gay rights groups pushing to end the ban cheered Wednesday's House vote, saying it "provides another resounding indication that 'don't ask, don't tell' can and should be repealed legislatively this year." The groups, ranging from the liberal Center for American Progress to the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans, plan to spend the rest of the week lobbying other moderate Republican senators, including Richard Lugar (Ind.) and George Voinovich (Ohio). Neither has said in recent days how they might vote.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Wednesday also asked the Senate to quickly pass the bill. Doing so would enable the Defense Department "to carefully and responsibly manage a change in this policy instead of risking an abrupt change resulting from a decision in the courts," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and a vocal defender of the current military policy, criticized Democrats for holding Wednesday's vote "before most members of Congress have sufficient time to consider the consequences of that reckless action."

"Congressional chaos has become the new normal," Donnelly said.

McCain, the leading Republican critic of efforts to end the ban this year, did not comment on Wednesday's vote.

A majority of Americans support allowing gays and lesbians to sesrve openly in uniform, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week.

Staff writers Ben Pershing and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: Most back repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' poll says

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe  | December 15, 2010; 7:01 PM ET
Categories:  Congress, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bill to help Marine widow Hotaru Ferschke set to become law
Next: Tax-cut package includes commuter benefit for feds

Comments

Somehow it seems inappropriate that those who do not serve in the military make this sensitive, possibly wrong, decision for the military. How many of those actually serving, gay and straight, had an opportunity to participate in this decision making, either with opinions or comments, or polls?

We know that people like Charles Rangel who cheated on his taxes was making tax law decision; that congress people with no training in economics voted for the TARP, stimulus packages, etc.
Is this the way it's going to be?

Shouldn't we defer to those in uniform, not those in "ivory towers" to make personal decisions?

Posted by: pjcafe | December 15, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

So, is this meant to be part of the compromise that gets the House to go along with Obama's tax extension deal?

If the Senate passes this stand-alone bill to repeal DADT, the House will pass the tax extensions as negotiated by Obama?

Posted by: Kathy8 | December 15, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

If the Senate fails to get rid of DADT and it divides along party loyalties, Congress will sink even lower in the opinion of most Americans and Republicans will continue to to lose support of youger Americans. The Republican Party will be overpopulated with bitter old white men led by McCain, McConnell, and Kyl. Time is not on their side.

Posted by: gary16 | December 15, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, a dark cloud has passed over the sun center of reason. The Democrats are following in the footsteps of the citizens of the City of Sodom of old. Let us pray the weather clears by the time this measure is considered in the Senate, if it is considered at all.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 15, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The heck with it. I was in the military and saw gays - the poor guys and gals always had to hide it. I say repeal it - just so I can see some of the high up muckety muck officers get all blustered that they may have to actually acknowledge a gay person. That would tickele me to no end.

Posted by: steven7753 | December 15, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

We ask -- nay, we expect -- soldiers to continue to fight under the harshest and most extreme environments and to do professionally. When their buddies are literally blown up beside them, we expect them to carry on with the mision. But serving next to a homosexual poses a more serious morale problem? The military I used to serve believed it could imrpovise, adapt, and overcome andy problem or obstacle. Who are these weak sisters that get their panties in a bunch because someone openly gay? Cowards.

Posted by: dragon2eden | December 15, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

It was Congress that enacted the law in the first place. They made the sensitive, possibly wrong, decision for the military then and have the same authority to revoke it now.

Posted by: TigerinDC | December 15, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

If you want to be treated the same, then behave the same. Being gay is not normal and will NEVER be seen as being normal. So if you gays want to serve then behave the right way. GOT IT?

Posted by: WorkHarderLibs | December 15, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to all of the soldiers current and ex -- and their loved ones -- who have awaited this day for many years. Now, it's time for the Senate to prove its valor too on a battlefield of a different kind.

Posted by: DianS | December 15, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

pjcafe asks: "How many of those actually serving, gay and straight, had an opportunity to participate in this decision making, either with opinions or comments, or polls?" The answer is that they ALL did, and 70% of those responding didn't see it as a problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007381.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: wayoutsidethebeltway | December 15, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Congress makes the laws for the military, it is outlined in the Constitution. I find it very troubling that so many in the minority on this issue seem so willing to undermine the idea of Civilian control of the Military. Of course it has nothing to do with who the President is or anything like that.

Posted by: friarjohn00 | December 15, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

OMG OMG!! Where do I sign up for the military:)

Posted by: cr10 | December 15, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Guess it's the holiday season that always brings out the fruitcakes!

Posted by: rwbentley | December 15, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

It's about time.

The military leadership says it's time to go and Congress should support the military on this issue.

As a previous poster mentioned, why should only non-uniformed people decide this issue? Finally, they will give the military what it's requesting.

Posted by: 8-Man2 | December 15, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I guess I just don't get why someone's sexual preferences have to be expressed. When did anyone join the military announcing that they were "straight"?
Why do we need to know? Is this so that anyone in the military who is not gay will be able to be "politically correct" in order to avoid offending gay people?

Should teachers who apply for teaching jobs announce their sexual preferences or ID themselves as gay or straight?
Just doesn't seem to be necessary to announce or share. This kind of mentality can really go to the extremes beginning with this issue.

Posted by: pjcafe | December 15, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Fifteen extra votes when the Congressman doesn't have to explain it to voters back home.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 15, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who voted for or proposed this Bill should be recalled or impeached.

Posted by: KBlit | December 15, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

High time. Let's face it, most people, no matter what their line of work, don't go around advertising their sexual orientation, they just live their lives and do their jobs. In the military their jobs necessitate risking and often giving their lives...so that the rest of us won't have to. Their service should be honored whether they're straight or gay, and they should not be treated, or made to feel, as if their homosexuality were something shameful.

Posted by: Barbara59 | December 15, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

pjcafe wrote: I guess I just don't get why someone's sexual preferences have to be expressed.

