Saturday, December 18, 2010

Say Bye-Bye to DADT

Breaking news. USA Today:
In a historic move, the Senate has passed a bill that would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The vote was 65-31.

The bill to overturn the ban on gay people serving openly in the military now goes to President Obama, who vowed during his campaign to overturn the policy.

"No longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans ... because they happen to be gay," Obama said before the vote. Senate passes 'don't ask,' sends repeal to Obama

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Votes (65)

Daniel K. Akaka D HI
Max Baucus D MT
Evan Bayh D IN
Mark Begich D AK
Michael Bennet D CO
Jeff Bingaman D NM
Barbara Boxer D CA
Scott Brown R MA
Sherrod Brown D OH
Richard M. Burr R NC
Maria Cantwell D WA
Benjamin L. Cardin D MD
Thomas R. Carper D DE
Bob Casey D PA
Susan Collins R ME
Kent Conrad D ND
Christopher A. Coons D DE
Christopher J. Dodd D CT
Byron L. Dorgan D ND
Richard J. Durbin D IL
John Ensign R NV
Russ Feingold D WI
Dianne Feinstein D CA
Al Franken D MN
Kirsten Gillibrand D NY
Kay Hagan D NC
Tom Harkin D IA
Daniel K. Inouye D HI
Tim Johnson D SD
John Kerry D MA
Mark Steven Kirk R IL
Amy Klobuchar D MN
Herb Kohl D WI
Mary L. Landrieu D LA
Frank R. Lautenberg D NJ
Patrick J. Leahy D VT
Carl Levin D MI
Joseph I. Lieberman ID CT
Blanche Lincoln D AR
Claire McCaskill D MO
Robert Menendez D NJ
Jeff Merkley D OR
Barbara A. Mikulski D MD
Lisa Murkowski R AK
Patty Murray D WA
Ben Nelson D NE
Bill Nelson D FL
Mark Pryor D AR
Jack Reed D RI
Harry Reid D NV
John D. Rockefeller IV D WV
Bernard Sanders I VT
Charles E. Schumer D NY
Jeanne Shaheen D NH
Olympia J. Snowe R ME
Arlen Specter D PA
Debbie Stabenow D MI
Jon Tester D MT
Mark Udall D CO
Tom Udall D NM
George V. Voinovich R OH
Mark Warner D VA
Jim Webb D VA
Sheldon Whitehouse D RI
Ron Wyden D OR

No Votes (31)

Lamar Alexander R TN
John Barrasso R WY
Robert F. Bennett R UT
Christopher S. Bond R MO
Sam Brownback R KS
Saxby Chambliss R GA
Tom Coburn R OK
Thad Cochran R MS
Bob Corker R TN
John Cornyn R TX
Michael D. Crapo R ID
Jim DeMint R SC
Michael B. Enzi R WY
Lindsey Graham R SC
Charles E. Grassley R IA
Kay Bailey Hutchison R TX
James M. Inhofe R OK
Johnny Isakson R GA
Mike Johanns R NE
Jon Kyl R AZ
George S. LeMieux R FL
Richard G. Lugar R IN
John McCain R AZ
Mitch McConnell R KY
Jim Risch R ID
Pat Roberts R KS
Jeff Sessions R AL
Richard C. Shelby R AL
John Thune R SD
David Vitter R LA
Roger Wicker R MS

Did Not Vote (4)

Jim Bunning R KY
Judd Gregg R NH
Orrin G. Hatch R UT
Joe Manchin III D WV

December 18, 2010 4:43 PM  
Anonymous gays hate democracy said...

doesn't it seem that the gay agenda can only advance by illegitimate undemocratic actions?

from judges trying to overthrow a constitutional amendement in California to aides to Montgomery County councilmen using unethical tactics to hinder petitioners against transgender preference politices to a bunch of voted-out Congressmen pushing homosexuals onto the military, gays are a constant threat to our democracy:

"Here's the funny thing about this month's lame-duck session of Congress, in which frantic lawmakers have pinballed from "don't ask, don't tell" to a nuclear weapons treaty:

It's not supposed to exist.

In 1933, historians say, the country ratified a constitutional amendment intended to kill off sessions like this - in which defeated legislators return to legislate. The headline in The Washington Post at the time was "Present Lame Duck Session Will Be Last."

