Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:13 PM ET, 12/15/2010

DADT repeal: Over to the Senate

By Jonathan Capehart

With ease and dispatch, the House of Representatives did what the Senate has failed to do -- twice: pass a bill to repeal don't ask don't tell (DADT), the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. Mind you, such legislation cleared that chamber in May as part of the defense authorization act. But by a 250-175 vote, including 15 Republican votes, the House voted to send a stand-alone measure to the upper chamber. Now the ball is in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hands.

As Greg Sargent wrote yesterday, "Reid must vow to hold vote on DADT repeal." So far, though, the gentleman from Nevada has been a bit reticent to say he will. See if you can make sense of what he said on the floor today from the unofficial transcript below.

WE HOPE THAT WE CAN COMPLETE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO HERE A DAY OR TWO AFTER SATURDAY. WE HAVE -- WHEN WE COMPLETE THE THINGS THAT I HAVE JUST MENTIONED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THE "DREAM" ACT. WE HAVE THE 9/11 ISSUE. WE HAVE -- WE'RE WORKING ON NOMINATIONS TO COMPLETE THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO IN THIS CONGRESS ON THAT. AND UNLESS THE SENATE -- I MEAN UNLESS THE HOUSE SENDS US SOMETHING THAT WE -- UNLESS THEY SEND US SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF AT THIS STAGE, I THINK I HAVE PRETTY WELL LINED OUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

Got that? No? Me, either.

Congress will never be as close as it is right now to repealing DADT. The House has done its job. The votes appear to be there in the Senate for passage -- if only Reid would vow to hold the vote. The president wants this done. The secretary of defense wants this done. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants this done. And once again, the American people (77 percent) have said gay men and lesbians should serve openly in the military.

During debate, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said he opposed repeal of DADT because it would "increase the risk on our soldiers in a time of war." Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said the House should not "put them into further jeopardy." And various other House Republicans decried the move to end DADT as an "experiment" being conducted on the armed forces by liberals with a social agenda. No. The concerted efforts to block repeal is a dangerous Republican experiment that pits Congress versus the courts.

If Congress doesn't act, the courts will. And they won't care about Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plea for discretion to implement an orderly transition away from DADT. That makes sense since courts are about the immediate end of harm to the aggrieved. If Congress, especially the pro-military Republican Party, truly cares about the armed forces, it will ensure that their leadership -- not a judge -- is giving the orders. And that can only happen if Reid holds a vote.

By Jonathan Capehart  | December 15, 2010; 5:13 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fox News on climate: Ignorant, manipulative -- or both?
Next: Reid, Kyl and the ridiculous 'war on Christmas'

Comments

Mr Capehart; all,

to Mr Capehart: MAYBE some activist judge will "repeal" DADT & perhaps (just perhaps) that will be a good thing, in the long run.

IF that should happen, we TEA PARTIERS, conservatives & other "right of center" voters will have one more point in our favor to LIMIT federal judge's ability to declare ANYTHING "Unconstitutional"
AND
also set the wheels in motion to start ELECTING all federal judges to ONE 6-year or 10-year term of office.

to all: it was NEVER intended by the authors of The Constitution that federal judges would be "the senior branch of government", much less that judges would be able to overturn the POTUS & the Congress, simply with a court order. = it was intended that the 3 branches would be EQUAL in power.
electing judges & OUTLAWING their use of "unconstitutional" orders would restore that BALANCE.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 15, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Olympia Snowe has pledged her support of the repeal. WE NEED ONE MORE VOTE TO REACH 60.

Then there's this: Reid made the decision to begin debate on the START Treaty, which does not yet have the 67 votes required for ratification, and (apparently) the DREAM act, which has even less support than the DADT repeal. If the clock runs out or Republicans decide to skip town, then DATA repeal will be dead for years to come--and Harry Reid will have been the one who screwed it up.

Posted by: burosh | December 15, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

A question to Mr. Capehart: If the House tax bill is passed tomorrow and it differs from the Senate version, won't reconciliation and a re-vote on the tax bill be required in both chambers? If that's true, then what can't Reid put the DADT repeal on the floor BEFORE the final tax bill vote? The Republicans will have to stay in town for that.

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

Has anyone insisted that General Amos spell out explicitly why he thinks having openly gay Marines would be destructive? What does he think they'd do?

Posted by: CarolAnne1 | December 15, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"MAYBE some activist judge will 'repeal' DADT."

