Repeal of DADT up for vote in the Senate

[General Zod]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010 ... ce-ban/?hp

In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama repeated a campaign-trail promise to the gay community.

By the end of the year, Mr. Obama said, he would seek a full repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The president called it a “law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” and he said repealing it was “the right thing to do.”

The promise faces a critical test today as supporters of the current policy say they will try to filibuster military defense legislation that includes the repeal. With midterm elections just six weeks away, a unified Republicans filibuster would likely mean a delay in fulfilling the president’s pledge until next year.

Opponents of an unrelated immigration measure included in the annual defense authorization bill are also vowing to filibuster, increasing the odds that both issues will be put off.

If the Democrats can’t muster 60 votes to cut off debate, the delay on “don’t ask, don’t tell” would be a blow to gay activists, members of a key White House constituency who fear that next year’s Congress will be less sympathetic to a repeal of the 17-year-old ban. The policy was enacted during President Bill Clinton’s first term.

And it would serve as another source of frustration for those who do not think Mr. Obama is moving quickly enough to make good on major promises, including a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and passage of legislation to ban discrimination against gays in hiring.

“It’s critical that it get done in the next week or so,” Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said of the repeal of the military policy.

The network and other groups have praised Mr. Obama and his White House for helping to negotiate a deal with Democratic lawmakers that moved a repeal effort forward while allowing the Pentagon to conduct a study on how best to implement the change in policy. That led to public announcements of support for the repeal in May by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But Mr. Sarvis said on Monday: “We need the administration to weigh in and ask the Senate to take up this bill. I haven’t heard the president’s voice in recent days on this issue. But I know he’s an advocate for repeal. He wants repeal.”

Repeal is one of a series of promises that Mr. Obama made in the early days of his administration, only to find that negotiations with Congress were more difficult than he had imagined. The president’s pledge to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, also remains unfulfilled, with little sign that a solution will come soon.

Among the biggest critics of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal has been Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a longtime member of the Senate Armed Services committee. Mr. McCain has said consideration of such an idea in Congress should wait until the Pentagon’s study is completed.

As today’s vote neared, advocates for repeal stepped up their lobbying. They paid particular attention to the two moderate Republican senators from Maine, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins. Ms. Collins voted on the Armed Services committee to support the repeal, but both senators have expressed concern about the defense spending bill, largely on procedural grounds.

In a statement on Monday, Ms. Snowe said that the Democratic leadership should allow Republicans to offer amendments to the defense bill.

“The Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the majority leader is allowing, especially as this bill is the largest discretionary authorization measure that Congress considers,” Ms. Snowe said in the statement.

The pop music sensation Lady Gaga traveled to Maine on Monday evening for a rally in support of the repeal. “If you are not honorable enough to fight without prejudice, go home,” she told the crowd at the rally.

The immigration provision in the defense spending bill would provide a path to citizenship for young people who have lived in the United States for five years and spent two years in either college or the military.

A White House spokesman, Shin Inouye, declined to comment on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” or the immigration provisions, but said Monday night that the spending bill was “important for the overall health and well being of our forces, especially given the ongoing campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.”

“This legislation received bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the president hopes it receives similar bipartisan support in the Senate,” Mr. Inouye said.

Two senators, Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, plan to hold a news conference this morning to urge their colleagues to vote in favor of moving the legislation forward.

The vote is scheduled for around 2:15 this afternoon.

[Terralthra]

The Senate Bill has been filibustered. John McCain led the filibuster attempt, and overriding it failed 56-43.

The Senate today blocked the start of debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, with Republicans objecting to a provision that would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The vote was 56 to 43, with 60 votes needed to break the filibuster.

Two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both from Arkansas, voted with Republicans to block the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted no, a procedural move so he can bring the cloture motion back to the floor later.

DADT was one of several sticking points of the defense authorization bill, which must pass in order to fund the military.

Republican senators, including Sens. John McCain (AZ) and Susan Collins (ME), argued that passing repeal now would undermine the Defense Department's review of the policy, which won't be completed until December.

The language in the bill provides that DADT wouldn't be repealed until 60 days after the review is complete and the plan for repeal is signed off on by the president, defense secretary and joint chiefs of staff.