Um, do you get to talk about your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend with your coworkers? Why do we need to know that you're straight? Who cares about your sexual preference? You should just saying nothing about your personal life.

Now do you get it?

Posted by: jdcinarlington | December 15, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Re pjcafe: That pesky little thing called the US Constitution provides that "Congress shall have the power to . . . make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" and provides that the "President shall be the Commander in Chief" of the military. Genuinely patriotic Americans think our constitutionally-appointed civilian leaders should make the decision for the military.

Posted by: jacobbergerj | December 15, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"I guess I just don't get why someone's sexual preferences have to be expressed. When did anyone join the military announcing that they were 'straight'?"

------------------------------------------

The point you're failing to see is that if a straight guy talks about his wife, girlfriend, or his list of past sexual escapades there is no punishment. If a gay man were to talk about his husband, boyfriend, or past sexual partners they would be fired and booted from their military career forever. This, my friend, is the glaring inequality in the current law that so many refuse to see.

I'm all for people keeping their private lives to themselves, but the rules should be even and fair to both straights and gays.

Posted by: BlueBlur | December 15, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

‎"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -Aristotle

Make no mistake about it...Accepting inferiority and deviance as normal will come back to haunt you.

Posted by: allenjohnson | December 15, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The House liberals repealing DADT! Isn't this honorable. Now gays can hump each other in military barracks and no one can complain about it.

What have the liberals given America?

Abortion
Pornograhy
Sodomy
Gays humping each other in military barracks

It is clear that liberals have turned America into the cesspool of the world.


Posted by: Chuck8764 | December 15, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

1. There's nothing wrong with Congress writing the rules. We still have civilian control of the military in this country.

2. No country that has permitted gays to serve openly has experienced an erosion of combat readiness or unit cohesion, including Israel, which requires a high degree of both and has its own societal divisions regarding religious attitudes toward homosexuality.

3. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of DADT repeal.

Posted by: Meridian1 | December 15, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

The DADT policy is really a joke! Gays are serving now in our military. The gay soldiers are fighting and dying side by side with all other soldiers, and yet they can't enjoy all the previledge of the 'others'. Was there any evidence that the sexual preference has harmed unit unity or caused a loss of lives? The arm forces has dealt with other individual prejudices such as race, sex or religion. Why now, sexual preference is a bigger deal. When bullet and bombs are going off all around, the last thing that any soldier worries about is sexual preference, or sex. Arm forces can't let personal prejudices be a factor in recruitment, training or combat. There is no reason to believe that a gay soldier is any different than all the others in what they do and offer, including their lifes.

Posted by: attl | December 15, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Gutless wonders. They caved in to the 18% of the population. Now we know the 275 who need to be defeated in the next election.

Posted by: KBlit | December 15, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

If you want to be treated the same, then behave the same. Being gay is not normal and will NEVER be seen as being normal. So if you gays want to serve then behave the right way. GOT IT?
Posted by: WorkHarderLibs | December 15, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse


Dude, never say never. Whether you like it or not, one thing you cannot do is stymie progress. People more stalwart than you have tried throughout history, and as much as it is resisted, it moves inexorably towards a never-ending goal. Citizens were just as outraged by the abolition of slavery, a woman's right to vote, and the idea that the Earth was round. People have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future, lol. You can get on the train and move forward, stand in front and be run over, or step aside and be left behind. Progress can be slowed, but since time is on its side, it has the luxury of waiting you out, and your descendants too. With each new generation the hard line relaxes a little, and a greater acceptance begins to emerge.

Posted by: EbonyT | December 15, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Democrats in the Senate, listen up! Get this done! If you do nothing else before losing more of your majority, get DADT to the floor for a vote and get it passed!

You can do it, and it's important. Please do this!

Posted by: jdcinarlington | December 15, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

If you want to be treated the same, then behave the same. Being gay is not normal and will NEVER be seen as being normal. So if you gays want to serve then behave the right way. GOT IT?

Posted by: WorkHarderLibs
__________________________________________
And YOU get to decide what is "normal"? Fortunately the US public has actually entered the 21st century and see homosexuality as... no big deal. Heck, young people today don't even blink about this issue almost as if homosexuals were "normal". That makes tea baggers like you not "normal". Guess you guys shouldn't serve in the military.

Posted by: Observer001 | December 15, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Kblit 15 of them were Republicans. You going after them too?

BTW if you're not serving in the military then butt out. This doesn't concern you.

Posted by: jdcinarlington | December 15, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -Aristotle

Make no mistake about it...Accepting inferiority and deviance as normal will come back to haunt you.

Posted by: allenjohnson
_______________________________________
Actually it's worked out pretty well for the Republicans!

Posted by: Observer001 | December 15, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Here are the benefits of repeal based on the DoD's CRWG's report:

Question 81 of the “2010 DADT Survey,” asking active-duty and reserve troops whether repeal of the current law would affect future career plans, found that 12.6% of personnel in the Military Services Overall said they would leave sooner than planned—a percentage that potentially equates to 264,600 of the 2.1 million active-duty/reserve force. Another 11.1% said they would think about leaving sooner than planned, and potential losses for the Army and Marine Corps would be even higher. (p. 210, DoD Report)

Cross-tabbed data displayed in the 2010 DADT Survey indicate that potential losses would be highest among troops described as “combat arms.” Among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4% would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6 would think about leaving the Army.

Marine combat arms would be weakened even more, with 32% of Marines leaving sooner than planned, and 16.2% considering an early end to their Marine Corps careers. (See 2010 DADT Survey data, available here, Appendix J, p. 53, for Army figures, and Appendix L, p. 47, for Marine Corps figures.)

Posted by: striderrt | December 15, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles wrote:

"Indeed, a dark cloud has passed over the sun center of reason. The Democrats are following in the footsteps of the citizens of the City of Sodom of old. Let us pray the weather clears by the time this measure is considered in the Senate, if it is considered at all."