You're a bit behind. That already happened. Now the only question is whether the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court will "un-repeal" it. Either thing is fairly unlikely.

Posted by: fzdybel | December 15, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

It must be passed before the half of the country represented by Republicans gets a voice. Do it NOW, while Democrats can still cram it down our throats.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | December 15, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

By this time next week, it should be done.

I'm sorry to say that Buck McKeon is my Congressman, because I did not hear a peep from him that was not either an outright lie, or a gross exaggeration. I think he will be getting different district boundaries after the census data comes in, and I hope that our new commission on districting puts him out of work in 2012.

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

Obama, your killing the Seniors. Taking our SS money and now making it a law that ygovt. will fine anyone who does not buy health insurance while the rich 2% are raking the bucks in.

Just want those of us to know that as an 83 year old who depends upon SS if I cannot get health coverage as it has been, you can put me in jail. How dare you take, bit by bit, our freedoms. I do not have a mortgage to pay but if the fine is to put a lean on my house because of this manditory health law - You can count on it, no vote for you in 2012 in my home.

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | December 15, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama, your killing the Seniors. Taking our SS money and now making it a law that ygovt. will fine anyone who does not buy health insurance while the rich 2% are raking the bucks in.

Just want those of us to know that as an 83 year old who depends upon SS if I cannot get health coverage as it has been, you can put me in jail. How dare you take, bit by bit, our freedoms. I do not have a mortgage to pay but if the fine is to put a lean on my house because of this manditory health law - You can count on it, no vote for you in 2012 in my home.

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | December 15, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Poltroons like Capehart predictably avoid the gritty truth of things.

Read carefully:

The "only" thing a combat soldier cares about is that every man in his platoon can keep a cool head, follow orders precisely, and is strong enough to pick up and run, with with a wounded buddy.

If a woman can pick up a downed soldier and a man can't, then I want the woman in my platoon - period - but she ain't gonna shower with the "guys" - in fact I've asked fellow female vets and to a woman, they would not want to barracks with the boys.

If you understand why the women generally don't want to barracks with the men, then you might want to apply that rational to "men" who don't wish to barracks with "homosexual men" - this doesn't demean or otherwise persecute the homosexual men any more than the straight guys are discriminated against for not being able to barracks and shower with the women.

Sex during a campaign is frowned upon in the military - now the gay lobby wants to make sure only the queers can have sex during a firefight.

Don't ask, don't tell covers a lot of things in the military. All soldiers, sailors and Marines are trained to keep their "personal issues" personal, or go see the Chaplain.

The gay activists (outside the military) are creating more problems for gays in the military than anything else - the urban smog-poisoned and bigoted Capehart is an example.

We don't need insipid activists screwing with combat moral - regardless of what their activating for!!!

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

We need more votes to defeat this, there is much more important things that should take priority over this or any amnesty bill.
You might realy want to seriously consider just how you plan to save our economy and get us out of debt instead of being poor losers because of the November Elections. Quit snubbing your noses, giving us the finger, shoving more por barrel spending down our throats because you lost. Your arrogance and ignorance of the message sent you in November will get you no where bur fired in 2012.
That goes for Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Socialist and Progressives alike, we don't realy care what you call yourself.

Posted by: jhnjdy | December 15, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Poor poor Capehart, he has drunk so much of the Obama koolaid that he cant see the forest for the trees. He honestly believes that his man crush Obama really wants DADT to pass. Do you think for a moment that if Obama really wanted DADT to become a reality that it wldve taken him this long to get it done. If he really wanted it he cldve just attached it to the tax cuts for republicans that HE REALLY WANTS and pass it that way. Your being strung along Capehart, its a pity your to inside the camp to see it. Obama is never going to repeal DADT as long as he gets campaign dollars for promising to do it.

Posted by: rbprtman23 | December 15, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

@ texasnative46

Your argument might be relevant if the federal courts were the final say in the matter. That final say belongs to the Supreme Court, and the devices that the authors of the Constitution created to keep the Judiciary equal were the powers of the Executive and the Legislature to nominate, consent and impeach the justices - or even amend the Constitution itself.

Can you not see that a Judiciary that must always defer to the will of the Executive and the Legislature is not actually an "equal" branch? It's weaker. The authors of the Constitution ABSOLUTELY intended for the judiciary to be able to overturn Congress and the President from time to time. The constitutional check is impeachment, not the ability to prevent the courts from making decisions in the first place. This is elementary school civics.

