Congress to tackle DADT this year in compromise bill

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm not trying to have unrealistic "goddamn it fucking obama Democrats betraying us all the time" levels of blogosphere progressive expectations

Silly Duckie, it's cute the way you still honestly believe the Democrats care about you, other gay people, or anything except holding onto their own power. That's the exact reaction you should be having. Why? This bill is going to be vetoed by Obama regardless of whether or not it contains half-assed action on DADT:

May 21, 2010

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he will urge President Obama to veto a coming $726 billion defense authorization bill if it contains funding for unwanted projects Gates has been trying to cut for years.

...

"As I have stated repeatedly, should the Congress insist on adding funding for a costly and unnecessary JSF extra engine or direct changes that seriously disrupt the JSF program, or impose additional C-17 aircraft, I will strongly recommend that the president veto such legislation," he said.

If I didn't believe the Democrats were much too incompetent to do so, I'd think the only reason this was successfully added to the bill was because everyone knew it was going to be vetoed.

(Although I suppose it is possible Congress will strip out those provisions Gates objects to, or Obama will refuse Gates' request. I wouldn't hold my breath over the first one, and I'd be quite surprised if Obama ignores a request of his Secretary of Defense on a defense issue.)

[The Romulan Republic]

Has it occurred to you that Obama might not automatically veto because Gates tells him to?

The Secretary of Defense answers to the President, not the other way around.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Romulan:
Especially when the Secretary in question is a Bush-era holdover. Would it really be that hard for Obama to ditch Gates, if he felt the need to get him out of the way?

Is there some reason why every trade has to be immediately opened to gays? Why not a gradual approach similar to how woman were brought on board in many Commonwealth armies 30 years ago? Let gays serve openly in the support trades, see how it goes. Rinse and repeat in the combat support trades, and then again in the combat arms.

With women in combat this was a bit more reasonable, because the concern revolved around whether women could fight. The answer was "duh, yes," but it took a while to get that through people's heads. Whereas everyone knows gay soldiers can fight. It's just a question of whether or not to punish them for their gayness. If you're not going to punish a clerk at Fort Bragg for being gay, there's no obvious reason you should punish a front-line soldier for being gay.

[The Romulan Republic]

Re: Romulan:
Especially when the Secretary in question is a Bush-era holdover. Would it really be that hard for Obama to ditch Gates, if he felt the need to get him out of the way?

Right. I'll concede that I'm disappointed in a number of aspects of Obama's presidency. But that's no excuse to start condemning him for decisions he hasn't made yet.

[Aaron]

Re: Romulan:
Especially when the Secretary in question is a Bush-era holdover. Would it really be that hard for Obama to ditch Gates, if he felt the need to get him out of the way?

Is there some reason why every trade has to be immediately opened to gays? Why not a gradual approach similar to how woman were brought on board in many Commonwealth armies 30 years ago? Let gays serve openly in the support trades, see how it goes. Rinse and repeat in the combat support trades, and then again in the combat arms.

With women in combat this was a bit more reasonable, because the concern revolved around whether women could fight. The answer was "duh, yes," but it took a while to get that through people's heads. Whereas everyone knows gay soldiers can fight. It's just a question of whether or not to punish them for their gayness. If you're not going to punish a clerk at Fort Bragg for being gay, there's no obvious reason you should punish a front-line soldier for being gay.

I don't know about you but I don't really consider any of the current "problem" to be based in any kid of reason or sense.

[General Mung Beans]

I've found Don't Ask Don't Tell utterly illogical. If we allow adulterers, fornicators, and other people who commit such acts why not homosexuals?

[Aaron]

IIRC adultery is prosecutable under the UCMJ.

[Alphawolf55]

I've found Don't Ask Don't Tell utterly illogical. If we allow adulterers, fornicators, and other people who commit such acts why not homosexuals?

If I'm not mistaken almost all of those things can get you kicked out of the army while on active duty.

[Aaron]

Well I don't think that having random sex (thats what fornicating is right?) will get you booted unless it becomes a security issue or you wind up with some serious STD's.

[Alphawolf55]

Well you can get kicked out for getting pregnant and for getting someone pregnant. Does anyone know the specific rules?

[Lonestar]

Well you can get kicked out for getting pregnant and for getting someone pregnant. Does anyone know the specific rules?

You can but it isn't likely. More likely you'll get a "signifigant problems" evaluation if you're enlisted, or a similiar FITREP if you're an officer, which is the kiss of death, career wise.

Mind you, it isn't impossible. My Divo got a (female)sailor kicked out of the navy because the job was "interferring with her motherly duties"(re:she was taking off early a lot, trying to get out of duty because no one was able to take care of her kid, no Baby-daddy in the picture, etc.).