------

Ummmm .. please GoldenEagles, come back and tell us this again after your wife fellates you or you have anal sex with her. Then we can talk about your concept of normalacy. Conservative hypocrisy is stunning.

Posted by: TightWhiteRight | December 15, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

striderrt, you should go back and read some of the historical data regarding integrating blacks and women into the services. The stats are eerily similar.

BTW, as long as the job market sucks, those soldiers and marines aren't going anywhere. They'll deal with it just like they dealt with integration of blacks and women.

It's going to happen whether in Congress or the courts so shaddup about it already!

Posted by: jdcinarlington | December 15, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

For the record I do serve in the military. And you?

Posted by: KBlit | December 15, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

How sad that congress still does not hear the American public. Another mistake by our government.

Posted by: tonyjm | December 15, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

So when can the men and women start showering together?

Posted by: dpo007 | December 15, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I am confident that the Senate will stall on this. The new Commandant of the Marine Corps has recognized that this repeal of DADT will have deleterious effects on the combat troops and he has said so.
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, in contrast to the courage of the Marine Commandant, lack the spine to stick up for our military and, instead, have gone treasonously over to the side of the liberal left and the activist gays. They have effectively surrendered the trust given to them to protect the military from partisan politics. There is no room for politics affecting the military and especially so in time of war.

I can remember no president--ever--who has used the US military as pawns to assuage his political supporters. I detest Obama for that.

President Obama, with not a single day of military service--which in itself is contemptible considering his position--made thoughtless and selfish campaign promises which he determined necessary in order to garner every possible vote and ingratiated himself to a vocal minority by promising to end DADT without giving a modicum of thought as to the consequences. He offered up the United States military as a sacrifice to allay their concerns, cave in to their selfish demands, mostly the effected ground troops of the Army and Marines as hostages to gay activists who promised their vote--and political pain if he did not bow to their unsavory, detestable demands.

Now, at a time when our military is as heavily engaged as it has been for more than forty years, at a time when individual troops are ordered to repeated deployments to the war zones, now in a time of military uncertainty and maximum commitment, is the wrong time for our politicians to advocate for a social engineering experiment by endorsing an end to the current don't ask, don't tell policy.

Neither the president nor an overwhelming preponderance of those in Congress
have served a single day in our country's military. For them now to pander to a
vocal minority seeking a liberal interpretation of society's rules is disturbing and quite revealing as to the total lack of any consideration of the residual effects of their actions.
To politicize our military in a time of war is as incredibly contemptible as it is indisputably ignorant of the military as an institution, a separate and distinct body tasked with the most crucial tasks of defending our nation in a time of war.

And, if DADT passes, another travesty will have been done. Imagine, with all that is going on in the world, Congressional uberliberals are pushing to pass a damaging change to our current policy concerning gays in the military contrary to what the military leaders want. No, not the lily-livered, politically motivated Sec Def nor the courageless Admiral; I mean the REAL military leaders like General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who has had the courage to state upfront the harm that may occur if this outrageous action is approved. The public watches.

Posted by: denniscopson | December 15, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

For the last 18 years, buddy boy.

Posted by: jdcinarlington | December 15, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Democratic representative Steny Hoyer equated African-Americans in the Civil Rights Act and disabled persons in the Americans With Disabilities Act to homosexuals. Equating physical ethnicity and physical disabilities to behavioral same-sex attraction? No, African-Americans and the disabled do not equate themselves to homosexuals.

Posted by: striderrt | December 15, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

HALLELUJAH! To quote MLK, Jr, "FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST!" Dear Senators, please do not botch this opportunity. History finally marches on in accord with the 14th Amendment with head held high, dignity, equality, and pride. DADT defiled public policy by requiring bisexual and gay Americans to lie just to serve their country. Talk about an obscenity. Kudos to the House for finally taking action. Thanks to Mr. Obama who has taken much heat on this issue but nevertheless has never waive red from his insistence that DADT be repealed. No doubt, if the legislature does not do it, the Court will. Due process is due process after all. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that I would live to see this day! Overwhelmed.

Posted by: tboone1 | December 15, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

And YOU get to decide what is "normal"? Fortunately the US public has actually entered the 21st century and see homosexuality as... no big deal. Heck, young people today don't even blink about this issue almost as if homosexuals were "normal". That makes tea baggers like you not "normal". Guess you guys shouldn't serve in the military.

Posted by: Observer001


-Hey butt pirate, your preverted gay marriage idea even lost in California. So typical of liberals to be more concerned about gay rights in time of war than defeating the enemy. No wonder you dorks lost in 2010 and will become extinct in 2012.

LIBERALS.......AMERICA'S WEAKEST LINK

Posted by: WorkHarderLibs | December 15, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

A "Defense Department law"? There is no such thing, and the Post should be ashamed of itself for continuously portraying this issue incorrectly. DADT is the law of the land, passed by the duly elected United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It is not a "policy," it is not a "Defense Department law," it is a law of the United States of America.

Posted by: asdf2 | December 15, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post Homosexual article number 2,591


The Washington Post is not a news organization. It is a political action organization, specializing in Far Left causes.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 15, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Some posting here have said that those who did not serve in the military do not have a right to an opinion. That is absolute garbage. DADT IS SELF-EVIDENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There are not two sides on this issue because the rule in question is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Now, what part of this FACT do those of you against repeal do not get?

As far as the Republican (and Democratic) Senators who voted against repeal they voted AGAINST enforcing the Bill of Rights and should not even be in the Senate. I know that this country, not at all the perfect society so many fantasize it is, will not kick out the people who did vote against this repeal. I hold special derision to John McCain, the homophobic piece of garbage who, apparently, would sell his own mother to stay in the Senate, which is ironic because John McCain is UNFIT to be a Senator.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | December 15, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Seeing as how the Repugs have p*ssed on the congressional agenda the last two years with their abuse of the filibuster, Reid should make them stay until this congress officially adjourns in Jan to finish all of their business.