Posted by: malph | December 15, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Asking again: what is being repealed?

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

Posted by: qoph | December 15, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"If you understand why the women generally don't want to barracks with the men, then you might want to apply that rational to "men" who don't wish to barracks with "homosexual men" - this doesn't demean or otherwise persecute the homosexual men any more than the straight guys are discriminated against for not being able to barracks and shower with the women. "

What's the matter - you straight guys afraid that gay men might treat YOU the way YOU treat women?

I think you're a LOT more likely to rape each other. You are just a bunch of homophobes who don't want gay men in the military because you're afraid that everyone will think YOU'RE gay. Get over yourself!

Personally, I don't know why anyone in their right mind, gay or straight, would want to join the military; but cowardly homophobia is not a reason to bar gays from joining the military if they want to. They aren't the ones with the problem - YOU are.

Posted by: solsticebelle | December 15, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

From Ernst Julius Röhm (SS-Gay in the Nazi military) to Pfc Manning, the wikileak source...(Gay in the US Military).....you can find a lot of reasons why Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve at all.

1) The left cares not at all about access to the military they publicly despise

2) "Gays" in the military is to undercut the institution
...(just like Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the 'right' war to the left when Bush was in office, today Afghanistan is less loved by the left.....)

3) Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

4) Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...

This is the best the democrats can do at a time of war....put a Homosexual in the Military openly

Destroy the cancer known as Liberalism in 2012

Posted by: georgedixon1 | December 15, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Smarg | December 15, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Funny the RepuBPlican have not problem with tax cuts for the rich "...in a time of war."

Hatred of others and theocon bullying are "...a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God."

Posted by: areyousaying | December 15, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

* allegiance to the United States Constitution,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Posted by: shaiarra | December 15, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

solsticebelle...Being openly gay and expressing ones sexuality with another openly gay soldier in a combat zone would cause detrimental problems to the military. Soldiers witnessing under stress what they consider to be a immoral and disgusting act of sexual perversion just might decide to be the judge, jury and executioner. It detracts from the mission, causes undo worry on a soldier that he may contact Aids thru contact with blood, may cause a soldier to hesitate to save a gay soldiers life when wounded.
There are plenty of reasons why you could be wrong in your reasoning and could cause the death of not only Gays but all soldiers.
Get off your throne.

Posted by: jhnjdy | December 15, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Wow texasnative46, who taught you civics? It absolutely was not the goal to make all 3 branches of government equal - the executive was expressly intended to be the least equal. And the constitution expressly did *NOT* want judges to be elected, either. For all the protecting of the constitution you want to do, you appear to have never actually read it.

Posted by: jove4015 | December 15, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't the Washington Post release their poll results from the other day that show 69% of he population want some or all of Obamacare repealed? You expect me to believe 77% of Americans want packers and carpet munchers in he military? Give me a break.

Posted by: DaMan2 | December 15, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree w/ you Jonathan, the Senate should not leave w/o taking a vote to end DADT.

Posted by: yvette7825 | December 15, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh, look. Jonathan is repeating the White House spin about court invalidation. How insightful!

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 16, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: robertaviles | December 16, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

It's tragic that America still has Tea Partiers like TexasNative who put on their blinders, crawl into their insulated word of people who can't see the real world around them, hang onto prejudices, and refuse to seek the truth, only clinging to their biases.
When 77% of the troops and considerable majority of Americans accept the rights of gays, when the top brass and (Republican) Secretary of Defense and majority in Congress line up on the right side of this issue, why does TexasNative and the Tea Party want to drag us back into the 19th Century...??? I suppose, if they'd had the chance, they would still be fighting to keep slavery and deny women and blacks the right to vote.

I'm all for diversity, for differing opinions, but since when do we have to accept the Tyranny of the Minority?

I've served my country for my entire career and I'm sick of this continuing breed of neanderthals in what should be the most advanced, progressive democracy in the world.

As Obama says, "You're on the wrong side of History!"

Posted by: macodell | December 16, 2010 2:14 AM | Report abuse

It's tragic that America still has Tea Partiers like TexasNative who put on their blinders, crawl into their insulated word of people who can't see the real world around them, hang onto prejudices, and refuse to seek the truth, only clinging to their biases.
When 77% of the troops and considerable majority of Americans accept the rights of gays, when the top brass and (Republican) Secretary of Defense and majority in Congress line up on the right side of this issue, why does TexasNative and the Tea Party want to drag us back into the 19th Century...??? I suppose, if they'd had the chance, they would still be fighting to keep slavery and deny women and blacks the right to vote.

