Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:09 PM ET, 12/16/2010

Good news and bad news on DADT

By Greg Sargent

Harry Reid just talked to reporters about the timeline of don't ask don't tell, New START, and other last-minute initiatives. For those who want to see DADT repealed, there was both good news and bad news.

The good news: Reid appeared to commit to holding the vote on the stand-alone repeal bill. And he vowed to prolong the session if necessary to get it and other things done.

The bad news: He said he might not schedule the DADT repeal vote before Christmas. This has aides on the Hill worried.

Asked if he would bring up DADT repeal to a vote, Reid said: "I don't know if I'll bring it up before Christmas." But he also clarified that the Senate would hold a vote on DADT and START "before this Congress ends."

Even better, Reid added: "We are in session, if necessary, up to January 5th. That is the clock our Republican colleagues need to run out. It's a long clock."

One Senate aide involved with the talks points out, however, that not holding the vote on DADT before Christmas is taking a big risk.

"The problem is that we could lose votes with members not returning after Christmas," the aide tells me. "This would be extremely risky, particularly now, when we have the votes."

The worry is that all it would take to derail repeal is for two or three Senators who support DADT to fail to return to the Capitol. With the current count of Senators supporting DADT repeal hovering at around 61, there obviously isn't much room for error. Simply put, repealing DADT is not a huge priority for some Senators, even if they support it. So postponing the vote is a risk -- particularly when the votes are there to get this done right now.

This, among other reasons, is why Senator Joe Lieberman and some Senate aides want Reid to start the debate and vote on DADT repeal this weekend. There's no reason why it can't be double-tracked with the START treaty. And it would only take a few days. The only problem appears to be that the White House, as much as it wants DADT repealed, has placed a higher priority on START. So Reid is keeping the decks clear for START -- even if it puts DADT repeal at risk.

No question, it's great that Reid committed to the DADT vote. But let's face it, if the vote gets postponed until after Christmas, this is going to be a nail-biter right down to the wire.

By Greg Sargent  | December 16, 2010; 4:09 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House Democrats prolong their last stand
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

What makes you think you have Joe Manchin?


What makes you think you have 61? You aren't counting.


I think you are getting PLAYED.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 16, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Lucy, meet Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown, meet Lucy.

It's honestly all I can think of when I read this stuff.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 16, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Greg - great reporting.

Reid's a jerk. Not insightful but it can't be said often enough.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 16, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't delaying the START vote, run into more severe problems, if some Senators do not return after Christmas, since it requires more votes to pass than repealing DADT does?

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I thought START was on a double track with the omnibus? So wouldn't that have to be a triple track?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | December 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Was the original title of this post "Harry Reid needs to do DADT repeal before Christmas"? Let's hope enough pro-homosexual Senators do not make it back to vote then.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Liam -- fair question. The thinking is that New START is much more of a priority for Senators than DADT repeal is. they would come back.

Also, the thinking is that DADT repeal will not happen in the next session, and New START would...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 16, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, American politics is now being produced by Mark Burnett.

@Greg - hope this finds a space in day's roundup... one more study demonstrating how regular FOX viewers are uniquely and broadly misinformed...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/poll-fox-news-misinformation/

Posted by: bernielatham | December 16, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The clerks will still be reading the omnibus this weekend unless Dems pull it and pass McConnell's CR.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | December 16, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I wrote her off for the tenth time today...

Now c'mon you good people, you know you only have the votes because there won't be a vote. That was and still is the deal. Remember, posing isn't as easy as it looks.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Congress is supposed to go on break tomorrow

Pass the Continuing Resolution until Feb 18 and go shopping.


Thank you.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 16, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"DADT repeal will not happen in the next session, and New START would... "

That's correct. Drop START, approve a CR, and then repeal DADT.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 16, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I am almost certain that the Senate will not pass this repeal of DADT this year. Trying to rush this through without a thorough debate is as totally irresponsible as it is unnecessary. May cooler heads prevail on this; may the selfish partisan political efforts of the liberal left be thwarted in their attempts to tinker with the military as if it were just another societal entity.

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 which is adequate as is.

Posted by: denniscopson | December 16, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

From The Hill:


Republicans will paralyze the Senate floor for 50 hours by forcing clerks to read every single paragraph of the 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

Senate clerks are expected to read the massive bill in rotating shifts around the clock — taking breaks to drink water and pop throat lozenges — to keep legislative business on track, according to a Democratic leadership aide.