Give the Repugnuts ONE DAY OFF FOR X-MAS....just like most of the poor people whom they screw over get.

.

Posted by: DrainYou | December 15, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Good luck on Senate Round 3 for repealing DADT.

If it doesn't pass this time, then let the courts decide for them. Let's see what happens if repeal is forced on the military vs. if Congress had acted to give the military time to adapt.

And as for all you homo-haters... everyone has heard your moralistic hate-spewed garbage before, so why waste your time repeating it.

Times are changing and your narrow-minded way of thinking is becoming a thing of the past. Younger generations are more tolerant in accepting people for the quality of the person and not pre-judging them.

It's a shame that's something you can't seem to learn...

But then again, I've been told you can't teach an "Old Dog" new tricks... instead, they just die off, and the "New Dog" will learn what the old one wasn't willing to.

Posted by: vtmoreno | December 15, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I hold special derision to John McCain, the homophobic piece of garbage who, apparently, would sell his own mother to stay in the Senate, which is ironic because John McCain is UNFIT to be a Senator.

Posted by: nyrunner101 |

Says the flaming F A GG OT! Good thing you represent a very small and preverted minority of the voters!

Posted by: WorkHarderLibs | December 15, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) – The compromise policy initiated by former President Clinton in 1993 also known as Defense Directive 1304.26 which dictated that enlistees would not be asked about their sexual orientation even if that orientation contradicted the 1993 federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) which banned homosexuals serving in the military. In contrast to the federal law, DADT was not a Congressional action. The signatory for DADT was then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. DADT could be reversed by a similar act by the current Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: striderrt | December 15, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -Aristotle

Make no mistake about it...Accepting inferiority and deviance as normal will come back to haunt you.

Posted by: allenjohnson | December 15, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

-- There are those of us in the military who disapprove of polytheism, ritual cannibalism and divine rape but act professionaly around Christians anyway.

Posted by: williamwertman | December 15, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

I have worked in the military for 10 years and in the civil service for 15 years. At all times we knew who was gay and who wasn't. At times I lived in the barracks and had gay roommates. In Germany we had gang showers with 8 shower heads. At times there were 1-20 people in the showers. We didn't wait for the gay guys to get out of the showers. It did not bother any of us that there were gay guys in our unit. I worked with gay guys both in combat and in close unit work. I worked FOR gay supervisors. I never had problems and I don't know anyone that did have problems. I think the problems are the old fogies at the top. Get over it.

Posted by: meg-ken | December 15, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

There is only one soldier that apparently feels compelled to demand that the US Constitution be adhered to by asking to see illegally closed intel on a public servant... the POTUS.
Since he is the only one willing to uphold his oath, maybe gays will be the next heor to step up to confirm there are no breeches oif the US Constitution from within.

Posted by: dottydo | December 15, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

The tail wags the dog.
A tiny percentage of our population is able to shift thousands of years of culture to lead us where?...
I sincerely doubt this will strengthen our military. Quite the opposite. It will demoralize them.

Gays have been around forever. And virtually every society has restricted them because homosexual activites spread disease and do not prosper the tribe.

Posted by: mipcom | December 15, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

DADT tosses out soldiers, sailors, and airmen, some of whom have served for decades in high ranking positions, and who have made decisions that not only have supported the mission of the U.S. military, but protected the men and women they have led. I know for a fact the military has lost many outstanding servicemen and women because people our concern of a "perceived threat" regarding something that happens in another's private life.

This is not a battle worth fighting. We need every swinging d--k in the regiment, especially the best who want to serve and will do a great job.

Look no further than your local police. It works. Don't go looking for proof someone else is straight. Waste of time and money. And it doesn't impact the mission. It only impacts one's own insecurity.

Posted by: josephbbl | December 15, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and a vocal defender of the current military policy...this has been an on going debate for the past several years so if you are not ready then what have you been doing?

By the way I'm all for keeping gays out of the military so we can keep sending straight people to into the wars.

Posted by: dworrell | December 15, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

DADT tosses out soldiers, sailors, and airmen, some of whom have served for decades in high ranking positions, and who have made decisions that not only have supported the mission of the U.S. military, but protected the men and women they have led. I know for a fact the military has lost many outstanding servicemen and women because people our concern of a "perceived threat" regarding something that happens in another's private life.

This is not a battle worth fighting. We need every swinging d--k in the regiment, especially the best who want to serve and will do a great job.

Look no further than your local police. It works. Don't go looking for proof someone else is straight. Waste of time and money. And it doesn't impact the mission. It only impacts one's own insecurity.

Posted by: josephbbl | December 15, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

DADT tosses out soldiers, sailors, and airmen, some of whom have served for decades in high ranking positions, and who have made decisions that not only have supported the mission of the U.S. military, but protected the men and women they have led. I know for a fact the military has lost many outstanding servicemen and women because people our concern of a "perceived threat" regarding something that happens in another's private life.

This is not a battle worth fighting. We need every swinging d--k in the regiment, especially the best who want to serve and will do a great job.

Look no further than your local police. It works. Don't go looking for proof someone else is straight. Waste of time and money. And it doesn't impact the mission. It only impacts one's own insecurity.

Posted by: josephbbl | December 15, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse


Democrats trying as hard as they can to harm America as much as possible before they lose power.

Posted by: Obama_TRAITOR_in_Chief | December 15, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

What a major accomplisment for our congress. 10% unemployment and this is what take priority.

Posted by: mpg515 | December 15, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, and now is the time for the country to come to the aid of a few good men and women. Repeal of this law of 17 years is one large step for the recognition of the equality of all of us with each other. Stop the homophobia and live the dream for yourself and others.