But because of a hole in that amendment, modern Congresses have not only met as lame ducks but have used the post-election session to take some of their most memorable votes.

Soon, President Obama will sign a bill that repeals the law that bans gays from serving openly in the military. The Democrats have pushed it through now because it would never make it through the legitimate Congress the American people elected last month.

This year's session has "the most ambitious legislative agenda that's been pursued in a lame-duck session since the 20th Amendment," said John Copeland Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

This lame-duck session, Nagle said, "is exactly what the 20th Amendment was designed to stop."

The session has created an odd atmosphere on Capitol Hill: There are few committee hearings. Instead, lawmakers are tackling one enormous issue after another, without due consideration. Among those voting have been dozens of lawmakers who lost their bids for reelection last month.

All of this would be a surprise, historians say, to lawmakers from the 1930s. They thought they had finally stopped a congressional practice that had caused controversy since John Adams was president.

The trouble with lame-duck sessions began in 1801, when the outgoing Federalists used their last days in power to help appoint a bunch of judges.

Opponents said this was un-democratic: These sessions seemed to violate the ever-popular Washington rule that "elections have consequences." Finally, Congress passed - and the states ratified - the 20th Amendment.

Historians say lawmakers thought they were ending lame-duck Congresses forever.

"This amendment will free Congress of the dead hand of the so-called 'lame duck,' " Rep. Wilburn Cartwright (D-Okla.) said as it was debated in 1932.

But there was a problem. The amendment didn't actually say it would end lame-duck Congresses forever. Its text only moved Congress's end date from March back to early January.

At that time, historians say, it was inconceivable that lawmakers would journey back to Washington to meet for a few weeks after Thanksgiving.

"The big mistake of the crafters of the 20th Amendment was that they didn't really anticipate airplane travel," said Bruce Ackerman, a Yale University law professor. "It takes a lot of time to go from a district in Texas by train to Washington, D.C. Who's going to schlep there?"

Still, for the next 47 years, the amendment seemed mostly to work as intended. There were some lame-duck sessions, often in wartime, but no grand legislative agendas.

Then, historians say, things started to change.

In 1980, Democrats came back after losing the presidency and the Senate and passed major bills, including one that created the Superfund toxic-cleanup program."

December 18, 2010 5:52 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

My wife and I were watching CNN and MSNBC as the votes were tallied. Curious as to how Fox was covering it, we switched to that channel, only to find a Glenn Beck rerun.

Here is how Fox covers it on their website:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/

This is an item one easily could have read in the Washington Post or NY Times.

Interesting that Senators Ensign and Burr switched and voted for repeal.

Could it be that the political right wing is beginning to figure out that opposition, and certainly virulent opposition, will make them look foolish in the near future. (Senator McCain seems bent on fulfilling the description David Letterman gave him in 2008: A cranky old man, yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn.)

Juxtaposing the success of the effort to repeal DADT, but the failure of the Dream Act to get cloture supports what Barney Frank said a long time ago: The country is less homophobic than the conventional wisdom says, but is more racist.

There is now a split within the Republican ranks about whether to continue to be homophobic. When will we see such a split regarding the children of non-white undocumented immigrants?

December 18, 2010 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Could it be that the political right wing is beginning to figure out that opposition, and certainly virulent opposition, will make them look foolish in the near future."

they'll look pretty wise when the military has trouble recruiting because potential recruits don't want to be forced to bunk with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner

December 18, 2010 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they'll look pretty wise when the military has trouble recruiting because potential recruits don't want to be forced to bunk with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner

Yes, they'll be embarrassed, just like when Montgomery County had to deal with all those bodies of dead girls that were found everywhere when there was equality for transgender people.

December 18, 2010 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, you're right

all those Marines just can't wait to tell everyone they are bunking up with a homosexual

what was I thinking?

btw, the only transgender to file a complaint under the transgender law was the dork who wrote it

seems there wasn't any need for the law

no one in MC has failed to give transgender special consideration before or after it was required by our local fascist government

December 18, 2010 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happens now that Congress has voted to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' ban on gays in the military?

Nothing.

For the next several months and probably for at least a year, homosexuals in uniform will still be subject to investigation and discharge if they acknowledge their sexual preference, Pentagon officials said.