[Alphawolf55]

Is that for being pregnant or for doing the inpregnating? Because I do remember it being annouced that anyone caught pregnant in Iraq would be sent home and so would the father (though I don't think there's been a case of it happening to the father)
I could be wrong though

[Lonestar]

Is that for being pregnant or for doing the inpregnating?

Because I do remember it being annouced that anyone caught pregnant in Iraq would be sent home and so would the father (though I don't think there's been a case of it happening to the father)
I could be wrong though

Anyone that got pregnant in a war zone typically gets sent home anyway. The Hubbub was that both servicemen involved would get court martialled and a BCD. When there was media coverage of this, the General officer who had issued the order in his AOR rescinded it. Now it's back to "woman gets sent home to shore duty/someplace stateside, both get bad evals."

[Simon_Jester]

Is there some reason why every trade has to be immediately opened to gays? Why not a gradual approach similar to how woman were brought on board in many Commonwealth armies 30 years ago? Let gays serve openly in the support trades, see how it goes. Rinse and repeat in the combat support trades, and then again in the combat arms.

With women in combat this was a bit more reasonable, because the concern revolved around whether women could fight. The answer was "duh, yes," but it took a while to get that through people's heads. Whereas everyone knows gay soldiers can fight. It's just a question of whether or not to punish them for their gayness. If you're not going to punish a clerk at Fort Bragg for being gay, there's no obvious reason you should punish a front-line soldier for being gay.

I don't know about you but I don't really consider any of the current "problem" to be based in any kid of reason or sense.[/quote]Not saying it was.

The problem here is, for practical purposes, hammering concepts into the heads of the generals. With women in the military, the challenge was to get it through their heads that women could fight. Therefore, it's natural that women were allowed into the parts of the military that did less fighting sooner, because it was easier to convince the generals that women should be allowed to drive trucks than to convince them that women should be allowed to carry machine guns on the front lines. Given that the generals got it into their heads in the first place that women shouldn't be in combat, the way that process worked out was at least sane.

With gays in the military, the challenge is to get it through their heads that there is no reason to punish soldiers for being gay. Thus, it would not be natural to see them tolerated in non-combat branches but not in combat branches. The only way this would happen would be a concerted delaying action by homophobes in the military. It wouldn't make sense, and it wouldn't be a good compromise.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The bill just passed the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's expected to be voted in the Senate next month.

Senate panel, House approve 'don't ask, don't tell' compromise plan

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. House and a Senate committee approved amendments to a military bill Thursday that would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service, but only after some conditions are met.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to approve compromise language on the repeal in an amendment to the military policy bill. The panel then voted 18-10 to send the bill to the full Senate.
In the House, the chamber voted 234-194 to add the amendment to its version of the defense policy bill. A final vote on the full bill was expected Friday.
President Obama praised the votes.
"I am pleased that both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee took important bipartisan steps toward repeal tonight," Obama said in a statement. "This legislation will help make our Armed Forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity."
The Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, called it the first time since the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came into effect during the Clinton administration that any congressional body voted to repeal it.
"This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
The Senate committee's vote on the amendment was mostly partisan, with 15 Democrats and one Republican -- Sen. Susan Collins of Maine -- supporting the compromise repeal language. The House vote also was along largely partisan lines, with 229 Democrats and five Republicans supporting the repeal amendment, while 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats opposed it.
Under the compromise, the repeal would occur after a military review of the matter and subsequent approval by Obama, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Opponents of the repeal language said the military should first carry out the review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that is scheduled to be completed in December. Only then would military leaders have the necessary information from force members to develop a plan for carrying out the repeal, according to the opponents.
"I see no reason to pre-empt the process that our senior Defense Department leaders put into motion, and I am concerned that many members of the military would view such a move as disrespectful to the importance of their roles in this process," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, who voted against the amendment.
A recent CNN poll seemed to suggest that Americans were ready for the change. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday indicated that 78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed.
The compromise worked gave time for the military to complete its review of the planned repeal, as sought by Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, both said this week they could accept the compromise language.
Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's midterm election and be unable to pass the measure then.
The compromise emerged late Monday from a meeting at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, sources said.
There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.
A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said it was well under way, with a survey going out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views.
In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.
The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.
A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

[eion]

Dare I fucking dream...

If this passes it will slay one of the four remaining dragons of institutionalized homophobia.

Time to go call my Senators again...

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'd be quite surprised if Obama ignores a request of his Secretary of Defense on a defense issue.)

I would be surprised too, pleasantly so. Gates is incompetent and the only thing he's done right so far is cancel FCS, repealing DADT would only increase it to two.

[Bluewolf]

If this passes it will slay one of the four remaining dragons of institutionalized homophobia.

Out of interest what would you call the other three?

[Terralthra]

Surely DoMA is up there.

[Gil Hamilton]

If I'm not mistaken almost all of those things can get you kicked out of the army while on active duty.