The bill is so long that it took the Government Printing Office two days to print it.

_________________________

Time to forget about MASSIVE SPENDING


Time to forget about the liberal agenda


Time to go home and let the American People be represented by the people they ELECTED.


The liberals have hyjacked the government


The liberals are out of their minds


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 16, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

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

Iraq War much?

Get a life or a brain Dennis.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 16, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

We have to ratify START now, if we are to have any credibility left on the world stage, when we talk about preventing other nations from becoming nuclear powers.

It will not matter one damn bit what sexual orientation we are, if all our descendants get wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.

We can only get away with playing Russian Roulette with Nukes, so many times, before we blow ourselves to smithereens.

Yes; repeal DADT, but for cripes sake, not at the expense of putting us on a path to where the entire world might get wiped out, once some megalomaniac comes to power, in some nation with massive amount of nukes at his command.

If the START agreement is not ratified now, it will not be ratified after Christmas, or when the Republicans return in January. There will not be enough votes to ratify it then.

What was it that Robert Oppenheimer said: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"?

Priorities people. Think clearly.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Yes; repeal DADT, but for cripes sake, not at the expense of putting us on a path to where the entire world might get wiped out, once some megalomaniac comes to power, in some nation with massive amount of nukes at his command."

In keeping with today's theme - What a drama queen!

Posted by: sbj3 | December 16, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

dennis: "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."

The Commandant of the Marine Corp should publicly thank the very first injured service member of the Iraq war. He is a retired Marine. He stepped on a mine, lost his leg, and was awarded the Purple Heart. And he's gay.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 16, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse


Gee Greg, still whistling past the graveyard are ye? Hmm. Can that nitwit Reid produce a quorum after Christmas? No. Does he have the constitutional authority to do so? No.

By the way somebody needs to inform Harry the horse's asp Reid he does not have until January the 5th either. This is the moron who leads your party Dims.

" The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January"

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 16, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I think SBJ just called Robert Oppenheimer "A Drama Queen".

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

On the List of Dumbest Things To Do


Obviously, trying to jam through the liberal agenda during a lame-duck session after a horrible election DEFEAT is first


But second is Michael Vick saying he wants to buy a dog.


Unbelievable.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 16, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I like how SBJ put electing homophobes John McCain and Sharron Angle ahead of gay rights, but now he keeps insisting that repealing DADT should take priority over ratifing the START treaty that will give the world it's best chance to bring the existential threat of nuclear weapons under control.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"I think SBJ just called Robert Oppenheimer "A Drama Queen".

I'm pretty sure he was dead before DADT was even around...

Posted by: sbj3 | December 16, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

So you admit that you called him a drama queen for warning about the existential threat that nuclear arms posed.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Getting START passed this session should be a much higher priority than DADT. Eventually the DOD will be forced by the courts to implement it, even if the new Senate can't get their act together.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 16, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

J. Robert Oppenheimer died in 1967 (sbj3 was obviously referring to Liam-still).

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 16, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"...if the new Senate can't get their act together."

This is one of the great questions we face, though not with a straight face, oops, I didn't mean to say that, don't ask.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Gee, and here I thought it was a politician's job to actually debate and vote on legislation. They have enough damn vactations and lobbying trips--far nore than the average American.
It's sad that the media doesn't even point out the fact that members of congress routinely leave town on their own accord completely disregarding their duty to govern the country. Very, very few Americans besides politicians have this luxury. Completely disgraceful!

Posted by: thadude33 | December 16, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"...I thought it was a politician's job to actually debate and vote on legislation."

Everyone's a comedian. Nobody thinks that and you don't either. Crony capitalism is a well oiled machine. Debate...you mean with words? Money talks. That used to be a joke, but the Republicans didn't think it was funny. The strict constructionists of the Roberts' Court said "Money Talks" is clearly legible in the US Constitution.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

A modern day politician's job is: once bought to stay bought.

Didn't you hear; five right wing activists on the Supreme Court have thus dictated?!

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Senator Wyden is going to have surgery on Monday to remove his prostate. The surgery will be in Baltimore. I wonder how long is the recovery?

I wonder if Wyden could come back for a vote on Wednesday.

Posted by: maritza1 | December 16, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

An Irishman abroad tells it like it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo

Still getting huge amount of hits on youtube since it was first posted on 12/7. now over a milliion views.