I'm all for diversity, for differing opinions, but since when do we have to accept the Tyranny of the Minority?

I've served my country for my entire career and I'm sick of this continuing breed of neanderthals in what should be the most advanced, progressive democracy in the world.

As Obama says, "You're on the wrong side of History!"

Posted by: macodell | December 16, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Who cares what Capehart thinks, he is the another token msnbc loony who makes no sense with any discussion. How did he get his job outside of some WP guilt feelings. Next thing Capehart will be espousing is reparations for the Civil War, which of course would be a big cause on mslsd. Go appeal to BigMouth Matthews or Crazy Olberman or No Viewers Ed, you're all in one boat and its heading for the falls.

Posted by: lorenzo2121 | December 16, 2010 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Wow texasnative46, who taught you civics? It absolutely was not the goal to make all 3 branches of government equal - the executive was expressly intended to be the least equal.

Posted by: jove4015 | December 15, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

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

Three branches unequal? Better check your history on that one. The three branches of government have built-in "checks and balances." How can one branch "balance" against another branch of unequal weight?

Typical error though. Supporters of repeal are smart, opponents of repeal are stupid.

Let me ask you this: since Israel allows gay soldiers and drafts women, should America also draft women if it changes to allow for gay soldiers too?

Feel free to correct any spelling and grammatical errors too.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 16, 2010 4:39 AM | Report abuse

After January 1, when the GOP takes control of the House and has more seats in the Senate, I hope the Democrats treat them in kind - obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, and then demand 60 vote majorities for all their legislation to pass. And if it passes, Obama can stand ready with the veto pen. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or two can play their little game. Democrats need to adopt the same GOP philosophy of "who cares about the county, we just want to hurt the other team". Apparently Americans don't mind, considering the fact they gave these miscreants control of the House. Yep, the GOP is against everything that's popular with the American public, but it doesn't seem to phase the GOP.

Posted by: ggwalt | December 16, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Partiers are right. Get the budget done, not this monstrosity of an omnibus bill that we have to pass to find out what's in it. Concentrate on this first and let the misguided START, DREAM ACT, DADT, etc. be fully debated, discussed, analyzed by the new Congress. The liberals have set the standard for rushing through legislation. They will squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans do the same.

Posted by: schmitt_fam | December 16, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Partiers are right. Get the budget done, not this monstrosity of an omnibus bill that we have to pass to find out what's in it. Concentrate on this first and let the misguided START, DREAM ACT, DADT, etc. be fully debated, discussed, analyzed by the new Congress. The liberals have set the standard for rushing through legislation. They will squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans do the same.

Posted by: schmitt_fam | December 16, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

All eessential workers work on Holidays. Unless congress considers itself unessential, which many people believe, they must remain in D.C. until business is complete. No Boehmer, Jesus would not like you doing arms legislation at Christmas but ANY other time.
DADT should be top priority.
Obama you are another Bush, and are neglecting the people that put you in office, although they really voted against Republicans.
You have become a wimp for Wall St. and millionaires. One term is too much. We should have the Parlimentary system to get rid of people sooner......

Posted by: gany1 | December 16, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Mr Capehart; all,

to Mr Capehart: MAYBE some activist judge will "repeal" DADT & perhaps (just perhaps) that will be a good thing, in the long run.

IF that should happen, we TEA PARTIERS, conservatives & other "right of center" voters will have one more point in our favor to LIMIT federal judge's ability to declare ANYTHING "Unconstitutional"
AND
also set the wheels in motion to start ELECTING all federal judges to ONE 6-year or 10-year term of office.

to all: it was NEVER intended by the authors of The Constitution that federal judges would be "the senior branch of government", much less that judges would be able to overturn the POTUS & the Congress, simply with a court order. = it was intended that the 3 branches would be EQUAL in power.
electing judges & OUTLAWING their use of "unconstitutional" orders would restore that BALANCE.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46
--------------

Actually that was exactly their intent. When a Judge overturns something as unconstitutional, then it starts a process that goes to the Supreme Court. That is the idea behind the three branches of Government. Furthermore, the use of "activist" judges by the Tea Klan is subjective, you label a judge "activist" only when you disagree with them and it does not further you totalitarian Fascist agenda. It is ironic that the Tea Klan is all for limited government and having the government out of our private lives EXCEPT when it is counter to the so called "moral values" of the klan.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | December 16, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

It's depressing, but not surprising, that once again people like "Texas Native" and other Tea Bags and many self-proclaimed "conservatives" who want to "take our country back" [to the 1850s] show a fundamental lack of knowledge of American history and political institutions.