The White House said today it supports the repeal language.

"Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions," the statement reads.

After the vote, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, "I don't think this is the end" of DADT repeal.

Some senators said they would vote to block the bill because Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't allowing enough amendments to the bill. There were also objections to the DREAM Act, which would give young immigrants a path to citizenship.

Lady Gaga made political headlines this week after speaking out in favor of repeal. She traveled to Portland, Maine, yesterday, to hold a rally urging Sens. Collins and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to vote for repeal.

Both Snowe and Collins voted against beginning debate.

[Terralthra]

John McCain's conservative about-face on this issue is striking, and it's not just The Daily Show pointing this out:

Sen. John McCain is apparently no longer willing to take his cues on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" from the nation's military leaders. Which is intriguing since, not long ago, he indicated he was perfectly willing to.

A few years back, the Arizona Republican and 2008 GOP presidential nominee said he would wait until military leaders called for ending the policy that requires gays in the U.S. military to stay in the closet before he would do so.

Now that military leaders have said DADT should be ended, McCain is criticizing them.

As the Washington Post reports:

... Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen (testified Tuesday) to senators following President Obama's announcement that he would seek a congressional repeal of the controversial 15-year-old policy.

Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision.

"The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly," Gates said.

In response, the Arizona senator declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony by Mullen and Gates. The senator said Gates should be asking whether to repeal the ban, not acting as if it had already been repealed.

"At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," McCain said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."

The WaPo reporter smelled politics:

Since losing to Obama in the 2008 election, McCain has become a consistent critic of the president.

He also has, for the first time in years, a serious primary fight on his hands. J.D. Hayworth, a former Republican congressman, is considering a challenge, and Chris Simcox, a founder of the Minutemen anti-immigration group, has already said he wants McCain's job.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Arizona is filled with old people who hate the homoseksuals as well as the Mexy-cans. McCain's just pulling hard right to make sure he has the base all fired up in Arizona, aka brownshirt land, so that he can safely win re-election. When the review in December is released I'm quite certain he'll vote for it, but of course there will be an attempt to kill it then because it's the lame-duck congress, etc, etc, blah blah. I have no confidence but am not completely hopeless on seeing this basic measure succeed before a tidal wave of retards runs us straight through an angry tide and across the shoals, throwing minorities off the ship of state one by one...

[Jaevric]

I made the mistake of going to MSNBC and CNN.com and reading the comments section. Watching the Republican trolling...ahem...comments made my brain bleed. Many of the same people who ranted and raved during the Bush Presidency that Democrats "Aren't supporting our troops!" when the Democrats hesitated to support a funding bill that had Republican riders attached to it are now whining that it isn't fair for the DADT/DREAM act to be attached to a military funding bill.

I'm neither homosexual nor military, and this political horseshit still makes me embarassed and almost physically ill. I cannot imagine what it is like for those homosexuals or bisexuals serving in the military to know they're risking their lives for a country that treats them as second-class citizens.

[MKSheppard]

The Senate Bill has been filibustered. John McCain led the filibuster attempt, and overriding it failed 56-43.

Aw. There's the MAVERICK again. One moment he's all for gays, the next he's leading the charge to burn them at the stake.

With such wild mood swings on issues; is it any surprise the republican base hates John McCain?

So I went and looked up this vote:

Overwhelmingly GOP.

Democrat Nays:

Lincoln (D-AR)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) <-------Wowzers

[Ace Pace]

Reid (D-NV) <-------Wowzers

Per the article,

Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted no, a procedural move so he can bring the cloture motion back to the floor later.

[General Zod]

The Senate Bill has been filibustered. John McCain led the filibuster attempt, and overriding it failed 56-43.

Aw. There's the MAVERICK again. One moment he's all for gays, the next he's leading the charge to burn them at the stake.

With such wild mood swings on issues; is it any surprise the republican base hates John McCain?

So I went and looked up this vote:

Overwhelmingly GOP.

Democrat Nays:

Lincoln (D-AR)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) <-------Wowzers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39286687/ns ... itol_hill/

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Edit: And somehow didn't see Ace's post when I made mine. Oh well.