It is cathartic to listen to Dennis tell it like it is, but if the F word bothers you, don't watch the clip, because he uses the word, in the true Irish style, as a way to speak in bold typeface.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 16, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will try to tank DADT repeal by using "senatorial privelege" to require that other bills be read in full. If Republicans do make it so there can't be a fair and open Senate vote on DADT repeal before the break, voters should hold the GOP accountable.

The vast majority in several polls I've seen favor passing DADT repeal. Pass DADT repeal now.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 16, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid on the GOP upset with the earmarks in the omnibus:

"You can't have it both ways. If you go to H in the dictionary and see hypocrites, under that would be people who ask for earmarks but vote against them," he said."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 16, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"...voters should hold the GOP accountable..."

That was a joke. Right? Am I right? That was supposed to be funny, right?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to better understand why "the thinking" is that the START treaty, with its 2/3 requirement, would get ratified in the new session.

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 16, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"An Irishman abroad tells it like it is"

He is a malcontent, he can't appreciate things as being good enough.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

.

Hey Democrats,

Al Gore trumps $cashing$ his $20 billion dollar green check.

"President Barack Obama pressed 20 corporate chief executives."

Lobbyist's history:

Someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer.

BYE BYE

DEMOCRATS

.

Posted by: kstobbe1 | December 16, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse


the Tax Cuts Deal is a nail biter too.

The House is stalling once again.

And I agree, work until Xmas and then right after the 25th too
...but run the risk of Congressmen and Senators not returning. Not showing up for a vote is a political game that is always played.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 16, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

i agree with tiny..
pass the repeal and it CAN be done quickly.....

Then go back to START, that the Senate tabled this afternoon.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

The big issue is funding the government right now

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 16, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/happy_hour_roundup_148.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 16, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

So what they're fighting for is the right to ask someone if they're gay, or is it so gays can act like fairies while wearing their military uniform?


Posted by: lindalovejones | December 16, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Senators Reid, Feinstein, Biden, Daschle, Lieberman, Leahy, Kerry, even Ted Kennedy originally vote for DADT (signed into law by Bill Clinton) in 1993?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 16, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

What are the terms under which DADT can be repealed?
There's a whole lot more to consider than just taking a vote and declaring DADT "gone", and expecting any change to take place immediately.

How will the UCMJ be changed.....IF DADT is actually repealed? We haven't heard a word about that. Homosexuals will still have a code of conduct to which they must adhere. Gays won't be 'in charge' of the military services, they won't be the ones setting the new 'rules', even if they think they will be.
There must be new rules & regs for ALL soldiers. I'm more worried about those rules & regs to protect heterosexual soldiers from gay soldiers who believe any repeal of DADT would make them 'superior' to everyone else---even their company commanders. And yes, there WILL be homosexual soldiers who abuse a repeal of DADT for their personal agenda.

Posted by: momof20yo | December 16, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post homosexual article number 2,592


The Washington Post is not a news organization. It is a far left political activist organization.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 16, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse


Silly Dims, the voters have already held a party accountable: the Dims lost 6 senators in the last election.

The Senate already voted against repeal of DADT law TWICE this year. Once in September, and again just last week. Yet for some reason you get a professional WaPo Pollyanna like Greg Sargent still shilling for "repeal DADT" as if it is going to happen ... or even come to a vote in the lame duck session. Hilarious.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 16, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still "Yes; repeal DADT, but for cripes sake, not at the expense of putting us on a path to where the entire world might get wiped out, once some megalomaniac comes to power, in some nation with massive amount of nukes at his command."

"I like how SBJ put electing homophobes John McCain and Sharron Angle ahead of gay rights, but now he keeps insisting that repealing DADT should take priority over ratifing the START treaty that will give the world it's best chance to bring the existential threat of nuclear weapons under control."

What makes you think that the new START treaty will do any of the things you describe above? It may have some modest value in terms of our relations with the Russians and with verification and securing of their decommissioned nuclear stockpile (which they were doing anyway for their own reasons), but it has no value in terms of states such as Pakistan, North Korean and Iran, all of whom have or are pursuing nuclear weapons because it is in their national interest to do so.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 16, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The vote to repeal DADT is a no brainer, and needs no debate. Just do it.

