Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:40 AM ET, 12/10/2010

New bill to end 'don't ask, don't tell' introduced in Senate

By Ed O'Keefe

Trying to revive one of the year's most tumultuous legislative endeavors, senators on Friday introduced a new bill -- with significant support -- that would end the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military.

The measure introduced by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) uses the same language authorizing an end to the ban that was included in an annual defense bill that failed a procedural vote on Thursday.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) are cosponsoring the measure and other senators are expected to sign on throughout the day, according to Senate aides not authorized to speak on the record.

Lieberman and Collins first hatched their plans during Thursday's vote on the defense bill, concluding that a standalone measure would ultimately succeed if introduced after senators vote on tax cut legislation. Lieberman approached Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to discuss the bill. The leader, who reluctantly called the procedural vote to jumpstart the Senate calendar, promised Lieberman that he would co-sponsor the bill and introduce it later under a rule that permits the majority leader to bypass the committee process and introduce bills to the full Senate, according to multiple aides.

President Obama signaled his support for the new bill Thursday by e-mailing his campaign supporters and asking them to lobby Republicans who voted against moving forward with the defense bill.

Despite Obama and Reid's support and assurances from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the House will also vote on the bill, it remains unclear when or how it will be considered, if at all.

Democratic Senate aides suggested a Senate vote could come as early as late Tuesday or Wednesday after senators vote to proceed with tax cut legislation on Monday. But senators also have to vote on a trillion-dollar government spending bill and may also consider the New START Treaty -- a bill that White House aides privately concede holds more priority.

"There's no doubt that this process is complex but this can get done," said Fred Sainz, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, a group pushing to end the ban. "It should get done. It will simply require the dedication and creativity of all parties."

Supportive senators insist they should continue to fight in part because Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen want Congress to end the ban this year and allow the Pentagon to phase out enforcement of the ban in an orderly fashion.

Speaking Friday on a flight home from stops in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Gates said he was "disappointed" by the Senate's failed attempt to move forward on the bill, adding he hoped they would try again before adjourning in the coming days.

"If they are unable to do that," he told reporters traveling with him, "my greatest worry will be that then we're at the mercy of the courts and all of the lack of predictability that that entails."

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

By Ed O'Keefe  | December 10, 2010; 11:40 AM ET
Categories:  Congress, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Four soldiers hitch a deluxe ride home with Gates
Next: What's the future of 'don't ask, don't tell'? (Video)

Comments

This is how all legislation should be written and passed. The idea of burying controversy in omnibus legislation may be a big part of why Congress (particularly the Senate) accomplishes so little of note.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 10, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Old Uncle tom - You are so right. If a bill is about extending an interstate highway, it should not contain wording that would create a new national park or even a new parking lot at the White House.

Posted by: DavidinDallas | December 10, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

While I do agree that bills should be seperated it was not part of an "omnibus bill". It was a part of the Defense Dept FY11 Budget Bill so it isn't as far fetched. I mean I understand the point but the issue is that the Defense Dpt. will need to use Budget money to pay for "training" to implement the ending of DADT so it had some reason to be there.

Posted by: spartyinmd | December 10, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

This is outrageous. This stink-bomb bill is not wanted by anyone except homosexuals and their familiars. America spoke out in November and most of them said NO! to all things Obama. That includes this despicable repeal of DADT.

Lieberman is a menace to America's, great, military machine. He is probably so much for repeal of DADT because he has a few homosexuals in his immediate family.

DADT is Bill Clinton's greatest achievement in bi-partisan compromise and it works very well for 99.99% of everyone.

The only people who have problems with it is a tiny minority of homosexuals that cannot control themselves. They act out in violation of the policy and ruin it for everybody. They are the types we don't want in the military, in the first place.

DADT works very well, even in unintended circumstances. DADT should be preserved.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 10, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

This is not rocket science. DADT discriminates against gay Americans in the military.

Vote to repeal DADT, and then look ar reinstating those who have been discharged because of this action.