Among the bases for the Declaration of Independence was the lack of an independent judiciary, and the centerpiece of the Constitution is that there are three co-equal branches of government. And the idea of lifetime appointment assuming no really scummy behavior was intended to insulate judges from politics and the fear of losing their jobs if they made decisions that were unpopular with the king or sociopaths like John Cornyn.

It's long past time that DADT was repealed -- more and more Americans, INCLUDING more and more people in the Armed Services, realize that it makes no sense to deprive our Nation of the full range of talent primarily in order to accommodate religious bias and people who seem not all that confident in their own sexual orientation.

For far too long, on far too many issues, Harry "Weak" Reid had been the poster child for Stockholm Syndrome. It's time for him to call for a vote on DADT repeal and make it possible for America's best talent -- gay, straight, or whatever -- to serve our Armed Forces.

Posted by: edallan | December 16, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

From Ernst Julius Röhm (SS-Gay in the Nazi military) to Pfc Manning, the wikileak source...(Gay in the US Military).....you can find a lot of reasons why Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve at all.

1) The left cares not at all about access to the military they publicly despise

2) "Gays" in the military is to undercut the institution
...(just like Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the 'right' war to the left when Bush was in office, today Afghanistan is less loved by the left.....)

3) Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

4) Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...

This is the best the democrats can do at a time of war....put a Homosexual in the Military openly

Destroy the cancer known as Liberalism in 2012
Posted by: georgedixon1

-------

Interesting you bring up Ernst Julius Röhm, Hitlers counterpart in the rise of Nazi Germany. It would seem that you would side with Hitler (no surprise there) and have gays sent to concentration camps and gas chambers. Also, how many heterosexual military personnel have been found guilty of espionage? The answer is the vast majority. Why is it that Tea Klanners want the government out of our private lives EXCEPT when it comes to people doing things they do not approve of? A gay man is much less of a threat than a stupid one. And the Tea Klan is made up of the dumbest Americans.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | December 16, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jhnjdy "solsticebelle...Being openly gay and expressing ones sexuality with another openly gay soldier in a combat zone would cause detrimental problems to the military. Soldiers witnessing under stress what they consider to be a immoral and disgusting act of sexual perversion just might decide to be the judge, jury and executioner. It detracts from the mission, causes undo worry on a soldier that he may contact Aids thru contact with blood, may cause a soldier to hesitate to save a gay soldiers life when wounded. Get off your throne."
-------------------
You are apparently ignorant of what "openly gay" means and what the Military Code of conduct is. Sex of any type, while on duty or in view of others is comepletely forbidden. Period. Anyone brealing these rule, gay or straight, can have charges brought against them and receive punishment. That will not change with the repeal.

Now "openly gay". This has nothing to do with homosexual acts in public. It means soldiers can keep a picture of their actual significant other in the pocket or on their desk, can email them using real names, can tell the truth when asked at social gatherings when asked where they went on leave and can have the one they love be at their deployment or homecoming ceremonies and be told when they have been killed in action, all without fear of discharge. THAT is what being "openly gay" means.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | December 16, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Gosh Capehart, what are you going to do for a living if and when the Senate finally repeals DADT? Your position as a WaPo pro-gay military flak will no longer be necessary and you will probably join the ranks of the unemployed.

I know, you can enlist in the Marines and enjoy the status you have worked so tirelessly to create.

But before you do and to prepare yourself for the Marines I would suggest that you pair up with Perez Hilton and go to a couple of biker bars and announce to the patrons, "I am gay," and demand your civil rights and their respect. The reception you receive will be no different than it will be in the Marine Corps but you gays are tough aren't you.

Show me.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | December 16, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Reid is a friend of the illegals and the liberals. And, in other news, his friends, the illegals, killed another BP Agent, yet, this paper isn't covering it.