I've heard them described as "Get 'Em" charges, that is, they still exist on the books so that if they are really want to nail someone, they have those charges possible to make sure that person has no option of wiggling out. It was described to me this way: "Ah, you see we have it on credible witness* that you went to such and such Australian brothel when the fleet was docked there on such and such a date and engaged indecent acts with a female prostitute, so we are charging you with sodomy too"

*Note, these credible witnesses were all the other sailors who also went to the same brothel. The fact that prostitution and brothels are legal in alot of Australia and provide valuable services for the US Navy doesn't factor in.

I may be corrected, but I think that's why they still have those things. Not because the military really cares, but if they really really need to bust someone, they have those things.

Homosexuality charges are a different kettle of fish though.

[Knife]

Indeed. A lot of those are used as shit to throw against the wall to see what sticks if you get caught doing something that pisses someone off and they may not have enough to burn you with the major charge.

[eion]

If this passes it will slay one of the four remaining dragons of institutionalized homophobia.

Out of interest what would you call the other three?

The Five, now four, Dragons are:

-Criminalization of gay sex. Mostly defeated via Lawrence v. Texas
-Anti-marriage equality laws. DOMA is high on that list, but far too many states have constitutional amendments that will need to be repealed, or deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, a slow process that could take decades.
-Banning of blood donation by a whole class of people (gay men) rather than based on risky behavior.
-Employment Discrimination. This dragon may soon be slayed as well if ENDA actually passes this year.
-Open Service in the Military.

Get rid of those, and I think you could pretty well call the gay rights movement a success.

[eion]

Indeed. A lot of those are used as shit to throw against the wall to see what sticks if you get caught doing something that pisses someone off and they may not have enough to burn you with the major charge.

Couldn't they just do as they do in South Korea and post this on the way out of the base/ship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USFK_ ... arning.jpg

Then not only can you get them on 133 & 134, but also on disobeying a direct order.

Sodomy laws are not necessary and are just trotted out every time someone brings up open service, "Why that'd be allowing people to flagrantly violate the UCMJ! What kind of example could those officers and NCOs set! It'd be like allowing open adultery or dueling!"

The UCMJ is one of the last places you can find an enforceable sodomy law.

[Gil Hamilton]

-Criminalization of gay sex. Mostly defeated via Lawrence v. Texas
-Anti-marriage equality laws. DOMA is high on that list, but far too many states have constitutional amendments that will need to be repealed, or deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, a slow process that could take decades.
-Banning of blood donation by a whole class of people (gay men) rather than based on risky behavior.
-Employment Discrimination. This dragon may soon be slayed as well if ENDA actually passes this year.
-Open Service in the Military.

The bolded you've got wrong. Statistically speaking, gay men do have a higher risk of blood borne illness, particularly older men. They also don't let anyone donate if they've so much have stepped foot on the continent of Africa between a certain timeframe or if the person has ever seen the inside of the prison or if the person has had a laundry list of medications. They've got a huge survey, after all, when you go in, where an RN sits down with you and goes through it, in addition to taking your blood pressure, making sure you are feeling well, and doing an iron test (which, if you are having low iron that day or even have a slight headache, they don't let you proceed). Were it a discrimination attempt against homosexuals, they'd ban lesbians from donating blood as well, but they do not because gay women have a lower statistical chance of having blood borne pathogens from sexually transmitted sources. If there is a medical concensus that gay men no longer have the same risk of blood borne disease, then they'd no doubt be glad to allow gay men to donate because blood banks are ALWAYS hurting for donors.

The others, of course, are things that should be done away with. It's ridiculous how much homosexuals are descriminated against. However, the blood bank thing isn't really valid, unless you are claiming that the policy is discriminatory against people who spent a few months in the England as well.

[Gil Hamilton]

Couldn't they just do as they do in South Korea and post this on the way out of the base/ship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USFK_ ... arning.jpg

Then not only can you get them on 133 & 134, but also on disobeying a direct order.

Sodomy laws are not necessary and are just trotted out every time someone brings up open service, "Why that'd be allowing people to flagrantly violate the UCMJ! What kind of example could those officers and NCOs set! It'd be like allowing open adultery or dueling!"

The UCMJ is one of the last places you can find an enforceable sodomy law.

That's not the point of them. The military doesn't give a rat's ass about whether or not a soldier or sailor or Marine does these things. In fact, I mentioned Australian brothels due to the fact that after a US Fleet docks in someplace like Sydney, they shut down for a week to recover from all the American sailors who are all but told to go out there and get laid. They are still on the books, however, because occasionally there is a jackass that really needs charged with SOMETHING because they can't quite get him for what he really did. It's the Al Capone principle, they put him away on a single count of tax evasion because they couldn't nail him for the all the things that he was oh so guilty of doing. So they maintain those things in the UCMJ for special occasions, but really otherwise couldn't care what their soldiers do with their dingles, just so long as the sheep they are buggering is a female sheep.