Tuesday, December 14, 2010

New Hope That DADT Is On Its Way Out

Politico is expecting the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal bill to be introduced into the House of Representatives today.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) are expected to introduce standalone "don't ask, don't tell" repeal legislation on Tuesday, three sources actively involved in repeal discussions told POLITICO Monday.

However, considerable uncertainty swirled around the mechanics of the "don't ask" repeal effort over the course of the day Monday. At one point, a key repeal advocate said advocates and lawmakers supporting repeal had agreed that the Senate would take the initiative on the freestanding measure and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) planned to file a motion on Tuesday to bypass the usual committee process.

A couple of hours later on Monday, other sources told POLITICO that the House had agreed to act first and that the Hoyer/Murphy bill would be promptly moved through the House as a privileged resolution. That scenario seemed to get support from a post on the Center for American Progress blog Monday afternoon that said Hoyer and Murphy had already introduced their bill. The news was tweeted and retweeted, but within minutes the link to the story was dead. (It was sucked quickly down the memory hole, but I did manage to scrounge up this cache.) The author of the post, Igor Volsky, told me late Monday that it was "published prematurely."

Adding to the murk, Hoyer's office refused to confirm that any bill was imminent, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a cryptic statement that observed that "all options are on the table," and Reid's office declined to comment on the scheduling issue.

By evening, it appeared that identically-worded bills would be moved independently in each body depending on the flow of business, rather than moving from one body to the other. House action still seemed likely to precede Senate action on the legislation, however, because of the likely need for a cloture petition and associated debate on the Senate side due to the filibuster expected from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Hoyer expected to file 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal bill Tuesday

As it stands, gay and lesbian servicemembers must remain in the closet or be kicked out. DADT is not a law that bans them from serving, it is a law that mandates hypocrisy. You can fight for your country as long as you act like you're ashamed of yourself. Everybody knows this is wrong, the world has changed since the days when this was an acceptable compromise, and it's time to repeal the law.
Repeal advocates view the standalone bill as their best hope for enacting legislation to set in motion a repeal of the ban on openly gay servicemembers. Advocates had pinned their hopes on the broader defense authorization bill, which already contains conditional repeal language, but it fell three votes short last week of the 60 needed to move to the floor. However, during that process it appeared that there were more than 60 votes for repeal itself, so backers quickly shifted their focus to passing a standalone bill.

A lot of people will be checking the news today to see if this promised piece of progress makes it to the President's desk to become law.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"DADT is not a law that bans them from serving, it is a law that mandates hypocrisy."

I know DADT was devised by one of the lyingest, hypocrites in American history, Bill Clinton, but both sides can follow it and still maintain their integrity

not telling is not the same as lying

no one can ask, so they don't have to lie

keeping it to yourself is all that's required

still, an outright ban would be a good compromise if you feel queasy about the current state of affairs

then, they won't have to feel like hypocrites

let's get Barack to negotiate the deal

hahahahahahaha!

December 14, 2010 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The current law and policy is an outright ban. Clinton's "compromise" simply limited the occasions on which servicemembers would be asked. They can still be outed; in fact, in investigations, the military takes third-party testimony.

I hear there's a new policy for anonymous service, though, where one doesn't have to give one's name.

December 14, 2010 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The current law and policy is an outright ban. Clinton's "compromise" simply limited the occasions on which servicemembers would be asked. They can still be outed; in fact, in investigations, the military takes third-party testimony."

that's a relief

at least there's still a way to get them out

nothing worse than some homosexual lusting after the jacked Marine wearing nothing but skivvies in the bunk over him

that's just ridiculous

we need to take action now

while there's still time, everyone needs to get in their SUVs and drive around the beltway spewing carbon emissions

we gotta warm this snowglobe up somehow

December 14, 2010 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the jacked [huh?] Marine wearing nothing but skivvies in the bunk over him."

Once again, please cite specific examples and statistics to support your infantile fantasies (I sense that you would rather be the one lusted after).