Despite action in Congress to repeal it, the policy banning gays from serving openly remains in effect until, in essence, until the Defense Department is good and ready to wipe if off the books.
The Pentagon issued a directive Saturday from its personnel chief, Clifford Stanley, alerting troops worldwide to the Senate vote to join the U.S. House in approving legislation to repeal DADT. The directive was expected to emphasize that the law itself has not been repealed, and that the current regulations banning homosexuals from serving openly in the military remain in place.

"Once this legislation is signed into the law by the president, the Department of Defense will proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change slowly and methodically," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.

Gates said the current policy stays in place during a slow implementation process.

The law itself will not be effectively pulled down until the Pentagon has had a chance to adjust regulations that relate to same-sex partners, including next-of-kin notification, family access to commissaries and military fitness centers, health insurance and other benefits.

When all that is completed -- a process that Gates has said would probably take at least a year -- actual repeal won't happen until the president, the Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all certify that it will not negatively affect combat readiness.

Even then – still not done.

According to the repeal legislation, a 60-day waiting period will follow the formal certification. At the end of those two months, homosexuals will be able to serve openly in the armed services as long as the behave themselves.

Until then, "don't ask, don't tell" will remain in effect -- it's still the law,'' Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan told reporters Friday.

The Pentagon plan to implement the historic change is laid out like a military campaign, with stages and steps and benchmarks- and is vague about how long it will take.

The implementation phase, the plan says, "would last until some point after the effective date of repeal, once the roll-out of new policies has been carefully and slowly completed."

December 18, 2010 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Page three said...

Then, in 1998, Republicans returned after losing seats in the House and voted to impeach President Bill Clinton.

Ackerman criticized them at the time, saying the Republican actions went against the spirit of the 20th Amendment.

"At that time, of course, Republicans were saying, 'This is ridiculous!' " Ackerman said. This year, he said, he has been much more in demand: "Now, they're calling to see if I'd come down for press conferences."

This time around, it's Democrats defending their lame-duck session. Aides to top Democrats in Congress said their ambitious agenda was necessary because tax cuts and government-spending bills had imminent deadlines, and Republicans had blocked other agenda items earlier in the year.

"We wouldn't need to be doing all this in the lame duck if the Republicans had not obstructed and delayed everything that we had been trying to do," said Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid. "I don't see anything wrong with working for the American people to get things done."

Republicans have objected to the session's agenda. But - perhaps mindful of their own past use of lame-duck sessions - they haven't brought up the 20th Amendment often.

"It's within the rules of the Senate," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

One exception is former congressman Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the House speaker during the lame-duck session of 1998, who has criticized Democrats for their agenda in this one.

Republicans have mostly objected to the session because it threatened to infringe on their Christmas holiday, not the Constitution. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) accused Reid of disrespecting Christmas by pushing the lame-duck session into next week.

Reid, in response, essentially accused Republicans of whining.

All of this leaves scholars of the 20th Amendment wondering.

"There's no other amendment that is even remotely like that, [that] has failed to do what it was set out to do," Nagle said.

Okay, fine, he said, there was one: the 18th Amendment. Prohibition. But that one was repealed.

December 19, 2010 12:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then, in 1998, Republicans returned after losing seats in the House and voted to impeach President Bill Clinton.

Ackerman criticized them at the time, saying the Republican actions went against the spirit of the 20th Amendment."

first off, the Republicans didn't lose control of the House

since Clinton was clearly guilty of two felonies, he'd have been impeached anyway

the repeal of DADT passed by the House last week would just as clearly have not passed in the new Congress

secondly, impeachment is the beginning of a process

the trial of Bill Clinton was conducted the following February by the duly elected Senate

the current duly elected Congress won't be able to sign-off on DADT

""At that time, of course, Republicans were saying, 'This is ridiculous!' " Ackerman said. This year, he said, he has been much more in demand: "Now, they're calling to see if I'd come down for press conferences."

This time around, it's Democrats defending their lame-duck session. Aides to top Democrats in Congress said their ambitious agenda was necessary because tax cuts and government-spending bills had imminent deadlines, and Republicans had blocked other agenda items earlier in the year.