Posted by: ronjeske | December 15, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"I guess I just don't get why someone's sexual preferences have to be expressed. When did anyone join the military announcing that they were "straight"? "

When they asked for health benefits and pension eligibility for their spouses?
When they called home, and were overheard saying, "I love you, Mary/James. Don't worry, I'll be home soon, hang in there."?
When they put a picture of their wife or husband and kids on their desk?
When they said casually, "Yeah, Mary and I went to Arizona last year, and it was gorgeous," or "James and I have always wanted to take a cruise, but we can't afford it yet."

Posted by: Catken1 | December 15, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

sorry Hoyer, the policy didn't end the career of 13500 people, those people knew the policy and lied. Washington Post also should stop perpetuating the myth that 70% of the military approves the repeal. The survey was so biased and completely disregarded the undervote and non-response.

If we want equality, then women ought to be required to register on selective service, too, because that denies over half the American population from serving because, as Hoyer stated, "who they are". In fact, why don't we just require everyone to serve, because we are denying everyone a chance to die for their country.

Posted by: imtjm | December 15, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

There have always been gay people serving in the military and there will always be gay people serving in the military. Anyone wanting to serve our country should have that opportunity without having to compromise their integrity.

Posted by: MNUSA | December 15, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

The World is seeing Obama for what he is. The only way to beat obama is to Deny him. obama, His words describe him, He is a False Hope, If you listen to him you will love him. He carries a Bow without an Arrow. He will conquer all through his speech, his false hoods will capture all who sit and listen to him. The False one. Obama is without a doubt the Anti-Christ. The end is near if you keep following the lawless one. See him for what he is.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Posted by: makom | December 15, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

There have always been gay people serving in the military and there will always be gay people serving in the military. Anyone wanting to serve our country should have that opportunity without having to compromise their integrity.

Posted by: MNUSA

Then gay guys should act like straight guys and lesbians should also act straight, then there will be no problems, si?

Posted by: WorkHarderLibs | December 15, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I served in the military for 20 years and I knew gays and lesbians who served. I never had a problem and nor did they. Were they teased at times? Yes. But, to my knowledge, they never failed to serve any less honorably than those who were straight. I am not gay, but I believe I am smart enough to see the prevailing winds. The time is coming. Why not cut out some of this crap and stop trying to delay the inevitable? Maybe put it on a temporary basis of some sort.

Posted by: thinkfirst1 | December 15, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

This should have been part of the tax deal deal.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 15, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

And as I've served in the military, I'll add this... This whole discussion about all the bad things that will happen if serving gays are open about themselves is nonsense.

When you're in the military you learn to respect the character of your fellow serviceperson. And if for some reason you have a personal beef with someone, you either work it out, suppress the issue, or avoid one another.

Besides homo-haters, there are still other types of bigots, incl. racists, sexists, anti-semites, religious moralists, etc. in the military who have a beef with people they don't like. They represent a minority and are the ones more than likely to be disciplined.

But the vaast majority of service personnel get along fine and the issue of someone's race, sex, religion or sexual orientation isn't a problem with them.

Posted by: vtmoreno | December 15, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

As for all of those supposedly fruitcakes that are going to upset heterosexual conditions, we at least don't breed half Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, and others world wide and leave children behind. Talk about lack of sexual responsibility, let's take straights as the example. Recently the extreme staight role model for public view, dirty underwear and all was the John and Elizabeth Edwards marriage. So much that straights stand for, especially with their pieces of paper called Marriage License. You straight people perhaps should start a monopoly on how much better you are at being dead soldiers, amputees, mental cases after battle than we gay people. What a bunch of egotistical idiots you are.

Posted by: ray17 | December 15, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

i agree with Kathy8....the Senate passes DADT repeal from the House,
the House may just pass the tax relief bill without amending...

another tit for tat...
just like Congress constantly does

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 15, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

TO: ray17 (I assume that’s short for rayanne) who wrote:
“... at least don't breed …”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Something to be thankful for.


Posted by: lindalovejones | December 15, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm glad they did it, bigotry has no place in this country, but there are a lot more pressing things they needed to attend to, like taking an axe to the pork filled budget (mostly Democratic nonsense) and the equally foul tax breaks the R's are giving to the wealthy, putting an end to the H1-B visa and doing something about the accelerating outsourcing of jobs.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 15, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

pjcafe wrote: I guess I just don't get why someone's sexual preferences have to be expressed. When did anyone join the military announcing that they were "straight"?
Why do we need to know? Is this so that anyone in the military who is not gay will be able to be "politically correct" in order to avoid offending gay people?
=========================================
So you are one of those people who believes you should never mention your wife or girlfriend at work? If your spouse is ill, or dies, you will just take a few personal days but not tell anyone at work why, so as not to advertise your sexual orientation?

At one point, out of exasperation, I proposed extending DADT to straight service members instead of repealing it. In other words, prohibit EVERYONE from saying anything that would give away their sexual orientation.

If you send your coworkers an invitation to your wedding, that's revealing your sexual orientation. If you double-date with one, ask them to come to your spouse's funeral, invite them to your home when your spouse is present, or put a picture of him or her on your desk, you've revealed your sexual orientation.

No showing pictures from your vacation. Basically, no socializing with members of your unit or other coworkers.

Go ahead! Give it a try for 17 years, and see how far you get before you accidentally give it away.

Good luck. (BTW, your opposition to gays serving openly comes dangerously close to announcing your orientation as straight. I'd be real careful with that.)

Posted by: carlaclaws | December 15, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

John McCain reminds me of someone's cranky old grandpa more and more!!

Posted by: jeffcoud2 | December 15, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Yay! Homophobes are a dying Republocan subspecies :)

Posted by: lichtme | December 15, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

makom--your anti-humanity posts demonstrate are NOT a practicing Christian witness that believes in the New Testament. a

Posted by: josephbbl | December 15, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh look, another historic bill passed by Obama..........that will never get implemented, much like his historic health care bill.