Posted by: COWENS99 | December 10, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

battleground51,

Well, you are plain wrong. DADT is opposed by over 75% of Americans, and the same amount think it should be repealed.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | December 10, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I was mistaken to believe that heterosexual soldiers would retain the right to shield their bodies from the eyes of anyone who could take a sexual interest in them.

DADT works because gays and lesbians pretend they're straight, and straights pretend their privacy is not being violated.

Only slave owners have the legal right to view the naked bodies of people to whom they can become sexually attracted. I thought the senate would decline to re-instate "droit de seigneur" in North America.

I thought a lot of things.


Posted by: blasmaic | December 10, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that "battleground51" is a captive of his own issues with regard to LGBT individuals, and has erected a structure of delusion to support his/her personal views.

Happily, these folks are a small and shrinking minority of Americans.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 10, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Not only does DADT discriminate, it costs the US a lot of money, training and skilled manpower that it discharges. It also discourages talented people from enlisting.

Posted by: BootmanDC | December 10, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

As a US Marine, I'm caused to ask those opposed to this one question. Do you honestly think we don't serve side by side now?

Allowing for open service will only allow us to form a stronger bond with one another and become more trusting of those we serve with at any given time.

It is sheer ignorance to believe that in 90% of the cases we don't already know who is or isn't gay/lesbian. Allowing open service won't facilitate anything monumental as far as unit discipline. The same codes of conduct that exist for us (heterosexuals) will be applied for homosexuals as well.

Posted by: jasonburgess | December 10, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

This is outrageous. This stink-bomb bill is not wanted by anyone except homosexuals and their familiars. America spoke out in November and most of them said NO! to all things Obama. That includes this despicable repeal of DADT.

Lieberman is a menace to America's, great, military machine. He is probably so much for repeal of DADT because he has a few homosexuals in his immediate family.

DADT is Bill Clinton's greatest achievement in bi-partisan compromise and it works very well for 99.99% of everyone.

The only people who have problems with it is a tiny minority of homosexuals that cannot control themselves. They act out in violation of the policy and ruin it for everybody. They are the types we don't want in the military, in the first place.

DADT works very well, even in unintended circumstances. DADT should be preserved.
*****************************************
Either you've got your head in the stand or you're a flat-out liar.

Support for doing away with DADT is anywhere from 55% to 75%, depending on the poll. A minimally informed person would know this.

You wouldn't have a clue as to how well DADT works unless you're a homosexual yourself.

You hate queers. Save yourself some keystrokes next time and just admit it.

Posted by: st50taw | December 10, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Looks suspiciously like some of the higher ups ~ e.g. Lieberman, Reid, couple of generals, want to know real bad who the gay blades are in the military. They've even got Gates telling us how bad it is if we don't know who they are ('cause you're gonna' know that right up front ~ 'cause they wanna' know too ~ advertising pays when it comes to gaydom).

Wonder why that is?

You don't suppose they are doing this for personal enurement?!?!?!?!

Posted by: muawiyah | December 10, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

battleground51 wrote:
"This is outrageous. This stink-bomb bill is not wanted by anyone except homosexuals and their familiars. America spoke out in November and most of them said NO! to all things Obama. That includes this despicable repeal of DADT."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

1) Your first mistake… It was the Dark Ages Biologically Ignorant Vatican, NOT America that is against repeal of DADT.
2) You, apparently, do not know that sexual orientation, behavior, physiology is DETERMINED by genotype and endocrinology. ANY male who doesn't experience a burst of testicular testosterone during a narrow time span at about the time of birth ---will not exhibit male sexual behavior.
3) Above all ---you probably believe that you are created in the image of Godl (God forbid) and if so…. you should also acknowledge that the same God who created you created Gays!

Go back to school and enroll in Biology!

(Yes, I am a prof emeritus, Reproductive Biology!, and a retired Naval Aviator)

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 10, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Also, I am not gay.

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 10, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm speechless. Disgusted and appalled doesn't cover it. I'm truly ashamed of this country. What's even more shameful is that these men and women are willing to die for a country that treats them this way whilst ~god fearing conservatives~ mostly sit around on their asses and listen to a fat drug addict draftdodger (Limbaugh) for their marching orders. F*ck them.