I know the GOP and the ultra-conservatives in the U.S. are in favor of keeping a policy that is unconstitutional in place. But call them on it. If the repeal vote fails, let the courts impose a solution. Let's get on with it.

Posted by: ptgrunner | December 16, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse


WAPO HEADLINE: Reid abandons effort to pass spending bill

Hilarious Dims, would be better of to just listen to me instead of Greg Sargent.

Kiss "DADT repeal" goodbye.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 16, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

(START) has no value in terms of states such as Pakistan, North Korean and Iran, all of whom have or are pursuing nuclear weapons because it is in their national interest to do so.
Posted by: jnc4p | December 16, 2010 7:48 PM
----- ----- -----

Absolutely. Because he has completely failed to foil the ever-advancing Iran, Obama needs a foreign policy victory somewhere, anywhere. So he's chosen to highlight our capabilities and lessen them against Putin's.

Sometimes I think Obama is in some weird time warp. While he's failing miserably against the real time threats from Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, Obama strikes a deal with our old adversary, Russia.

Maybe it will impress somebody, somewhere, anywhere.

Posted by: marybel9999 | December 16, 2010 9:02 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

Posted by: shaiarra | December 16, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

DO XTIANS BOMB CLINICS etc? DO XTIANS SEND TERRORIST LETTERS TO THE US GOVERNMENT??? DO XTIANS ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON SAME SEXERS??? DID THE CHURCH START SLAVERY IN THE US AND EUROPE??? DO XTIANS QUOTE FROM A BOOK (BIBLE) THAT ENDORCES GENOCIDE?/ SLAVERY AND CHILD MARRIAGES TO ADULTS??? POLYGAMY??? INCEST??, A MAN IS ALLOWED TO SALE HIS WIFE AND KIDS INTO SLAVERY TO PAY OFF HIS DEBTS..STONEING TO DEATH DISOBIDIENT KIDS(CHILD
ABUSE)...GOOGLE: BIBLE RAPE LAWS ,the shock of whats it says about RAPE OMG....THE SONG OF SOLOMON (INCEST/PORNO ).....SOME FAMILY VALUE HUH, RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMANE PERIOD, HUMANE CIVILITY, NOT EXTREMISM WHICH ALWAYS ENDS IN INHUMANE PUNISHMENT.

ie XTIANS USE OF LEVITICUS ,BIBLE AND SHARIA TO BLOCK DADT REPEAL AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE CONTRACTS , THE US CONSTITUTION LAW DOCTRINE CALLED "FREEDOM OF CONTRACT" ALLOWS ADULT US CITIZENS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, XTIANS MIS-LEADING USE OF FOREIGN RELIGIOUS LAWS TO BLOCK BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL/CIVIL RIGHTS OF THOSE SAME SEX (XXY MALE/ INTERSEX )US CITIZENS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TREASONOUS, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THOSE RELIGIOUS LAWS ARE FOREIGN LAWS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES, NOT NATIVE AMERICAN LAWS THAT ARE THE ONLY RELIGIOUS LAW FROM THE USA, THE US CONSTITUTION FORBIDS BOTH FOREIGN/ RELIGIOUS LAWS BEING ENFORCED ON US CITIZENS, THEY FAIL THE HUMAN CIVILITY EQUALITY TEST , THEY PRESENT A "CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER" TO BOTH US CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS, HERE ON US SOIL PERIOD


COMITY (COMITAS) LAW DOCTRINE IS A RULE OF COURTESY, BUT NOT A RULE OF LAW,
RELIGIOUS/FOREIGN LAWS FAILS THE TEST OF EQUALITY/ BILL-CIVIL RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS, " In the exercise of one's religion one, CANNOT INSIST ON CONDUCT WHICH THREATENS important interest on the society in an UNREASONABLE MANNER. The courts must, therefore, BALANCE the Importance of a religious exercise claim against the State interest involved in a rule or practice which prevents or hinders the exercise 367US488,489. LEVITICAL/SHARIA DEATH LAWS ARE UNREASONABLY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS , OF WHICH THE FOUNDING FATHERS LEFT EUROPE BECAUSE OF RELIGION.