[Highlord Laan]

And the rethugs -again- prove themselves interested only in politricks dominated by paleocon troglodytes. I'm not surprised in the slightest, only more disgusted than I was ten minutes ago.

[MKSheppard]

Hm. Turns out that Reid tried to bundle the DREAM ACT and DADT repeal together in this huge crapsandwich.

The DREAM Act would have been a small scale amnesty for illegals who grew up here as kids -- which probably factored far more into (R) opposition than the DADT repeal.

[Kanastrous]

From wacky-fun rightie talk radio I get the impression that the main objection to DREAM was that a short stint in a community college would make an illegal entrant (in the covered category) eligible for a Green Card, same as military service. To the degree that they objected to debasing military service by suggesting that's it's effectively interchangeable with taking some community-college credits, I have to admit that I agree with them.

But most of the caterwauling was indeed over DADT. Lots of appeals to how can we infringe upon our brave fighting men and women's rights to their religious beliefs by forcing them to serve alongside open homosexuals? Don't discount the appeal of the religious craperoo in some quarters...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Senate Bill has been filibustered. John McCain led the filibuster attempt, and overriding it failed 56-43.

Aw. There's the MAVERICK again. One moment he's all for gays, the next he's leading the charge to burn them at the stake.

With such wild mood swings on issues; is it any surprise the republican base hates John McCain?

So I went and looked up this vote:

Overwhelmingly GOP.

Democrat Nays:

Lincoln (D-AR)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) <-------Wowzers

I think about the only thing that most of the American electorate can agree to by this point is that McCain is a cheap whore who never saw a political cause he didn't want to triangulate on. At least with Obama we got exactly what we could reliably predict: A Chicago politician.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

From wacky-fun rightie talk radio I get the impression that the main objection to DREAM was that a short stint in a community college would make an illegal entrant (in the covered category) eligible for a Green Card, same as military service. To the degree that they objected to debasing military service by suggesting that's it's effectively interchangeable with taking some community-college credits, I have to admit that I agree with them.

But most of the caterwauling was indeed over DADT. Lots of appeals to how can we infringe upon our brave fighting men and women's rights to their religious beliefs by forcing them to serve alongside open homosexuals? Don't discount the appeal of the religious craperoo in some quarters...

I'd approve an amnesty for any illegal with a degree of national interest (medical, science, engineering) regardless of the level of that degree, following a rather thorough background check to make sure they're going to be loyal Americans, as being an altogether very sensible measure, but I do have to question the idea of basing amnesty on "yeah, I showed up at a community college". Among other things I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose an amnesty simply because these people are breaking the law, but on the other hand national interest may favour ignoring that in certain cases. People with stable jobs and people with useful degrees and their immediate family fall into that category, and generally kneejerk opposition to amnesty rather than looking at the actual advantages to the US under varying levels of it is what's the main signal of closet racism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

From wacky-fun rightie talk radio I get the impression that the main objection to DREAM was that a short stint in a community college would make an illegal entrant (in the covered category) eligible for a Green Card, same as military service. To the degree that they objected to debasing military service by suggesting that's it's effectively interchangeable with taking some community-college credits, I have to admit that I agree with them.

But most of the caterwauling was indeed over DADT. Lots of appeals to how can we infringe upon our brave fighting men and women's rights to their religious beliefs by forcing them to serve alongside open homosexuals? Don't discount the appeal of the religious craperoo in some quarters...

I'd approve an amnesty for any illegal with a degree of national interest (medical, science, engineering) regardless of the level of that degree, following a rather thorough background check to make sure they're going to be loyal Americans, as being an altogether very sensible measure, but I do have to question the idea of basing amnesty on "yeah, I showed up at a community college". Among other things I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose an amnesty simply because these people are breaking the law, but on the other hand national interest may favour ignoring that in certain cases. People with stable jobs and people with useful degrees and their immediate family fall into that category, and generally kneejerk opposition to amnesty rather than looking at the actual advantages to the US under varying levels of it is what's the main signal of closet racism.

Agreed. i also favor amnesty for those who came over as kids. Breaking the law requires intent to commit the action in question (whether or not you know it is illegal). Someone who came over as a small child does not meet the requirements for breaking the law. What are they going to do when they get older? Think to themselves "Oh, shit. I am breaking the law, I better go back to Mexico and abandon everything I know and love" No. We cannot expect that, and such people should be given a fast track to permanent residency.