Posted by: DrainYou | December 10, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

@ lufrank1

2) You, apparently, do not know that sexual orientation, behavior, physiology is DETERMINED by genotype and endocrinology. ANY male who doesn't experience a burst of testicular testosterone during a narrow time span at about the time of birth ---will not exhibit male sexual behavior.
==============

An opportunity to learn something! Do you have any suggested reading where I could learn more about your statement?

Thank you for your service.

Posted by: bob53 | December 10, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if it is really more than 60,000 service personnel that are LGBT (from one estimate I read)?

What would be the impact if all of them came out tomorrow? What would be the impact if thousands of their fellow service personnel staged a "Spartacus" moment in support of this?

I don't recommend this, nor do I believe that the dedicated men and women of our armed forces would take the chance, but it is interesting to speculate.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 10, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The polls that are raved about by the pro-homosexual media are known to craft numbers in a liberally biased way. They are paid to do that.

The only poll I trust besides the mid-term elections is Gallup and it is slightly liberal. A Gallup poll of a few weeks ago asked Americans about their interest in a few of the lame-duck, Democrat issues. here are the results:

Repeal of DADT was of interest to only about 30% of Americans.

Same with the AMNESTY scheme known as the DREAM act.

Both these issues are liberal, stink bombs that have been hyped up by the Democrat media to seem really important. This is commonly referred to as propaganda.

Even the White House sponsored poll of the military was cooked to give the Obamacrats the numbers they wanted. Only about 28% of the soldiers even responded. I don't know how they crafted their poll but it stinks like rotting fish. I work for a multinational corporation. They have corporate-wide surveys and they do not consider a survey successful unless they get responses in the 90% range.

McCain knows what happened and that's why he is so upset with the Obamatons.

This whole deal is an illusion. I hope there are not enough stupid Democrats and RINOs to fall for this flim-flam.

That's a stretch hope, I realize.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 10, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes I wonder if the Wapo intentionally hires trolls to comment on the discussion boards to keep things lively.

Comments like those from battleground51 seem to be so ignorant and uneducated that one must wonder how they learned to use a computer.

In any case, wouldn't these flame trolls be more at home on Redstate or simply sitting in front of a tv drooling over Glenn Beck?

Posted by: 8-Man2 | December 10, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

@ 8-Man2,
No, these sociopaths (battleground51) represent the dumber than a bag of rocks Republican base (Teabaggers). These are the same mental midgets who have been going out and protesting for their right to get screwed over (Tax Cuts for the Rich) by America's corporate oligarchy.

Posted by: DrainYou | December 10, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse


Now that this repeal of DADT is no longer tied to the defense spending package, it will be even harder to get votes for repeal than it was before. Jim Webb (D-VA) has said he opposes repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This repeal will not stand on its own.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 10, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

It might have been a good idea in 1993, but we've moved on as a country now. National tolerance of gays and lesbians has gone up significantly, and the vast majority of Americans are totally fine with them giving their lives to defend us. Why are we still talking about this? Do it.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | December 10, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest here. Ask the Republicans these two question: One, we've been at war since 2002 (8+ years), so, exactly, how long do you think we'll be at war? Two, when that time comes and the war is over, will you vote to repeal DADT?

Posted by: RWLA | December 10, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse


Good luck Dims getting this repeal bill on the agenda now. Bernie Sanders the Socialist has been talking on the floor of the Senate for the past six hours.

There were only six days left in the lame duck session of the Senate, but now thanks to Bernie there are only five days left. Sanders used up an entire day with his speaking.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 10, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

If this bill passes to repeal Don't Ask
Don't Tell I will KILL MYSELF
Sick of being bullied by the Corrupt System
Deviancy is Taking up all of our energies, money, time and Killing our Youths!

Posted by: boski66 | December 10, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

.

Hey Democrats,

Posted at 11:20 PM ET, 12/ 9/2010
Bill Clinton, back in the White House briefing room
By Perry Bacon Jr.