Just exactly how many gay service men have been ushered out of the military because they have "come on to" one of their so-called straight commrades. (Do not include in your bogus statistics those who have been kicked out just because they have come out as gay or those who have been snitched on by others) Exactly how many straights have been cashiered out for committing sexual offenses? Lots of rapes and other offenses being committed these days by your kind in the military.

Another example of your blatant and stupid hypocracy.

December 15, 2010 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 2011, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union
address occur on the same day. It is an ironic juxtaposition of
events; one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a
creature of little intelligence for prognostication while the other involves a groundhog.

December 15, 2010 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If DADT is repealed, same sex harassment and rape charges are going to come rolling in like crazy and then guilty gays will claim they're being unfairly picked on and hide behind their special status as a protected class.

It's all SOOOO predictable.

December 15, 2010 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Tea Party voter: You've been had.

When the good people of South Dakota voted last month to send Republican Kristi Noem to Congress, they probably believed that she would give no quarter to the lobbyists and special interest groups who enjoyed, as she put it, "throwing money at the feet of a member of Congress."

Tuesday afternoon, she was the guest of honor at a "Meet & Greet" with Washington high-rollers at the powerhouse lobbying firm Barbour Griffiths Rogers. Once these boys start throwing money at Noem's feet, she'll soon be chin deep in lobbyist greenbacks.

House Republican leaders rejected a Tea Party-backed candidate as the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, instead installing Hal Rogers of Kentucky, who is known as the "Prince of Pork" and who once said pork is a "bad word for making good things happen."

South Dakota's Noem is one of at least 13 incoming Republican lawmakers who have hired lobbyists to run their offices. As The Post's Dan Eggen reported last week, dozens of freshman lawmakers have already had fundraisers to collect millions of dollars from lobbyists and other deep-pocketed interests. In the month since Election Day, new Republican members had more than a dozen such "debt retirement" events.

Of more consequence is the Republicans' tax compromise, which, as the Tea Party Patriots group pointed out, violates no fewer than five provisions of the Republicans' campaign "Pledge to America." Among the broken promises in the pledge, which was designed to show that Republicans were faithful to Tea Party principles, are vows to "act immediately to reduce spending" (page 21) and to "advance legislative issues one at a time" (page 33).

Citing these violations, the Tea Party Patriots said the tax compromise makes the pledge "a joke," and the group launched a petition drive to fight passage of the measure. Jenny Beth Martin, a national coordinator of the group, said "it is an insult to those who voted them into power to procrastinate on their pledge to honor conservative principles."

So what did Republican lawmakers think of this Tea Party protest? Well, on Monday evening, the Senate held the crucial cloture vote on the compromise. The vote, which essentially guaranteed passage, was 83 to 15, and only five Republicans voted no.

Tea Party pull is stronger in the House, but even there, the powerful interests remain unchecked. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said last week that "Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks." And those naive Tea Partyers thought Washington was supposed to serve the taxpayers!

But is there nobody who will keep faith with the Tea Party voter? Even Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a darling of the movement, is going wobbly. First, she dropped her bid for a leadership position in the House when it became clear she wouldn't win. Then she raised questions about the House GOP's plan to ban "earmark" spending on pet projects. The woman who once maintained that "all this pork is bad" told Politico recently that there must be a way to funnel infrastructure money to her district. "This isn't trying to be too cute by half of what is an earmark and what isn't," she said, "but we have to address the issue of how are we going to fund transportation projects across the country?"

Simple, congresswoman: The way you did before. In Washington, it's business as usual.

December 15, 2010 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great! If it's business as usual, then TTFers should now be ecstatic! No need to be upset anymore!

December 15, 2010 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we'll find out who the real tea partiers are in January when the debt ceiling approval comes up

if it is rejected, Congress will have to make cuts to accomodate the new tax cuts

that will be a Tea Party victory

December 16, 2010 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once again, please cite specific examples and statistics to support your infantile fantasies."

my "fantasy" that gays are attracted to other men?