[Anguirus]

So how much does this matter for DADT, considering that it was just ruled unconstitutional?

[Bakustra]

So how much does this matter for DADT, considering that it was just ruled unconstitutional?

Well, for one thing the ruling can be appealed, and if the Supreme Court hears it, there's a good chance that they'll uphold it as constitutional by a 5-4 vote. Even if they don't, it will still take several years to decide anyhow, whereas this will end it over the course of a year.

Hm. Turns out that Reid tried to bundle the DREAM ACT and DADT repeal together in this huge crapsandwich.

The DREAM Act would have been a small scale amnesty for illegals who grew up here as kids -- which probably factored far more into (R) opposition than the DADT repeal.

You mean, apart from the fact that most of the rhetoric was focusing around DADT? Perhaps you could try to defend the Republican Party on valid grounds, rather than from quicksand.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, for one thing the ruling can be appealed, and if the Supreme Court hears it, there's a good chance that they'll uphold it as constitutional by a 5-4 vote. Even if they don't, it will still take several years to decide anyhow, whereas this will end it over the course of a year.

The ruling damn well better not be appealed. If Obama permits the DOJ to appeal the ruling, he will lose the support of the gays. The gays are very often his most enthusiastic campaigners. At this point many of us (myself included) are not seeing much of a functional difference between ineffective democrats and republicans.

[Bakustra]

Well, for one thing the ruling can be appealed, and if the Supreme Court hears it, there's a good chance that they'll uphold it as constitutional by a 5-4 vote. Even if they don't, it will still take several years to decide anyhow, whereas this will end it over the course of a year.

The ruling damn well better not be appealed. If Obama permits the DOJ to appeal the ruling, he will lose the support of the gays. The gays are very often his most enthusiastic campaigners. At this point many of us (myself included) are not seeing much of a functional difference between ineffective democrats and republicans.

Even if it doesn't get appealed (and hopefully it won't), then there still is the problem that it had been repealed by "activist judges" and so getting Congress to do it is more useful.

[Lizzie]

*Has only just now been catching up on the news because minecraft had her soul for a few days*
Well ... that's just depressing, but then again I'm not entirely surprised. I wonder how many more years still that homosexual and bisexual soldiers will be dishonorably discharged for just being gay until this bullshit is finally ripped out.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

*Has only just now been catching up on the news because minecraft had her soul for a few days*
Well ... that's just depressing, but then again I'm not entirely surprised. I wonder how many more years still that homosexual and bisexual soldiers will be dishonorably discharged for just being gay until this bullshit is finally ripped out.

No, they're given an Honourable or General discharge depending on circumstances. You can only be dishonourably discharged if you're convicted of a crime.

[eyl]

A question: my understanding is that both this and the court ruling on DADT addressed only repealing DADT/ruling it unconstitutional. Wouldn't removal of DADT cause the situation to revert back to pre-Clinton policy, which was worse? Or is "repeal DADT" shorthand for "repeal DADT & amend the UCMJ"?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A question: my understanding is that both this and the court ruling on DADT addressed only repealing DADT/ruling it unconstitutional. Wouldn't removal of DADT cause the situation to revert back to pre-Clinton policy, which was worse? Or is "repeal DADT" shorthand for "repeal DADT & amend the UCMJ"?

The later, of course.

[Kanastrous]

It sounds like a reasonable question, though - if DADT is repealed and the UCMJ has not already been revised, how long a no-grace period might there be between the repeal and the revision? Gay service people could be twisting in the wind for however long it takes, to do the revising.

Unless the repeal incorporates some kind of stop-gap language to prevent summary court martial or discharge of gay personnel until the revision is completed.

[Jaepheth]

As commander-in-Chief can Obama not simply order military brass to not persecute gay soldiers?

[Bakustra]

As commander-in-Chief can Obama not simply order military brass to not persecute gay soldiers?

Don't Ask Don't Tell was enacted into law by Congress, so him refusing to enforce it is a) a dangerous precedent and b) a major talking point for the midterm elections and the 2012 elections.