Updated: 5:16 p.m. Dual Status

President Bill Clinton made a highly unusual appearance at the White House Friday afternoon, emerging from a meeting with President Obama to endorse the tax-cut agreement Obama reached this week with congressional Republicans.

"The agreement taken as a whole is I believe the best bipartisan agreement we can reach," Clinton said in the White House briefing room with Obama standing beside him. Clinton's backing could help Obama persuade many in his party who are currently opposing the agreement.

The scene was remarkable. The two presidents appeared at the podium together. Obama then left for a meeting, while Clinton remained, taking questions in a news conference carried live on CNN.

"You're in good hands," Obama said.

BYE BYE

DEMOCRATS

.

Posted by: kstobbe1 | December 10, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Ohhhhhhhh, Boski 66 and Battleground51, put a cork in it!!! DADT is on the way out, either by Legislature, the Courts, or Executive Order. And Boski, if you are intent on killing yourself, do it quickly and please don't leave a mess!

Posted by: dakotahgeo | December 10, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

If the first bill failed (Thanks!!), why would anyone believe the second bill with identical language will pass?

Allowing gays to serve openly is a BIG MISTAKE!!

NO REPEAL OF DADT!!!!

Posted by: momof20yo | December 10, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm suspicious. I've had this unshakeable notion that repeal of DADT is a foregone conclusion and what is really intended is a sneaky way to reinstitute the draft. We need a draft but we don't need a bunch of homosexuals running willy-nilly around recruit billets, creating havoc and as well as a plethora of courts-martial. Our combat soldiers don't want perverts in their ranks and they'll probably leave the service en masse if this travesty happens.

Posted by: Armyvet4 | December 10, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

The idea that gays serving in the military is a threat to our troops disrespects and dimishes our brave men and women in the armed forces. Obviously we were all born with the physical ability and desire to procreate: the only real question is expressing one's sexuality APPROPRIATELY. To imply that those who serve are unable to control sexual urges is ridiculous. There have been cases of sexual misconduct with heterosexuals in the military...they have been charged (albeit inconsistently) and should continue to be charged...
To prevent anyone from serving who is willing is shameful. We might need to adjust the mindset of some who equate bravery with sexual prowess and force to one which instead has the expectation of excellence, unit loyalty and self control.
It always amazes me that the obvious in our national discourse is obscured by the tendency to use controversy and litmus tests and then look for citizens to line up with red or blue...We cannot continue to do this.
Strong religious beliefs do NOT give one the right to impose those beliefs on others!!!

Posted by: indie950 | December 10, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

More than twenty years ago I visited Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C., where in the same row as J. Edgar Hoover and his companion Clyde Tolson is a grave with a tombstone I never forgot.

The black granite headstone bears the epitaph, “They gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” It is the grave of Leonard Matlovich, an American Air Force hero who showed exemplary bravery and love of his country; having volunteered for three tours of duty in Vietnam and earning numerous citations and medals, including the Purple Heart — only to be discharged from the Air Force for being gay. (He died on June 22, 1988.)

Wouldn’t it be high time for America in the 21st century to end this ugly policy of discrimination embodied notably, alas not exclusively, by those who claim to be the party of Abraham Lincoln.

As Albert Schweitzer said, “Ethics are complete, profound and alive only when addressed to all living beings. Only then are we in spiritual connection with the world. Any philosophy not respecting this, not based on the indefinite totality of life, is bound to disappear.”

Posted by: patrickconway | December 10, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I do not get it. The majority of the military out there fighting the war feel repealing the law will have no impact on them. The top officials in the military want it repealed. The majority of americans support the repeal.There is a majority vote for it in both the house and senate. Why can we not get things done in congress that most want. Good move to separate the bill out that way we can see where people stand and who the sneaks are.

Posted by: ddmacpp | December 10, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob Obama has already admitted he has no power to rescind the DADT law by using an executive order. Barry the inept bungler has already said he cannot overrule a law passed by Congress.