Posted by: Jsuf | December 15, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

What exactly is being repealed????

Posted by: striderrt:

"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) – The compromise policy initiated by former President Clinton in 1993 also known as Defense Directive 1304.26 which dictated that enlistees would not be asked about their sexual orientation even if that orientation contradicted the 1993 federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) which banned homosexuals serving in the military. In contrast to the federal law, DADT was not a Congressional action. The signatory for DADT was then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. DADT could be reversed by a similar act by the current Secretary of Defense."

So the federal law still bans homosexuals in the military. Exactly what is being repealed? If DADT is repealed, the law still bans homosexuals. Or is the law itself being repealed??? My head hurts.

Posted by: qoph | December 15, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Its patently absurd for this liberal congress to suborn the morale and combat effectiveness of our fighting forces just so some one can "come out of the closet"


Exactly why is a homosexuals ability to declare their sexual preference more important than the maintenance of the current fighting culture in the military? How is keeping preferences to yourself "in a time of war" for the maintenance of fighting morale so difficult for a liberal mind to accept?


This outgoing liberal congress is racing for a last gasp, and clearly cares more for their politics then the "reality" this world faces us with. Repeal of DADT is the wrong thing for our military at this time, period. The majority of our command structure, and the majority of our combat arms say the same. It makes us less safe.


Republicans in the Senate better wake up and hold the line on this one, or be ready with bells on to explain to their voters why they let liberal politics put our service members at risk.

Posted by: Homunculus | December 15, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Percentage of LGBT people- A coalition of 31 leading homosexual rights groups which filed in the 2003 US Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas quoted the National Health and Social Life Survey percentages of 2.8% male and 1.4% female who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See also 'The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States' .

Posted by: striderrt | December 15, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Ler's assume all persons in th armed forces have to be Females or males,irresprctive of their sexuality,I wonder how they will be treated, when they are captured by the enemy forces.Jihadists will have no compunctions,since they treat Americans which ever way they want-that is just part of muslim terrorists.

Posted by: jayrkay | December 15, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

ok its done. stop whining both sides and get on with important issues. like liar in chief and fellow morons get us out of wars in crapholes,deport illegals and end exportation of jobs,and $$$$$$$$$$$ flowing to big businees and lining the pockets of the crooked politicians

Posted by: pofinpa | December 15, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Most gays and lesbians are liberalism anti-military and anti-war. What's their point? Are they going to serve? Or are they too upper-class and elite?

Posted by: Rockvillers | December 15, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

They've taken longer to debate DADT than they did to debate whether to go to war to look for non-existent WMDs...

Posted by: jgmann | December 15, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Rockvillers: They have no point except to validate a degenerate lifestyle. They will not join the military. They will not dare say in a combat situation that they want to cuddle with the men. They will not dare swish or threaten to scratch their eyes out or pull their hair.

All they want is a life style declared legitimate. Then the gay lawyers will go to work. Endless lawsuits..."He called me 'gay"...he said that was so 'homo,' the nasty Sergeant said, "common girls you look like alice" which was an insult to my life stile," ... You get the picture. You will not be able to keep a picture of your wife on your desk as a result....and as someone who has experienced the wrath of a lesbian...believe this.

This has nothing to do with strength in our military. Read the comments..they hate the military, hate Vietnam veterans, hate Republicans, ... they only want validation that being q***r is not aberrant, and to reap the benefits thereof...and d*mn the military and the safety of the USA. I don't want to be anywhere near these Dupont Circle gays in Afghanistan or Iraq. Let them do their dance of death here in WDC or San Francisco.

Posted by: wjc1va | December 15, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

OK that's a start. Everyone keep an eye on who it is that shotguns this bill in the Senate, so they can be voted out when they come up for reelection. Discrimination should never be justified by thinking people in today's more open society. Life is what it is, and all of you haters need to accept that.

Posted by: realneil | December 15, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

This will hopefully be the beginning of the end of the situation where the kinds of ignorant, hate-filled, homophobic crypto- nazis one sees posting here actually control policy in the US.

Posted by: twm1 | December 15, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | December 15, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

come [ http://0845.com/4pC ]

you will need!!!!!!

it's very good!

Posted by: itkonlyyou423 | December 15, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to the Democratic controlled House for their wise and selfless decision to repeal DADT against the pleas of those commanders whose men and women are on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, facing death daily and desperately needful of a distraction-free, non-political environment so that they can devote all of their attention to the ugly task at hand--carrying out the politicians' bloody war business. Kudos to our brave Representatives who are so eager to score a political victory before their majority is lost, precisely because they always act in their own damned self-interest--even when it threatens the lives of young Americans. Three cheers to the House of Reprehensibles!!! They have sweet blood on their filthy hands.

Posted by: CA57 | December 15, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

"reckless action"?!

Denying equal rights is a reckless action.

Homophobes, haters and bigots have no place in the 21st century.

Posted by: Gary12 | December 15, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

ALL US CITIZENS HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHT IS SERVE IN THE MILITARY " USA OATH OF ALLEGIANCE," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)) THIS LAW SHOULD BE MOVED INTO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT ITSELF ASAP

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

THE US CONSTITUTION 11TH AMENDMENT, NO FOREIGN LAWS OVER US CITIZENS PERIOD

* allegiance to the United States Constitution,

* renunciation of allegiance and laws to any foreign country to which the immigrant has had previous allegiances to

* defense of the Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic"

* promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law (either combat or non-combat)

* promise to perform civilian duties of "national importance" when required by law


