Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:20 AM ET, 12/14/2010

Another shot at repealing DADT

By Jonathan Capehart

Fasten your seat belts. The don't ask don't tell roller coaster rolls again today now that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) have introduced a stand-alone bill to repeal don't ask don't tell (DADT) that will mirror a similar measure introduced in the Senate last week. If Congress doesn't want to outsource the job of military oversight to the courts, leaders will find the time for a vote and lawmakers will do away with the discriminatory statute before they leave the Capitol for Christmas.

The beauty of Hoyer's move is that, once passed, the bill would go over to the Senate as a privileged motion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would be compelled to move on it. Another good reason? The privileged motion allows the time to be cut in half. Only one cloture vote would be necessary to end debate, which should be limited for reasons I'll address in a second. Then an up-or-down vote would be held. With the chamber having gotten 60 votes to close debate on the bill, a voice vote most likely would be held. The measure would then head to President Obama for his signature.

There is no need for further debate on ending the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. The president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff want it done. The American people want it done. And an exhaustive and honest study of DADT repeal concluded that there would be no risk to the military if Congress took action and allowed the armed forces to implement the changes in a manner befitting its desire and need for an orderly transition.

If vocal opponents, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), succeed in standing in the way of the the president, the people and the military, then they better be prepared for the tsunami of criticism that surely will come their way when the courts bring an abrupt end to the discrimination they fought so hard to maintain.

By Jonathan Capehart  | December 14, 2010; 11:20 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Richard Holbrooke, a force of personality
Next: Michael Steele ruins the GOP's month


"There is no need for further debate on ending the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military."

Tell that to our brave men and women currently serving in combat.

I hope Sen. McCain succeeds in blocking repeal, and I hope Judge Phillips' ruling is overturned on appeal.

Posted by: jjlc125 | December 14, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Mr Capehart,

don't you "get it"? ======> you are (as usual) 100% WRONG.
NOBODY, other than the homosexuals who are currently "hiding in the armed forces", want "open service" by homosexuals OR want to be forced to be exposed to their perverse/homosexual BEHAVIOR.

it's past time to PERMANENTLY BAN any homosexuals from serving "openly" and/or requiring normal service-members from having to be exposed to the un-natural/peverse behavior of homosexuals.

forcing normal service-members (of either gender) to share living/bathing/dressing/toilet facilites with "openly serving homosexuals" is NO different, in any way, than requiring 17-20YO hetrosexual women to share similar facilites with 17-20YO hetrosexual men!

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 14, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

It is time to stop making our brave sailors, soldiers, and airmen a bunch of liars by having them be required to hide who they are. Homosexual people have been in all of the armed forces of the world for centuries. The only reason to force them to stay in the closet is to cater to bigotry and intolerance.

Posted by: kamdog | December 14, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I just don´t get what the big difference is between being looked at by a closeted or an openly gay person?

Even better: If you are a prude, you can even tell the openly gay person to please turn around.

Of course: Even before DADT, there were gay people in every military, so there were some when tn46 did time - aeh duty. If he had known, he´d been probably a bigger danger to them (as somebody openly homophobe) than they to him...

THATs something DOD policy has to address!

PS: Any statistics how many soldiers killed by "Friendly Fire" were gay? Reading the anti-gay-crowds statements, I´d not be surprised.

Posted by: om4n | December 14, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's just ban heterosexuals from serving openly in the military...we can have them serve but they just can't say they are heterosexual, and if they do, well sorry they have to be discharged because everyone knows that testostrone-ladden, chest pounding, macho-men wanna be heterosexuals are really unfit for duty and just become undone when the thought of someone getting a glance at their package crosses their small minds ...they just fall apart in combat too. Besides they cant keep their opants on and make such a display of strutting around in front of any woman they see trying to get laid...why don't they just stay in the closet?They are really a vile immoral bunch!

Posted by: soccerhead | December 14, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Dont Ask, Don't tell is not preventing anyone from serving honorably in the Military. It prevents the Military from asking about persaonal private behavior.

Repealing it would enable people that engaging in a behavior that most Americans find either immoral, or unnatural, to brag about it.

The repeal would endanger the teamwork and effectiveness of our people risking their lives for their country.

Posted by: howardmur | December 14, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Let's just ban heterosexuals from serving openly in the military...we can have them serve but they just can't say they are heterosexual"

Plus of course if word gets back to their units that they have been frequenting "teat-y bars" they should be tossed out of the service too, even if they've been quiet as mice.