As for the courts the Supreme Court refused to hear a constitutional challenge to Don't Ask Don't Tell a year ago. It is up to Congress to decide, and Congress already decided to keep the existing law on the books not repeal it.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 10, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse


Hello,

Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site==== == http://www.1shopping.us/ ,

good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15

New era cap $12

accept paypal and free shipping

====== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Posted by: shoestrade30 | December 10, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

The armed forces represent the last bastion of values and discipline not completely subject to the socialist/secular mantra. Analysis of a FY 2009 study found that of all the sexual assaults in the military, 8.2% of them were same-sex in nature. Comparing that to the general civilian population, homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults relative to their population. Most of these assaults were men fondling or attempting oral sex on other men while the victim slept or was intoxicated.

A September 2010, CDC fact sheet shows men having sex with men account for 48% of all HIV cases in the United States. While men having sex with men account for only 4% of the entire population, they are 44 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. In setting public policy, both commanders and politicians must remember that these are blood-borne diseases. What will commanders do about blood transfusions on the battlefield?

The democrat attempt to bum rush Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the Defense Appropriations Bill before the ongoing survey by DOD is complete was a power play to force the armed services into a politically untenable situation to satisfy a perverted minority and constituency. This lifestyle is inimical to the good order and discipline of the armed forces.

Like millions of other Americans, I refuse to allow my government or any politician impose a perverted lifestyle on me or mine in the name of “tolerance.” I support other Americans who are against alternative lifestyles. I do not care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors so long as they are responsible for the consequences and do not force others to submit to their ideology or pay for their mistakes.

Lt. Gen. Bostick’s support for rescission of DADT violates his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the Unit-ed States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As seen above, the homosexual lifestyle is inimical to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. General Bostick and others are part of the problem and unfit for command. He and others like him need to find other work, as do the political perverts who want to rescind DADT. Therefore, your “NO VOTE” is required against further attempts to rescind DADT.

Posted by: call6603 | December 10, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Question: with repeal of DADT, are we setting ourselves up for more Bradley Mannings, who get a little peeved at their situation and dump more classified on the Net?

Posted by: chasbrow | December 11, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

On the Subject of DON'T ASK DON'T TELL.
If you're going to battle would the first question be:Are you gay? NO! It would be "Hope you can shoot straight" It seems the few who don't want them in have been having their way lately. No where in the Constitution does it say that gay people can't serve. My simple solution...if you don't want to serve with gay people, DON'T SERVE. If you want to serve then get used to it. I hope this Congress can repeal this act becase I don't want the courts to settle it and I don't what this next president to over ride an executive order. Either way, this law is going to go either by the Court or by Congress.

Posted by: jhawkerfan | December 11, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse


I have no idea other than to advance the gay agenda/normalization of gay sex as to why this bill should pass. I seriously doubt the American military will crumble unless gays can openly serve. I mean wierdo senate gals from NY and Maine are in a tizzy over this and Joe Lieberman wants to give up the holidays to make sure gays can announce their gayness in military baracks. I'm not afraid of anyone but the Senate is starting to make me phobic.

Posted by: dboc_991 | December 11, 2010 2:30 AM | Report abuse

The homosexual lobby would have you believe that repealing DADT will be the end of it. It won't. As soon as DADT is gone, homosexuals will demand quick promotions, special privileges, and "reasonable accomodations." While all of the pro-homo posters here insist that "75% of Americans want DADT repealed," every time a plebiscite on "gay marriage" occurs, it's rejected soundly. Will homos be entitled to "reasonable accomodation" when someone decides that he can't be fully "free" without sex-change surgery? If he changes his mind years later will taxpayers (via VA) be required to pay for that, too? I can just hear it: "We'll get to your air-sucking chest wound, sergeant, as soon as we're finished fashioning a penis for this man trapped in a woman's body." Some Army that'll be; try selling it to the middle Americans and Mexicans who are actually doing the fighting & dying.