RELIGIOUS LAWS (LEVITICAL/ CHURCH/ ISLAM SHARIA etc) DO NOT GIVE HUMAN EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, TO WOMEN/ CHILDREN/ UNBELIEVERS/ SAME SEXERS, AND OTHERS THEY CALL CHILDREN OF THE AL DAJJAL ANTI-CHRIST ie ( SRFM/ TEMPLAR CRUSADE WARS/322NWO/ BC-GROVE/ OTO etc DEATH PENALTIES IN THE NAME OF "GOD" ), THEY OFFEND THE BALANCE EQUALITIES (SCALES OF JUSTICE/ MERCY) OF THE ARTICLES / BILL OF RIGHTS AND AMENDMENTS IN THE US CONSTITUTION, OF WHICH IT BY THE WAY THE DIEST MADE SURE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOTE MENTION ANY "GOD etc"

The First Amendment must Balance with the Fourteenth Equal Protection clause, the Thirteenth Anti-Slavery Servitude, SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE, 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, please review: FREEDOM OF SPEECH/ RELIGION/ HAS LIMITS ON LIFE ,LIMB ,PROPERTY ,THE COURT LAW DOCTRINES SUCH AS : FIGHTING WORDS, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER,& 11TH WHICH BARS FOREIGN LAWS

RELIGIOUS LAWS ARE NOT HUMANE EQUALITY LAWS (SHARIA/ LEVITICAL etc), THERE JIM CROW LIKE
RES IPSA LOQUITUR, THE INHUMANESS DEATH/JIHAD etc. SPEAKS VOLUMES FOR IT'S SELF

Posted by: shaiarra | December 15, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

For those who think that being gay isn't normal, understand that whether a thing appears to be "normal" or "abnormal", or goes against our personal world view, it is still within the construct of Natural Law! Thus, it is normal; for nothing can exist, nor operate, outside of its regulatory sphere! More reasonable people, who seek to be personally scientific, can deduce the obvious-that Man began as an asexually producing species that, over time, became heterosexual. And if one actually takes into account the contents of the male and female anatomy, it would be clear that the differences between to two sexes are practically marginal.

It is useless, in this format, to spend any efforts to posit why people are gay. However, one can say for certain that the idea that it is "wrong" is just another illustration of human "herds" following the cultural dictums provided for them when they were born. The other point which never seems to get across to many people is that the military has a code of conduct that its members are compelled to follow, despite any sexual orientation. Therefore, it is quite plausible that any unforseen consequence from changing the law would be minimized by the requirements of professional behavior.

Notwithstanding the unpredictable political psychopathy of the GOP, the repeal of DADT should pass.

Posted by: D-0f-G | December 15, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

To qoph :

It is the 1993 federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) that is the target of repeal. As noted in the earlier post, DADT, also known as Defense Directive 1304.26, was signed solely by then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin - it was not legislated by Congress. Both of these can be easily researched online.

The confusion is due to mislabeling the 1993 federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They are not the same, though many want you to think so.

It goes like this:
1) the 1993 federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) was passed by bipartisan, veto-proof majorities. The law forbids homosexuals serving in the military. Research it for why they're forbidden.
2) former President Clinton attempted repeal of it, angered the military, and backed away with a compromise (DADT) not to ask enlistees if they were homosexuals, etc. Of course, this led to:
3) the claim that 'homosexuals cannot be openly proud of being homosexual despite putting on the uniform and risking their lives' mantra that we hear now.

Summary:
The current federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) from 1993 forbids homosexual service, but DADT, a Clinton compromise, allowed homosexuals, etc. to serve if they kept quiet about their orientation. Now, obfuscation of the actual law leads people to think that the law is DADT. Hence, DADT appears an unfair law, because it allows homosexuals, etc. to enlist, but forces them to deny their 'identity'. This obfuscation of the actual law is deliberate as ignorance on the gross scale exhibited could easily be debunked by simple research. The actual law forbids homosexual service and recruiters are authorized to ask enlistees if they're homosexuals, etc. DADT is authorized only by Sec. of Defense Les Aspin - it is not the law.

Posted by: striderrt | December 15, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Mere kids touring today's military museums and battlefields see right through the ubiquitous, cheesy slogans that anti-gay, anti-small-d democratic people plaster about for the credulous.

A lot of these kids aren't gay, and most of them who go on to serve will have openly gay colleagues. The best of the military are already ready for this change--and I thank you.

The rest of you DADT advocates are minorities within a minority. Exeunt voter pool.

Posted by: falasifa | December 15, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

"For those who think that being gay isn't normal, understand that whether a thing appears to be "normal" or "abnormal", or goes against our personal world view, it is still within the construct of Natural Law! Thus, it is normal; for nothing can exist, nor operate, outside of its regulatory sphere! More reasonable people, who seek to be personally scientific, can deduce the obvious-that Man began as an asexually producing species that, over time, became heterosexual. And if one actually takes into account the contents of the male and female anatomy, it would be clear that the differences between to two sexes are practically marginal."

Thank you pseudo scientist. So glad for your omniscient retelling of sexual development! Of course, "natural law" can mean most anything, eh? How many abominations have been condoned in the name of "natural law"! Eugenics, racisms of all kinds, etc.

Posted by: CA57 | December 15, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind, however...it is NOT just enough to repeal DADT. For all its flaws, DADT was at least intended to protect gays and keep them from being discharged simply for being gay. If DADT is repealed, then the only regulations on the books will be the UCMJ, which states that homosexual behavior is "incompatible with military service" and requires that...if a unit commander suspects a subordinate of being gay...he is to investigate (including asking the soldier out right). If the commander discovers that the soldier is gay, he is obligated to initiate discharge procedures. If all congress does is repeal DADT, then we're right back where we were BEFORE gays had DADT protection.

Posted by: davidg32 | December 15, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Ever wonder about all the free stuff you see on the web? It appears like everybody wants to give stuff away for nothing, nada, zilch. But are these items truly free of charge? If so, how can these companies afford to give away all of these coupons and samples? It’s truly all about you, the consumer. We live in a very competitive world marketplace place. The internet has upped the ante in terms of who could be seen and heard via all with the mass media. Now companies need to make lots of noise and this is one way that can do it. One of the best place on the web is called "123 Get Samples" and get your free stuffs

Posted by: ninaramey16 | December 16, 2010 5:38 AM | Report abuse

Reality Show a Must for Trailblazing Representatives

235 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the House of Representatives set the course yesterday for where no US policy has ever 'gone before': repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military and progressively stand-up for 'Open Homosexuality'.