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

DADT repeal means openly gay. The 1980's film, "Cruising" with Al Pacino, reflects openly gay. Even, with artistic license, if this is 1/3rd dipiction on openly reflection, this is distracting. Military disipline, living conditions, community and social environments, and duty assignments and deployments are not condusive to this peculiar dis-arrangement of lifestyle. Having served and having worked in military environments, clearly homosexual men and women have served and worked alongside me, over a 45+ year span. Never has it been a problem. It is because they kept thier business and their lifestyle separate from the business of business. It seems the most vocal support for this peculiar agenda is from moneyed and/or politized communities that stand to further their standing.

Posted by: flameforest | December 16, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The courts may decide this. The Supreme Court of the United States. Since the SCotUS is not top-heavy with flaming, leftist homophiles, it may not rule in favor of the radical homosexuals who wish to make the military a safe harbor for their peculiar and abnormal "lifestyle".

They tried it with the Catholic priesthood and that didn' twork out very well.

Listen to the Marines. They know the real score.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 16, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone have a theory on just what is wrong with Harry Reid?
Has he turned into a John McCain turncoat? Hasn't he spoken in favor of repealing DADT in the past?

Posted by: kathok | December 16, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Mr Capehart; all,

I regret to inform you, but this last minute legislative push to cram more junk down our collective throats, in unnacceptable.

A rush on Reid's incompetance to schedule legislation is his fault.

Pelosi has been on a tear since she got her come-uppence in the last election. As King Obonehead's Rahm Emmanuel said, "Elections have consequences."

I am urging Jim DeMint to please stall ALL legislation until the new congress comes in.

The morons that have taken this country down a dark road, only want to drive us deeper into despair. They won't be satisfied until we are all, equally poor.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | December 16, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Saw Barbra Streisand on Larry King last night say that US gays want to die for their country. Didn't she see Patton's speech where he said that objective in war is have the other side's soldiers die for their country?

Posted by: GeneWells | December 16, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

You gotta give one thing to the teabaggers.. ... many of their members are not afraid to publicly show their bigotry and hatred. Why are they so very afraid? Sad.

So much for liberty. Their "liberty" is that all of us are free to live exactly as they think we should live. Sadder.

That they do this in the name of "patriotism" ... saddest

Posted by: jimby2 | December 16, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

You gotta give one thing to the teabaggers.. ... many of their members are not afraid to publicly show their bigotry and hatred. Why are they so very afraid? Sad.

So much for liberty. Their "liberty" is that all of us are free to live exactly as they think we should live. Sadder.

That they do this in the name of "patriotism" ... saddest

Posted by: jimby2 | December 16, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

You are right except . . . The Senate is such a crazy place where it requires 60% to even vote on most things and individual senators can hold up appointments or legislation on a whim. I strongly support DADT, but I'll believe the Senate has passed it when I see it. Not before.

Change the Senate rules!

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 16, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT A HOMOSEXUAL WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"- CAN NOT SHOW WHERE OR HOW THAT PERSON GOT HIS/HER "ORIENTATION"! THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS, AND MANY OF THESE "ORIENTATIONS"(DESIRES) ARE AGAINST OUR LAWS!
SOME HAVE THE DESIRE TO ROB BANKS,MOLEST CHILDREN,HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS,OR MARRY A FAMILY MEMBER, AND WE DISCRIMINATE AND SAY, "NO,OUR SOCIETY DOESN'T ALLOW THAT!"
BUT THE HOMOSEXUALS (A 2 OR 3% OF OUR POPULATION) HAVE PUSHED AND CLAMORED FOR OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR DISGUSTING, DISEASE SPREADING SEXUAL ACTS-TO THE POINT THAT OUR MAJOR LEADERS, COURTS, AND NOW OUR ELITE MILITARY ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THESE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS!
BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON THE ATTEMPTS TO CURE, OR AT LEAST SLOW DOWN THE AIDS HOLOCAUST.
TELL THE TRUTH- SODOMY IS WHAT IT IS- AN UN-NATURAL SEXUAL ACT AND A SIN!

Posted by: lyn3 | December 16, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"Glub .. glub.." More media garbage in favor of repeal of DADT. 77% approval by "The American People," as represented by a POLL OF 1,000 by THE WP?

Support of "repeal" registered by a POLL OF THE PENTAGON = the minions under the Secretary of Defense, Gates, clearly bogus, representative of "civilian leadership" and not personnel of The Armed Forces; Support of The Naval Admiral and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces despite the unanimous concerns of chiefs of other branches to retain it? Adm Mullins is far too arrogant to even consider the views of his experienced and knowledgeable colleagues much less "fraternize" with those folks now demanding a "superior standing" to "straight folks," and mandate to alter moral, social and cultural mores?