"We wouldn't need to be doing all this in the lame duck if the Republicans had not obstructed and delayed everything that we had been trying to do," said Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid. "I don't see anything wrong with working for the American people to get things done.""

but the Republicans had done this as part of a duly elected Congress and the people have clearly rejected the Congress that is now acting

furthermore, this is not a matter of Republicans v. Democrats so it's irrelevant if the Republicans go along and irrelevant what happened in the past and whose side won

this is a matter of whether the Congress elected by the people makes the decisions in our country

that didn't happen Saturday and, once again, homosexuals are the enemies of democracy

it's to their shame

December 19, 2010 4:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"this is not a matter of Republicans v. Democrats so it's irrelevant if the Republicans go along and irrelevant what happened in the past and whose side won

this is a matter of whether the Congress elected by the people makes the decisions in our country"

that's true, this is not Red v Blue

it's gays v the American people

enjoy the Pyrrhic victory

you've again found a way to alienate the heartland

this will be an issue in 2012

December 19, 2010 4:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

America moves to prevent further East Anglia incidents:

"The Obama administration Friday issued long-awaited guidelines designed to protect federal scientists from political interference - the first time the federal government has had an explicit government-wide policy of this kind.

The four-page memorandum "describes the minimum standards expected as departments and agencies craft scientific integrity rules appropriate for their particular missions and cultures, including a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparencies," wrote John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in a blog post accompanying the memo's release.

Among the new guidelines is a prohibition against government public affairs officers asking or directing federal scientists to alter scientific findings. The guidelines also require that appointments are made based primarily on the applicants' "scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience and integrity" and that "data and research used to support policy decisions undergo independent peer review by qualified experts."

The guidelines call for agencies to develop public communications policies that promote openness and transparency "while ensuring full compliance with limits on disclosure of classified information.""

December 19, 2010 4:52 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

One more nail in their anti-American coffin of hate propaganda.

I can just see their magnetic car ribbons: “Support some of the troops.”

December 19, 2010 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

this is a matter of whether the Congress elected by the people makes the decisions in our country

That's exactly what happened yesterday. The members of Congress who were elected in 2008 were sworn into office in January 2009 to serve until January 2011, as per the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to the enactment of that Amendment, they would have served March 2009-March 2011. If the newly elected members of Congress, who will be sworn in to serve from January 2011 until January 2013, want to re-enact the ban on gays serving openly in the military, they will be able to try to re-enact DADT once their terms begin.

December 19, 2010 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

("when the military has trouble recruiting because potential recruits don't want to be forced to bunk with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner")

My, oh my, oh my "Anonymous"
You sound exactly like the prognosticators who predicted gloom and doom - with much hair tearing, chest thumping, and foot stomping - "our wives and daughters are going to be raped by the transgenders" weirdos when law was enacted to protect a minority group right here in Montgomery County.

Has any of that happened in the almost two years since the measure was put into place? NO

Your sick homophopbia has gotten in the way of any semblence of reason and intelligence on your part.

You are merely covering up your own very clear sexual insecurities when you constantly create a false reality in order to make yourself feel better, and your inability to "let go" of this issue should result in your visiting a trained therapist.

And, btw, we will be much better off as a nation when the sicko homophobes leave the military (either voluntarily or as a result of courts martial) in the numbers that you predict. If they cannot follow their orders they deserve to be removed.

And your comment: btw, the only transgender to file a complaint under the transgender law was the dork who wrote it." says much more about you and your ethics, sense of decency and morality than we really care to know about.

December 19, 2010 12:05 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

There's one thing passing the end-of-DADT has done--

Unleashed a veritable flood of hate-gasm in the conservative blogosphere. Twenty-Four-Seven dire predictions about All-American True Warriors being accosted in their most intimate bro-mantic moments - in the gang-shower, in the toilets, in the open-bay barracks (with or without 'cube' partitions) or in the two-man rooms -

- and what? having to confine yourself to a simple No-thank-you-I'm-not-that-way, being denied the 'right' to get all self righteous and pound to a pulp (should you swing that way) the asker (is that really what straight-but-insecure-about-their-sexuality men think, that somehow the asker won't take 'NO' for an answer?)

Is there something so heinous in finding out that some guy just might oogle you the way you oogle the former Miss California - something that automatically robs you of your dignity and honor and symbolically castrates you such that you have to destroy gay men at all costs, and can't suffer the loss of privilege to do so - privilege lost in the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the anti-school-bullying initiatives being enacted patchwork across the nation, and now the beginning of the end of the privilege of military members to, for example, stuff members they suspect of being gay into dog kennels full of dog feces - for example, beat to death with a baseball bat a sleeping PFC Barry Winchell because PFC Winchell was dating a male-to-female transgender and because PFC Winchell shouldn't have won the fight you picked with him that afternoon.