Americans demand justice, and I say that everyone who charts a new course should first lead the way and taste every morsel before passing on the plate to others. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander' as the old saying goes.

Where could the reality show take place and how would the rules be defined? Well, absent the debate, there are no rules if everything is 'open'. There are cultural landmarks and institutions that already are a snapshot of the future. So, let's let these 250, the 9 no-vote-cowards and the similarly minded Honorable Senators lead this charge into the valley of death.

The only ground rule is anonymity. Contestants in this reality show lose all privileges. Badges of honor must be set aside so that the anonymity of the military private is realized. You won't be recognized, you won't be with the group - you'll be alone so that you can experience real homosexual life. This is necessary since the truth may not be seen if you're insulated from reality.

First, Gay Pride parades are a must. The willing, unrecognized political leader is given a dog collar and any other 'leathers' that the prideful want to use. You can go 'behind closed doors' as the Charlie Rich song goes. You can 'let your hair hang down' and you can find that you're 'glad that you're a man/woman' because now you will know 'what goes on behind closed doors'. If you're still smiling at your political leadership, then you're on to step 2.

Step 2 is found in any prison among the segregated inmates. As the new 'Undercover Boss' to this leading edge political thought, men will be deprived of their wives and families and women of their husbands and families. You are now free to become boyfriends and girlfriends to this captive audience. Sodomy is an important part of homosexual life, so you should experience it in full.

Now, the last issue is how long you should be required to research the policy? Minimum military service is 2 years. Though you should be required to taste the policy in full before you sign off on it, realistically your schedules do not excuse you for the duration. However, since you're charting the course of the future, you should at least be required to invest your recess periods for this mini 'boot camp'. You don't have years or months to fully understand your policy decision - 3 weeks will have to do. Annual refreshers will be required as long as the policy is in force.

Finally, you're more qualified based on your experience to represent us. But for me, you lack so much commonsense that you cannot be trusted. I'll never vote for you again.

Posted by: striderrt | December 16, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"Somehow it seems inappropriate that those who do not serve in the military make this sensitive, possibly wrong, decision for the military."

Welcome to America. Under our system of government, the military is subject to the civilian government. If you don't like it, then I hear that North Korea is lovely at this time of year.

Posted by: DoctorWhom | December 16, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Reality Show a Must for Trailblazing Representatives

235 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the House of Representatives set the course yesterday for where no US policy has ever 'gone before': repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military and progressively stand-up for 'Open Homosexuality'.

Americans demand justice, and I say that everyone who charts a new course should first lead the way and taste every morsel before passing on the plate to others. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander' as the old saying goes.

Where could the reality show take place and how would the rules be defined? Well, absent the debate, there are no rules if everything is 'open'. There are cultural landmarks and institutions that already are a snapshot of the future. So, let's let these 250, the 9 no-vote-cowards and the similarly minded Honorable Senators lead this charge into the valley of death.

The only ground rule is anonymity. Contestants in this reality show lose all privileges. Badges of honor must be set aside so that the anonymity of the military private is realized. You won't be recognized, you won't be with the group - you'll be alone so that you can experience real homosexual life. This is necessary since the truth may not be seen if you're insulated from reality.

First, Gay Pride parades are a must. The willing, unrecognized political leader is given a dog collar and any other 'leathers' that the prideful want to use. You can go 'behind closed doors' as the Charlie Rich song goes. You can 'let your hair hang down' and you can find that you're 'glad that you're a man/woman' because now you will know 'what goes on behind closed doors'. If you're still smiling at your political leadership, then you're on to step 2.

Step 2 is found in any prison among the segregated inmates. As the new 'Undercover Boss' to this leading edge political thought, men will be deprived of their wives and families and women of their husbands and families. You are now free to become boyfriends and girlfriends to this captive audience. Sodomy is an important part of homosexual life, so you should experience it in full.

Now, the last issue is how long you should be required to research the policy? Minimum military service is 2 years. Though you should be required to taste the policy in full before you sign off on it, realistically your schedules do not excuse you for the duration. However, since you're charting the course of the future, you should at least be required to invest your recess periods for this mini 'boot camp'. You don't have years or months to fully understand your policy decision - 3 weeks will have to do. Annual refreshers will be required as long as the policy is in force.

Finally, you're more qualified based on your experience to represent us. But for me, you lack so much commonsense that you cannot be trusted. I'll never vote for you again.

Posted by: striderrt | December 16, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

So, how will the supporters of the repeal feel, when their daughters go off to college, and they are given their dormitory assignments, and they are assigned a male roommate? It shouldn't matter since sexual orientation is no longer an issue. A straight male being forced to have a gay male roommate, is the same as a female being forced to have a male roommate. This is what we will now force upon our Soldiers. BUT no one cares because it affects VERY FEW of the people who fought for and voted for this issue.

Posted by: ddowell73 | December 19, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I have served for 20 years, and my mIlitary career is almost at an end, so it will not affect me personally all that much. I wonder now, if we will take down all barriers in the name of equality? Will the country get what it has been asking for? Will young female Soldiers now be forced to have male roommates, since sexual orientation is no longer an issue worthy of segregation, where living quarters are concerned? I see no difference in forcing a straight male to have a gay male roommate, than forcing a female to have a male roommate. It is sexual orientation that has them separated now, isn't it? How would you feel if your daughter went off to college, and when she was given her room assignment in the dormitory, she was forced to have a male roommate, and if she were to complain about it, because she was uncomfortable, she was labeled a bigot and a homophobe?

Posted by: ddowell73 | December 19, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company