Posted by: wisnosky1 | December 11, 2010 6:37 AM | Report abuse

battleground51, I find your comments really fascinating. What is it about our military men and women that makes them so susceptible to falling completely apart when serving next to people they know are gay or lesbian? This happens every day in the private sector without any problems or issues. I have worked in several jobs with openly gay employees and none of them have ever caused any discipline or productivity problems in the workforce. Are you saying that our soldiers are so undisciplined that a gay person in their midsts would create havoc and chaos? If so, then the military has far greater issues to address than worrying about gays and lesbians wanting to server their country without fear of persecution or prosecution.

Posted by: dlpetersdc | December 11, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

It is very refreshing to have a senator propose a stand a lone bill with out a lot of extra amendments to provide political cover. Make the sob vote up or down, in public, that's what they are paid to do. As far as dadt, simple, DRAFT! everyone!
Young, old, ugly, pretty, does'nt matter.
Give them a minimum two year enlistment, after basic training. After a couple of years [ or sooner], of this type of military, dadt won't seem that important. To anyone.

Posted by: Rightthinkingkindofguy | December 11, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

to all the liberal democrats and republicans,throw DADT in the garbage where it belongs and bring back the draft,but first close the borders with canada.lets find out how much these liberals who know NOTHING about the military react.(US NAVY VET 1963-1967)

Posted by: SISSD1 | December 11, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

There is a simple problem solving answer which will immediately and quickly end all corruption statements, twisting of facts. Just quickly end the agenda quest on either side of DADT - and provide too. There not be requirement for significant outlay of money on retraining of military personnel so all become adaptive to open Gay in the military. Its a simple answer resolving every thing and requiring no futher debate brawling between opposition sides. Congress draft and pass legistation which accomplishes: That all people in the military wanting to leave the military because of allowing open Gays in the military. Be allowed to leave the military under honorable discharge condition. Such people also retain all their veteran earned rights. They also be given "buy out" money for time now not to be served on their enlistment contracts. In cases where they are already in reenlistment status, or career designated status otherwise. Such people receive a "buy out" for their early separation/departure from military service. Much in same follow principle now used by major corporations in their restructure. In cases where service connected injury is still present to a person - that person carries continuation of medical needs requirements back into civilian life for duration of their medical attention needs at full cost payment by the U.S. Government. It also be pro-rated that for time served. Education tution benefits would be maintained and received by personnel exercising this discharge option. I think suffice theme outline is here to allow clear grasp and following of the "bounching ball". End result is then everyone then remaining in military service, or later joining military service. Is full aware and accepting that "gay lifestyle" is now a reality part of military service. They then are expected to be fully accepting and proactive in carrying out. What then shall be military rules and regulations accomodating this creation of a new military exist in a new American history. I, for one, think this new military will be a lesser able and capable military. It will become the vision military of President Obama, SecDef Gates, Adm Mullen, lots of liberal members of Congress, the applause chorus of liberal mainstream news media, etc and etc. But as with this, as with everything in the verdict end. The United States of America will receive exactly what kind of military it rightly deserves by karma result of the actions we take or fail to take as a nation. Our national leadership today in America is "children level minded" and lives in a realm of surreal imagines. Children mind people - plentiful in corruptions of morals,intellect lackings, agenda items preversions, and with no seeking of quest to be unright in their soul before God. Have become our national elected and appointed leadership. Karma happens!

Posted by: jhnpeppers | December 11, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

There is a simple problem solving answer which will immediately and quickly end all corruption statements, twisting of facts. Just quickly end the agenda quest on either side of DADT - and provide too. There not be requirement for significant outlay of money on retraining of military personnel so all become adaptive to open Gay in the military. Its a simple answer resolving every thing and requiring no futher debate brawling between opposition sides. Congress draft and pass legistation which accomplishes: That all people in the military wanting to leave the military because of allowing open Gays in the military. Be allowed to leave the military under honorable discharge condition. Such people also retain all their veteran earned rights. They also be given "buy out" money for time now not to be served on their enlistment contracts. In cases where they are already in reenlistment status, or career designated status otherwise. Such people receive a "buy out" for their early separation/departure from military service. Much in same follow principle now used by major corporations in their restructure. In cases where service connected injury is still present to a person - that person carries continuation of medical needs requirements back into civilian life for duration of their medical attention needs at full cost payment by the U.S. Government. It also be pro-rated that for time served. Education tution benefits would be maintained and received by personnel exercising this discharge option. I think suffice theme outline is here to allow clear grasp and following of the "bounching ball". End result is then everyone then remaining in military service, or later joining military service. Is full aware and accepting that "gay lifestyle" is now a reality part of military service. They then are expected to be fully accepting and proactive in carrying out. What then shall be military rules and regulations accomodating this creation of a new military exist in a new American history chapter. Everyone, for the most part, on either side of DADT gets what they want. We then remain at peace with one another insofar as we are able to maintain that peace and civility towards one another