Posted by: shaiarra | December 16, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

gee whiz shaiarra, I just have to wonder why I didn't think of that...It is kind of like survivor guilt. I mean, why am I the lucky one?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 16, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

RELIGIOUS DEATH LAWS DOSE NOT PASS THE 14AMEND. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, LAW DOCTRINES OF [RATIONAL BASIS TEST 431US471,489 427US307,314, STRICT SCRUTINY 403US365, 405US330, 411US1,16-17 , COMPELLING INTEREST 394US618,634 AND SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION 411US1,28, INTERSEX/ XXY MALES IS GENETICS THEREFORE A RACE 379US184,191 AS ALCHEMY TEXT SAY THERE ARE THREE SEXES MALE-FEMALE-& HERMAPHRODITE CALLED THE REBIS SPICES WHICH IS BOTH THE OLDEST FROM WHICH "ADAM" WAS CREATED AS, AND WHAT MAN WILL BECOME AGAIN, SEE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ON GENETICS PROTECTIONS, AGAIN FORIEGN/ RELIGIOUS LAWS ARE NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMAN NOR A TERRORIST AND JIM CROW LIKE PERIOD

THE US CONSTITUTION 1ST AND 11TH US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

NO FOREIGN LAWS OVER US CITIZENS PERIOD,( RES IPSA LOQUITUR, RES JUDICATA) IT BARS THE INCORPORATION OF ANY FOREIGN LAWS INCLUDING RELIGIOUS LAWS (SHARIA-LEVITICAL- VATICAN etc) FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE they must be of HUMANE CIVILITY (SECULAR in purpose and effect see Law Doctrines ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE/ IN TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, BY ANY OF THE 4 SEPARATE POWERS (EXECUTIVE/ CONGRESSIONAL/ JUDICIAL AND BY VOTE OF THE US CITIZENS ) FOREIGN INHUMANE DEATH LAWS, IT'S PROHIBITED AND US CONSTITUTIONALLY INAPPROPRIATE

STATES CAN NOT CONSIDER FOREIGN LAWS (ART.1sec.9Cl 3& sec10 Cl 1&3) ( RES JUDICATA )

AS THE US CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS INAPPROPRIATE LAWS WHICH ARE NON-SECULAR HUMANE CIVILITY IN THEIR PURPOSE AND EFFECTS ON US CITIZENS, SHARIA-LEVITICUS ARE NOT SECULAR
SEE BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO, ART.1sec.9Cl 3& sec10 Cl 1&3 " NO STATE SHALL...ENTER INTO ANY TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION.....NO STATE SHALL...ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT OR COMPACT WITH ANOTHER STATE, OR WITH A FOREIGN POWER,....., 381US437,448, AS A RELIGIOUS LAW WOULD BE A SUBTLE JUDICIAL TREATY OF WHICH BOTH NO STATE NOR JUDGE CAN DO , BOTH FOREIGN /RELIGIOUS INEQUALITY/ DEATH LAWS-CUSTOMS ARE CRUEL,UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Posted by: shaiarra | December 16, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

It's going to get done. It shouldn't get done, but it will. Fifty years from now, when historians write about this lame duck session, it won't be earmarks, or taxes or START that gets the write-up. It will be gays in the military. This is a huge cultural crossroads, and not one for the better. For the first time in recorded history, a society is conferring legalized identity and the "civil rights" that go along with it on the basis of behavior. In addition, joining the military for the first time will have become a right. How many gays in the future do you think will be rejected because of flat feet, or poor eyesight? I suspect precious few. Not all change is good.

Posted by: senor100 | December 17, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

As a former officer with 24 years active duty service (retired in 2005), I cannot support full repeal of DADT. My objection is based solely on the impact to Unit Cohesion in front-line (i.e. helmets & rifles, boots on the ground) combat units. I suppose I could support a repeal for billets that aren't "front-line" which would open most of the Navy and Air Force, and about 30% of the Army. For those that aren't familiar with Unit Cohesion, it's the glue that holds small combat units together. It's a sort of bonding (emotional, but distinctly non-sexual) that occurs when small groups are put under extreme duress. Introduce the possibility of love, romance, sexual attraction (gay or straight) into these units, and Unit Cohesion will suffer.

Posted by: JohnR22 | December 17, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Typical of the worthless, incompetent and corrupt fools in the Democrat Congress.

Waste time and money on a hopelessly biased survey of the military, then claim it vindicates their position.

No debate, no actual thinking about how this might affect our military during a time of war, just plow ahead with what seems trendy and cool at the time.

The 111th will go down as these most irresponsible Congress in American history led by two absolute idiots, Pelosi and Reid.