Posted by: fzdybel | December 14, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse


tell us:
1.have YOU served in the armed forces?
2. have you lived IN an "open bay" barracks, with 50-100 other men/women (depending on your gender)?
3. can you HONESTLY say that you are "comfortable with" young women being REQUIRED to share sleeping/bathing/dressing/toilet facilities with young hetrosexual men?

IF you cannot honestly answer "YES" to each of those questions, you "have no dog in this fight" & you should just "butt out". further, if you answered "NO" to any/all of the 3, you don't understand the problem.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 14, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

om4n; all,

fwiw, "homophobe"/"homophobia" is a KNOWINGLY DISHONEST, made up "out of whole cloth", term of abuse for hetrosexuals, that is meaningful only to IMMORAL, arrogantly ANTI-religious (every major religion on planet Earth describes homosexual BEHAVIOR as forbidden, IMMORAL and/or a sinful act.) homosexuals & their "supporters" in the media. = "homophobia" does NOT exist.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 14, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

After the policy changes, we should just let whoever is unhappy with the new policy and not on active deployment leave. even if their term of enlistment isn't up yet. When all the people who care too much about what is going on behind other peoples' eyes are removed, "the problem" will cease to exist.

Posted by: fzdybel | December 14, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

@TN45, I served in the military, moved up the ranks, but kept my orientation mostly a secret because of intolerant people like you.

Many of the soldiers I befriended didn't care about the issue. And we all generally avoided the bigots, racists, sexists and especially the holy roller moralists.

There were gays definitely serving back then with you, as there is today, but they probably avoided your type.

Never-the-less, we salute you for your service, but your time is past as is this issue of discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Times are changing... first it was letting the blacks in, to the chagrin of the racists, then women in, to the chagrin of the sexists, now it's the homosexuals, to the chagrin of the homo-haters.

DADT has been and is a waste of time, a waste of good training costs, a waste of manpower and unneeded costs in kicking out good military personnel who want no more than just to proudly serve (and even die) for their country.

Posted by: vtmoreno | December 15, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse


well, i'm certainly intolerent of IMMORALITY & sexual PERVERSION, as i would hope that most normal people are.
(no matter how much you may wish that homosexual BEHAVIOR is acceptable to even a small percentage of the hetrosexuals in the USA, it is simply not so. - they may accept you as a PERSON but the vast majority of society believes that sodomy is DISGUSTING & PERVERSE.)

the FACTS are that i still have MANY friends on AD, who are horrified that there is even consideration being given to allowing homosexual BEHAVIOR in the US armed forces.

as you doubtless know (assuming that you actually served in the forces), the rules of behavior are NOT the same for servicemembers as they are for civilians.
as you doubtless know, "public displays of affection" are also punishable for hetrosexuals under the MCM/UCMJ.
(fwiw, i had a young 2LT under my command, who received a "Field Grade Article 15", from the Brigade Commander, for engaging in "public affection" with his own wife.= he KNEW that what they were doing was forbidden by regulations/UCMJ, but chose to engage in the public behavior anyway & "paid the price" for his conduct.)

those who choose NOT to obey the rules of service in the armed forces should STAY OUT of the armed forces. period. end of story.

a personal note to you: as "a person of color", i am DISGUSTED that anyone (at least those members of society, who have an IQ greater than "average room temperature") would even try to compare RACE/ETHNICITY to sexual PERVERSION.
no matter how much you may wish that BEHAVIOR is the same as "skin color", that is simply FALSE & believing that nonsense is a sign of your "emptyness between the ears".
(i cannot change the color of my skin; anyone can change their BEHAVIOR.)

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse


Funny, you make it sound like there is no opposition to this bill. You mention a lot of parties EXCEPT for the military men and women who are giving their lives at the front line.

When asked - the Marines who are engaged in actual combat state they DO NOT WANT THIS REPEALED and it will endanger their lives.

Should those voices be taken into consideration? Apparently not, based on your article.

You read like a "Party Line" journalist. State your case, leave out any arguments of the opposition.

Dan C

Posted by: DanielC2 | December 15, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I discriminate against people who remove the second "e" in heterosexual.

I think there's a better joke to be made about the link between homophobia and stupidity...

Posted by: genericOnlineID | December 16, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge'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