Posted by: jhnpeppers | December 11, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"I do not get it. The majority of the
military out there fighting the war feel repealing the law will have no impact on them. The top officials in the military want it repealed. The majority of americans support the repeal.There is a majority vote for it in both the house and senate. Why can we not get things done in congress that most want. Good move to separate the bill out that way we can see where people stand and who the sneaks are."

Posted by: ddmacpp | December 10, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some reasons you may not be "getting it":
1) The majority of the fighting military are not in favor - only 28% returned the ballot
2)Only SOME of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in favor
3)The mjority of Americans are not in favor - depends upon the polls
4)"Most" do NOT want this bill.
I agree that this bill should have a stand-alone vote - standing alone it will fail!

Posted by: thornegp2626 | December 11, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

To Marine jasonburgess, regarding your question, "Do you honestly think we don't serve side by side now?" The answer is yes, and the answer has always been yes. But those homosexuals who have stuck around have kept their sexuality quiet, they've been discreet. And, by the way, that's how soldiers, sailors, and marines have found the civilian population in most ports of call .. but not all.

Certain visited cities have large gay populations where gays openly flaunt their sexuality and feel free to openly proposition and even inappropriately touch targeted soldiers, sailors, and marines. The gay population sees it as an okay thing to do .. But those who have been frequently targeted don’t see it that way at all and are likely to develop downright homophobic attitudes. But .. At the end of the day they can return to their ships and bases, sanctuary if you will, where they can feel comfortable in knowing they won't be targeted in this manner.

But .. To repeal DADT is to invite homosexuals in the military to openly flaunt their sexuality. For those who are straight there will be no sanctuary, no way of getting away from these folks (currently women can find sanctuary in their quarters from men - and vice versa). To repeal DADT is to open the military up to a whole new set of problems, not the least of which will be associated with the recruiting of young men and women, the potential soldiers, sailors, and marines of our military services.

Posted by: kcooper35 | December 11, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

dlpetersdc wrote
"What is it about our military men and women that makes them so susceptible to falling completely apart when serving next to people they know are gay or lesbian? This happens every day in the private sector without any problems or issues. I have worked in several jobs with openly gay employees and none of them have ever caused any discipline or productivity problems in the workforce.
- - - - - - - - -
My guess is your resume does not include any miitary experience, and I am guessing again, your work experience never involved killing someone or avoiding being killed.
So, please go to some forum where you have expertise.
"Fudge hitting the Fan" does not include paper-cuts! :-)
When the guys on the Line want this bill passed, it will get my vote too.
Not until!!

Posted by: thornegp2626 | December 11, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Repealing DADT is a social experiment with out an upside for the country. When you join the military, you give up many rights civilians take for granted. You don’t get to choose your unit members, who you work with, eat with, live with and are led by. Due to the higher standards of conduct, performance and discipline required due to the nature of the mission, the military discriminates constantly. If you’re fat, slow, can’t lead, follow or behave, you are put out. Discrimination, based on behavior, is good for the military and the country. Unlike race, homosexuality is behavior.

Repealing DADT will be a slap in the face to the majority of military members not yet convinced by the indoctrination of liberal society to the point of enthusiastic acceptance of those so proud to be homosexual. Forcing a “third sex” on commanders will add to the complexity of unit integrity and functional problems. Who does the openly homosexual room with? If you have only one homosexual in your unit, does he get his own room regardless of his lack of seniority? If you have two homosexuals in your unit, do they room together despite the clear-headed long standing policy of not rooming folks together that are sexually attracted?