Posted by: NoDonkey | December 17, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

This Congress lost its legal mandate from the people on November 2. Pass the CR and get out of town. The days of the 111th and the horrible damage it caused are thankfully done.

Posted by: Charley_XF | December 17, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

This Senate, repudiated by the voters, has no moral legitimacy. In the words of Oliver Cromwell:

Dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

Posted by: eoniii | December 17, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The messages sent to Washington on November 2nd: “We’re tired of your games. We’re tired of your spending. And we’re tired of your flaunting and ignoring the will of the people.”

The midnight, backroom deals and Christmas Eve votes by people who were voted out of office demonstrates how arrogant, unremorseful and unethical these charlatans truly are, and the sooner they’re gone from our sight, the better.

Robert J. Thorpe, author of “Reclaim Liberty: 3-Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government”

Please contact your State Representatives and ask them to support an “Application to Congress for a Convention to Propose a Federal Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.” Learn more at www.reclaimliberty.us “Laus Deo”

Posted by: ReclaimLiberty | December 17, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand the love for and allegiance to the gay community by Reid and other members of the US Senate. Obama's fielty to the LGBT community is documented in his behavioral patterns. When Obama first voiced his intention to repeal DADT, I gathered together my first hand information relative to gays in the military. Their presence has a negative effect on good order and discipline at every level. I sent a considerable amount of first hand evidence to the POTUS, the Chairman of the JCS, Adm Mullen, the Chairman of each service and to Senator Carl Levin expressing my opposition to gays serving in the military. NO RESPONSE-NONE! The latest breach in Good order by J. Assange's Gay PFC source should be enought to settle the argument once and for all. Gays lack the moral fiber to serve faithfully. The troops are opposed, the Chiefs are opposed and Americans with the exception of about 3 or 4 per cent are opposed. This is not a question of fairness; Gays are still free to PURSUE Happiness. They will not find it in the military.

Posted by: tomdavis1 | December 17, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand the love for and allegiance to the gay community by Reid and other members of the US Senate. Obama's fielty to the LGBT community is documented in his behavioral patterns. When Obama first voiced his intention to repeal DADT, I gathered together my first hand information relative to gays in the military. Their presence has a negative effect on good order and discipline at every level. I sent a considerable amount of first hand evidence to the POTUS, the Chairman of the JCS, Adm Mullen, the Chairman of each service and to Senator Carl Levin expressing my opposition to gays serving in the military. NO RESPONSE-NONE! The latest breach in Good order by J. Assange's Gay PFC source should be enought to settle the argument once and for all. Gays lack the moral fiber to serve faithfully. The troops are opposed, the Chiefs are opposed and Americans with the exception of about 3 or 4 per cent are opposed. This is not a question of fairness; Gays are still free to PURSUE Happiness. They will not find it in the military.

Posted by: tomdavis1 | December 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Repeal of DADT will be a disaster for the armed forces if homos & lesbians aren't totally banned from serving in
Uncle Sam's uniform.

Prior to the huckster from Hope, Willie, moving into the WH those pathethic creatures, homos & lesbians, were forbidden to wear the uniform.

In Viet-Nam some of us witnessed some of the problems letting sexual perverts serve
can cause.

In our platoon of infantry a replacement platoon sergeant joined the unit, Troop B, 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry, 101st Airborne Division. He did his duties well enough until one day one of our Vietnamese scouts complained the sergeant had made a pass at him. The sergeant was promptly removed from the unit. Had he not been removed, one of two results was highly likely: the Viet scout would have killed the sergeant, or the scout would have deserted.

Either event would have been very disruptive for a unit frequently closely engaged with the enemy.

Consequently, IMO, I a veteran of two tiours of fighting in 'Nam there's absolutely no place in the armed forces for these creatures.

No, not everyone has a right to serve in the armed forces. To begin with, persons too fat, too short, crippled or diseased may not serve, because they'd interfere with the effective operation of the armed forces.

Posted by: LoachDriver | December 17, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

and who will sargent be plumming to celebrate?

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | December 18, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

How can one be a lawmaker when one is a lawbreaker? Sodomy is against natural law. The Swiss are contemplating doing away with incest laws - are we next? We must rid ourselves of the lawbreaking Sodomites and their enablers/apologists once and for all.

Posted by: pjdjmj | December 19, 2010 12:16 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