How do openly gay and lesbian and transgender and bisexual individuals sully your honor? How does spreading lies about gays and lesbians, and harassing them, denying them employment, condoning bullying and assault, restore your honor and balance your moral books?

December 19, 2010 2:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "this will be an issue in 2012".

Dream on. Not with 77% of Americans supporting this repeal. The march of equality is inevitable and this is a major step forward. This sends a powerful message that there is nothing wrong with gays and there is no justification for any denial of equality.

December 19, 2010 5:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

It's now become that much harder for bigots to justify denying gays the right to marry the one person they love most.

December 19, 2010 5:26 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“And, btw, we will be much better off as a nation when the sicko homophobes leave the military (either voluntarily or as a result of courts martial) in the numbers that you predict.

If they cannot follow their orders they deserve to be removed.”


Bravo.
--
“It's now become that much harder for bigots to justify denying gays the right to marry the one person they love most.”

Agreed.

December 19, 2010 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The members of Congress who were elected in 2008 were sworn into office in January 2009 to serve until January 2011, as per the 20th Amendment to the Constitution."

you know full well that the intentions of the writers of the original Constitution and the writers of the 20th amendment is that Congress wouldn't act after the election, short of an emergency

once again, gays have corrupted our system

"Dream on. Not with 77% of Americans supporting this repeal."

really?

most Californians approved gay "marriage" until it was debated

now, only one lone gay judge in SF does

"This sends a powerful message that there is nothing wrong with gays and there is no justification for any denial of equality."

homsexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality

not even close

"It's now become that much harder for bigots to justify denying gays the right to marry the one person they love most."

this comment makes no sense

and Priya didn't even bother to erase it

"Bravo.
Agreed."

the extent of imp's analytical powers

December 20, 2010 12:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, "Anonymous"...("homsexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality")...there are those who would argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (hence the "breeder" appelation).

No doubt this will get your undies in a knot!

December 20, 2010 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there are those who would argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality"

yes, and there are those who argue they are Napoleon

they reside in asylums so maybe those who think homosexuality is superior to normality should be too

December 20, 2010 6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just as there are people institutionalized with psychotic conditions like you.

You do make a good point, though, when you say: "homsexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality". No self-respecting GLBT would ever want to equate him/herself with bigots and haters like you!

I guess we here are blessed to have the actual presence of God in our midst!

December 21, 2010 5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey,"Anonymous"
Got that knot in your undies untied yet?

December 21, 2010 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just as there are people institutionalized with psychotic conditions like you."

well, don't hold back

tell us what precisely my psychotic condition is

"You do make a good point, though, when you say: "homsexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality"."

well, thank you

and I agree, that is one of my better points

"No self-respecting GLBT"

an oxymoron, I must say

also, a plain-old-moron too

"would ever want to equate him/herself with bigots and haters like you!"

bigot? hater?

could you elaborate?

"Hey,"Anonymous"
Got that knot in your undies untied yet?"

we don't want to hear your sick fantasies

December 21, 2010 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hey,"Anonymous"
Got that knot in your undies untied yet?" we don't want to hear your sick fantasies"

Why not, "Anonymous"? we are constantly bombarded by your very sick fantasies on a daily basis. It's called "tit for tat" - you should be able to take what you dish out in never-ending gushes of bile and invective.

Most of us here have sympathy and what you like to call "Christian compassion" for unfortunates like you.

December 23, 2010 10:18 AM  
Anonymous the mayor said...

yes, I've noticed how benevolent you are

your words seem to emanate grace, compassion and encouragement

thank you so much

and don't take this the wrong way, dear friend, but I think I speak for everyone, on both sides of the debate, when I say, we don't want to hear any of your sick fantasies

December 23, 2010 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
In this one instance, I bow to your good judgment: "your words seem to emanate grace, compassion and encouragement". You are so right!

So unusual for you to recognize that there are other human beings that deserve respect and not your usual hateful comments.

December 23, 2010 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if it wasn't Christmas Eve Eve, I'd explain the rhetorical use of sarcasm to you

oh well, in the words of the Red Baron, "Merry Christmas, my friend"

December 23, 2010 11:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home