Getting your facts "straight," the media should grapple with the FACT that the Democratic Party operates on a tenuous "power base" of coalitions of conflicting interests and among them the most powerful being ORGANIZED LABOR and the GLBT folk! That President Obama is cryin' out loud for political support of his "presidency" is outrageous.

The "nouveau Christmas Story?" The media got so carried asway with "teabaggers," we have Reed, a mormon, elected to another term and continuing as Democratic Senate leader, garbed in a wool blanket, leaning on his staff around which a serpent is tightly wound, the to-be Republican leader of the House bursting into tears and to soon replace the outgoing Democratic leader, both to "pass the gavel," openly sobbing?

Are they crying for us? For themselves? For any sense of rational thought? Would products for "men" present those "gay" as "spokespeople," and how would they portray essence of scents for "men or women?" Or vice versa?

77% of American people, indeed. Many of us are Very Familiar with the complexities and sensitivities; it is likely those 1,000 "polled" didn't have the gall to "sign up" and serve in the Armed Forces? Too risky????? As for Gates, insipid. Compare and contrast the discipline of the Armed Forces with the federal bureacracy?

Posted by: SavvyRead | December 16, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Capehart for your tireless coverage of DADT. All Americans should be allowed to enjoy full an equal rights in the USA.Us younger folks have no bones to pick with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in arms. It's only a matter of time before the old backward thinking geezers like McCain and Amos die off... and hopefully their hateful narrow-minded ways will too!

Posted by: 10bestfan | December 16, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I MY AM NOT GAY OR LESBIAN, HOWEVER I DO HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO IS GAY. NOT ONLY IS SHE GAY, SHE EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT, A GOOD ARTIST, PHOTOGRAHER AND A GREAT ATHELETE, HOWEVER DUE TO UNITED STATES NOT LIVING UP TO THE CONSTITUTION AND GRANTING RIGHTS TO ALL OF IT'S CITIZENS, EVEN FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. MY DAUGHTER WOULD LOVE TO JOIN THE MILITARY BUT IS NOT ALLOWED DUE TO THE US GOVERNMENT NOT LIVING UP TO THE CONSTITUTION. I KNOW WHAT THE MILITARY IS LIKE AS I SERVED 22 YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, 9 YEARS OF THAT AS A FIRST SERGEANT. I HAD TO ASSIST IN DISCHARGING SEVERAL AIRMENT DUE TO THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE FOLKS I HAD TO SEPARATE WERE EXCELLENT MILITARY TROOPS. WHAT A SHAME WE HAD TO LOSE GOOD PEOPLE LIKE THAT. FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART I HOPE CONGRESS HAS THE GUTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND APPEAL THE DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL POLICY. TO THROW AWAY ALL THE MONEY WE SPENT TRAINING THESE GREAT YOUNG INDIVIDUALS. I DON'T BELIEVE GOD WILL PUNISH THOSE WHO PASS THIS BILL. EACH OF US ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CONSCIOUS AND WE WILL DEAL WITH GOD IN THE END ON OUR OWN MERITS. PASS THE DADT POLICY NOW.

Posted by: RonaldGDurbala | December 16, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

RonaldGDurbala,

first, i congratulate you on your service in the USAF.
(i'm also retired from the armed services/Army.)

BUT you are dead wrong on "open service" by homosexuals, including your lesbian daughter and/or my cousin (who is an "open" homosexual). = neither should ever be allowed to serve in a volunteer military, as what they DO is (and will remain) a serious violation of the UCMJ
AND
there is NO Constitutional "right to serve" in the armed forces, any more than either of them have a "right" to a job with any other employer.
(IF there was "universal military service", there MIGHT be such a "right" but the draft is, thankfully, GONE forever.)

note to any civilians reading this post: the rules that govern the personal conduct of military members are VERY different than those which govern the personal conduct of civilians.
for example, military members can be tried by courts martial for any number of behaviors, which are NOT crimes in civilian life.
(for example, i once had a LT in my unit who received a "Field Grade Article 15", for engaging in public sexual acts with his own wife. - the same act, as a civilian, would NOT have been a crime.)

persons, who choose NOT to conform to conduct which is acceptable under military discipline, would do well to REMAIN a civilian.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 17, 2010 11:52 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