Allowing open vocal homosexuals to serve will negatively impact recruiting, retention and the complexity of the military’s mission. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

Posted by: USMC03sje | December 11, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

OldUncleTom wrote:
"The idea of burying controversy in omnibus legislation may be a big part of why Congress (particularly the Senate) accomplishes so little of note."

Maybe you don't realize that DADT was enacted in 1993 in one of those omnibus laws? It was the Appropriation Act for FY 1994 in which we got DADT. President Clinton wanted to end the policy of the military of prohibiting gays, and end the policy of the military of directly asking personnel "Are you gay?". It was Congress that forced the DADT policy onto the military, and they did it by including DADT in the military appropriations.

So if you are against inclusion of 'non-germane' issues in laws (but only when it is about DADT), then you are against DADT because of one of two reasons:

1. You feel it is good and working as is (IOW - you are a homophobe); or

2. You don't want anyone serving in the military who doesn't look and think exactly like you (IOW - you are a bigot).

All homophobes are bigots, but not all bigots are homophobes. Thus you are a bigot, if not a homophobe.

And of course, the historic high use of the filibuster by the GOOPers wasn't the reason the Senate couldn't accomplish much during the last four years, was it? Tell us, old 'wise one', why otherwise couldn't the Senate function during the last four years, and especially during the current Congress, if it were not because of the GOOPer filibusters.

Posted by: critter69 | December 11, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

There's a strong lobby to repeal DADT. Unfortunately, attempts at lobbying from the opposing side are typically met with sneers and jeers (we're talking about 'politically incorrect' here). The great majority of our senators have no military experience whatsoever. They can only go by what they're being told. Senator McCain, a man with quite a lot of military experience, a senator who opposes repeal of DADT, is being strongly criticized for being 'out of touch'. Sure wish more of our senators had worldly experience where they could speak from a position of having been-there-done-that as opposed to getting most of their information from ‘politically correct’ sources. As for going by the results of a ‘survey’ of military opinion on the subject, it brings to mind what my saintly old statistician father-in-law used to say, “You tell me what you want me to prove and I’ll prove it for you”.

Posted by: kcooper35 | December 11, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

critter69 says, "All homophobes are bigots, but not all bigots are homophobes. Thus you are a bigot, if not a homophobe."

When you plumb the depth of the rationale for the repeal of DADT, this is as deep as the homosexual mind can go.

Sympathy for the homosexual point of view goes only as deep as the desire not to be character assasinated. That's why you hear ZERO public outcry for the repeal of DADT. The vast majority of the people won't speak up against it (for fear of being character assasinated) but neither will they stand up and speak for it.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 11, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

This is a portion of a Rasmussen study on the men of the military. These are the guys that have to endure being in showers with homosexuals that are leering at them. One other point, why not just put all the sexes in the same building and showers, that would save a lot of money? Its the same thing.

That doesn't mean that there won't be problems. As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., noted during Thursday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the review also found that 58 percent of Marines in combat units and 48 percent of Army combat troops feared that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" would have a negative or a very negative impact on the ability of their units to work together. America is at war and Washington has to address the concerns of combat troops.

"Morale wins battles," said Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which opposes a repeal. Like McCain, Davis objects to the fact that the Pentagon review never polled troops on whether they wanted to end the policy. "I wish that the question was asked pointblank -- repeal, yes or no."

The Department of Defense, for its part, is very aware that civilians control the military, not the other way around. Hence, its resistance to polling troops. But I must pass on Davis' observation that although most civilians favor ending "don't ask, don't tell," most civilians have not enlisted. "You're telling someone else what to do, but you would never ever consider joining the military. That's pretty hypocritical in my humble opinion," he said with military precision.

While he understands societal change, Davis added, "The military is about the team; repeal is about the individual."

Posted by: cobrajohn | December 12, 2010 8:55 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