The New York Times: WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban. The repeal would permit gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill, which the House is expected to vote on Friday. The repeal would be allowed 60 days after a Pentagon report is completed on the ramifications of allowing openly gay service members, and military leaders certify that it would not be disruptive. The report is due by Dec. 1.
The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
Hot Air names the five Republican votes in favor of the repeal. Oh, and for those who might say libertarians are all about discrimination because of current news, check out the last name on the list.
Hot Air: Update: Still waiting for the roll, which should be available here once it’s up, but the names of the five (not four) GOP defectors are already being reported on Twitter: It’s Djou, Joe Cao (also from a deep blue district), Judy Biggert, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and … Ron Paul.
I don’t have a problem with homosexuals serving in the military. Homosexuals can be every bit the patriot as a heterosexual. Any homosexual willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend our great nation should not be denied the opportunity. That being said, protecting and defending the nation should be their true reason. Hoisting the rainbow flag, as a primary concern should not. We have already seen how political correctness can kill.
I do have to wonder though, with our financial house still in such disarray, why has the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, taken such prominence in Washington’s agenda? Any thoughts?
Via: Memeorandum
Via: The New York Times
Via: Hot Air
Via: UK Telegraph
Posts
8 comments:
I don't really care about DADT either way, but to answer your question, I don't think that BO intended to repeal DADT this year (or at all). But this has been a rough year plus for him, politically, and he is trying to get his FDL base "fired up." The far left has been sticking its toes in the water in a few races and threatening to split the votes in blue districts; on top of that, the FDL peeps are strong forces for him (tireless volunteers whom he's happy to use shamelessly and then walk away) and have been slowly pulling other progs away from the koolaid fountain. BO can't have that, not this year. He needs the far left, he was losing them, he's tossed DADT at them like a bone hoping they'll forget that we're at war, that they hated ObamaCare, that they were thoroughly ticked off with his offshore drilling plan, and that they are freaking out about the oil leak. It may work, too.
Distraction and deflection...........
I had a very interesting back and forth about this with a facebook friend, or I should say a former facebook friend.
We are the only western nation that doesn't allow gays to serve openly. If it were going to hurt the military we would see it in the British military and we have not.
I realize that there are going to be many people that will be against this, but in ten years we won't even remember why were so worried. There are people outside the military with a agenda that has nothing to do with the military, but the people inside the military are very disciplined, they are not looking to have gay parades, they just want to be who they are. I was told that I was being emotional, but for me the deciding fact was the British military not coming to a grinding halt when they changed it.
"why has the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, taken such prominence in Washington’s agenda?"
Looky over here. No, don't look at my right hand look at my left hand. See this...ain't this interesting? No, don't look at my right hand.
More scary version: demoralize the military even more so there will be less likely to resit when the call to turn the country into a police state comes in.
Firstly, let me say I just found the ''bloggosphere'' on monday, but ive looked over a few other blogs and find myself drawn to yours.. (I've almost read all of 2010 allready)..You got great stuff up here!!
That said, I dont condone discrimination, i was in the navy, I do not think having a gay man or woman in the military will work with out dont ask dont tell..I say this because gay's tend to have to talk about their gayness, their sexual experiences, and hell, truth be told, so do the straight soldiers..Unfortunatley it will be the maucho straight soldiers who will have a HUGE problem hearing about it..I also could see a gay soldier throwing his sexuality at heterosexuals, in ways i dont see other heterosexuals do, you know like a ''You know you want me'' and that starting fights..
I see some racey and edgy gays joining the military, and forcing that culture on heterosexual soldiers, and I see problems comming..Obama has made this so political that they are pushing this through congress, even before the MUCH needed study from the head of all the branches, the study they were gonna do, to see how the soldiers who are in allready feel about repealing dont ask, dont tell...This will be a mess..Just because they will not be able to do it right, with out this study..
And Im not anti-gay, this is just the way it is in the military
I think that it is discriminatory not to allow gays to serve openly. I remember when all those highly skilled Arabic translators were kicked out for being gay. What an absolutely moronic thing to do, when they were needed to badly.
I was watching a documentary about George Washington and the Revolutionary War. He enlisted the help of a Prussian officer, Gen. Friedrich von Stueben to train the troops. Von Stueben was an excellent soldier and his expertise did wonders. Von Stueben was also gay and Washington knew it before he asked him for his help. Washington didn't care about his personal life, only that he had the skills he needed. I found it so very ironic that more than two centuries ago, the man who would become our first President and our military seemed to be much more tolerant.
I agree with Dean. Obama is doing that slight of hand thing...look over here, not over here.
I spent the first three years of my Army career processing people out of the Army, some of them for homosexuality. Some of them were very good soldiers. In other cases, entire units were undermined by the informal chain-of-command behind the scenes. In one MP company, about a dozen lesbian women went nuts as their intertwined relationships began to unravel. Some could say that being forced to remain in the shadows contributed to the situation - that could be true.
Since then I've become much more libertarian in my views about gays. I still think their behavior is disgusting, degrading, unnatural, unhealthy, immoral, and indecent. Living in San Francisco, I'm surround by these people adopting exaggerated stereotypes of the opposite sex which I consider inauthentic and insulting.
But I also believe it's none of my damned business who they love and live with. Moreover, I don't believe it's GOVERNMENT'S business who they love and live with. They are human beings and deserve the same rights as every other American.
One of my co-workers in the military was gay. He never said anything but we all knew it and we all liked him.
It's time to end DADT and move on. We still need to regulate behavior so the military doesn't become a freak show like the Pride Parade or the Castro. As you say, it should be about service, duty, and teamwork, not about sexual identity. They've already demonstrated in our public schools and government that they are willing to cross the line so the military needs to take a firm stand.
"Integrating" gays into the military shouldn't be any better or worse than integrating blacks into the nonsegregated units. It will take time and we'll have to overcome a lot of bigotry, but we have to remind soldiers they took an oath of DUTY to country, to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the orders of the President.
Super comment, Nick. About your final observation: "we have to remind soldiers they took an oath of DUTY to country, to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the orders of the President."
Aw, do we really have to that last part? (heh) Out of idle curiosity, what happens if the president's order conflicts with the first part, their duty to country, to support and defend the Constitution?
Post a Comment