I thought that was the definition of homosexuality

we have an epidemic of AIDS striking the homosexual community in vastly disproportionate numbers, a disease that could be completely eliminated by prevention measures which require only a little self-control

and we're to believe if gays bunk with other guys in the Marine barracks, they'll suddenly be transformed into the model of decorum and self-control?

come on, get real

"Just exactly how many gay service men have been ushered out of the military because they have "come on to" one of their so-called straight commrades. (Do not include in your bogus statistics those who have been kicked out just because they have come out as gay or those who have been snitched on by others)"

that's like saying "just how many people have shoplifted, and don't include those who have been caught"

if they haven't been caught, how would we know?

"Exactly how many straights have been cashiered out for committing sexual offenses? Lots of rapes and other offenses being committed these days by your kind in the military."

this is really beside the point because living quarters for males and females are segregated

"Another example of your blatant and stupid hypocracy."

is there some genetic reason gays can't spell?

I hope, at least, you're not teaching in the public schools

December 16, 2010 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"

Get your facts straight for once in your pathetic life:
(1) Nowhere in proposed DADT repeal legislation is there a requirement to treat GLBT members of the military as "a protected class".
(2) GLBT service members, like their heterosexual counterparts, are subject to the Military Code of Justice. Like straight violaters of the code, gays will likewise continue to be subject to its provisions.
Up to this point, GLBT service members have been ushered out of the militry merely because of WHO THEY ARE...not because of the violations of the Code.

Your attempts to re-create a world that complies with your own particular biases, bigotry, and ignorance are doomed to failure!

December 16, 2010 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Congress will have to make cuts to accomodate the new tax cuts"

Oh sure. Why don't you ask tea bagger Michelle Bachmann how many *earmarks*, excuse me "transportation projects" she's willing to give up in her Congressional District.

Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a “redefinition” of what an earmark is, because, she said: “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”

December 16, 2010 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Get your facts straight for once in your pathetic life:
(1) Nowhere in proposed DADT repeal legislation is there a requirement to treat GLBT members of the military as "a protected class".
(2) GLBT service members, like their heterosexual counterparts, are subject to the Military Code of Justice. Like straight violaters of the code, gays will likewise continue to be subject to its provisions."

this is just ignorant

gays already are whining they don't get equal protection

everytime there's any attempt to discipline one of them, they'll be litigation

just keep gays out of the military

it's a win-win for everyone

people who are fighting for the right to participate in war are crazy anyway

"yesterday my friends were marching off to war

oh, yeah

listen man we ain't a-marching anymore

no, we ain't gonna fight

only God has the right

to decide who's to live

and die

he gave us sweet cherry wine"

count your blessings if you can get out of it

"Up to this point, GLBT service members have been ushered out of the militry merely because of WHO THEY ARE...not because of the violations of the Code."

no, their behavior isn't WHO THEY ARE

"Your attempts to re-create a world that complies with your own particular biases, bigotry, and ignorance are doomed to failure!"

I'm not living a fairy tale, gays are

"Oh sure. Why don't you ask tea bagger Michelle Bachmann how many *earmarks*, excuse me "transportation projects" she's willing to give up in her Congressional District.

Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a “redefinition” of what an earmark is, because, she said: “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”"

building roads is a legitimate government function

many other things aren't

we could save a ton of money, for example, if we eliminated the Education Department

there is absolutely no need for it

December 16, 2010 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr/Ms "Anonymous"

You are in desperate need of some psychological treatment!

December 16, 2010 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sure, I am

you guys are fighting for the opportunity to face bullets and bombs

and insisting that the governemnt can't run unless it confiscates more than half of its citizens' wealth

and favor having gays who can't spell teach in public schools

and I'm crazy

December 16, 2010 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops...did we detect a spelling error in your rant? (and insisting that the governemnt [sic] can't run unless it confiscates more than half of its citizens' wealth)?

"favor having gays who can't spell teach in public schools" And your point is?

Just curious as to what your grade for spelling was in 3rd grade (not to mention high school, if you made it that far) and also what your grade was for "gets along with other children". No doubt you failed (which accounts for your never-ending attacks on teachers - you're still carrying a grudge!)

December 16, 2010 9:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home