Here's Something Surprising

[Lord Jim]

It appeared last week that the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a dead issue, after the Defense Authorization Bill that the provision was attached to failed to meet the 60 vote threshold....

However, now it looks like it may very well pass...

There will be a vote on a stand alone piece of legislation repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military later today, and Joe Lieberman, (who has been spearheading the effort) says he has four GOP votes for it; Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Steve Brown and Lisa Murkowski....

Since Lieberman is not a reckless fellow, one must assume this to be true, especially since he has named the Senators and none of them have come forward to say they aren't on board. He's said he expects to pick up some other GOP support from Senators he hasn't named.

[Rick]

Wondering if this is part of the "Tax" compromise?

Also asked this at Cyber...

[Scooter]

None of those names are particularly surprising. If it passes I hope McCain has apoplexy right on the Senate floor, the hypocritical neanderthal.

[Scooter]

63-33 to end debate

[Andrew D]

"Don't ask don't tell" is dead.

WASHINGTON — The US Senate voted yesterday to end America’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the US military, a historic reversal that ends one of the nation’s most controversial social policies and signifies growing political tolerance for gay rights.

The measure, which now heads to President Obama for his signature, will result in the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ rule that has led to the discharge of some 14,000 gay service members since it was established during the administration of President Bill Clinton 17 years ago.

Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was among six Republicans who broke ranks to help Democrats overcome a Republican filibuster against the repeal measure, by a vote of 63 to 33; at least 60 votes were needed to move the measure ahead. Final passage came in a second vote yesterday afternoon, when it was approved 65 to 31, with eight Republicans in favor.

“I just posted on my Facebook: if you could only see the tears of joy in my eyes,’’ said Travis Hengen, of Weymouth, Mass., minutes after the Senate action. A 37-year-old former Army counterintelligence officer, he was discharged under the “don’t ask’’ policy in 2003. The Pentagon will now ready plans for eliminating the rule, taking what could be several months, as stipulated in the new law, to prepare for the transition.

In the meantime, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that the restrictions requiring gays’ sexual orientation be kept secret will remain in effect, despite calls yesterday from several senators that the Pentagon chief immediately halt all disciplinary proceedings.

Jubilant supporters likened the vote to President Harry Truman’s 1948 order to desegregate the military: “We’ll some day look back and wonder what took Washington so long to fix it,’’ said US Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who was among a small group of senators who led the repeal fight in the Senate, thanked gay troops now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq: “We honor your service, and now we can do so openly.’’

Yesterday’s vote was considered a last chance for a legislative repeal, perhaps for years, with a Republican majority taking control of the House when the new Congress is seated next month.

The “don’t ask’’ policy has been the subject of controversy since Clinton backed it as a compromise in 1993, as gay rights advocates have attacked it politically and in the courts. Earlier this year, a federal court declared the law unconstitutional, a decision now under appeal.

A Pentagon study this year found that ending the ban would not harm the military’s long-term effectiveness, although some Army and Marine generals broke with their superiors and warned that letting gays serve openly during wartime would be disruptive.

Gates had urged Congress to repeal the policy so Gates could oversee an orderly implementation, before a federal court took the matter out of his hands.

Yesterday’s vote helps Obama deliver on a campaign promise to end the ban on openly gay people in the military.

It could also help the president mend his relationship with a Democratic base that has accused him of not standing up for the party’s principles in recent negotiations with Republicans over tax policy.

“It is time to close this chapter in our history,’’ Obama said in a prepared statement after the vote. “It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor, and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion, or creed.’’

But the vote outraged many religious conservatives. “Today is a tragic day for our armed forces,’’ Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobbying group, said in a prepared statement. “The American military exists for only one purpose — to fight and win wars. Yet it has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda.’’

The Senate vote completed a remarkable political turnaround for the “don’t ask’’ repeal authorization, which looked dead just 10 days ago after the Senate failed by three votes to approve a massive defense spending bill that included language to end the policy.

Several senators on the record in favor of repeal, including Brown, helped block the defense bill over procedural complaints. But in the immediate aftermath of that crushing defeat, repeal supporters gathered for one last effort.

They decided to push a stand-alone bill to reverse the policy, racing against the clock before Congress adjourned for the year.

The House last week easily approved the bill by a vote of 250 to 175, setting up yesterday’s drama in the Senate.

The Pentagon will immediately begin planning to carry out the change “carefully and methodically, but purposefully,’’ Gates said yesterday in a statement. He will consult with military leaders, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who raised opposition to changing the law, to ensure the change does not harm military readiness in a time of war.

“It is important that our men and women in uniform understand that while today’s historic vote means that this policy will change, the implementation and certification process will take an additional period of time,’’ he said.

He added that “strong leadership’’ will be required to move to openly gay service in the armed forces. A number of other nations allow gays to serve openly in the military, including Israel, Canada, and Great Britain.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, whose call earlier this year to change the law swayed many skeptics, said he believes the US military will be stronger as a result of the congressional action. “No longer will able men and women who want to serve and sacrifice for their country have to sacrifice their integrity to do so,’’ Mullen said.

Senators voting in favor of the repeal yesterday cast the debate as an issue of fairness and civil rights. “I don’t care who you love,’’ said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it you ought to be able to serve.’’

Republican opponents accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of rushing the bill through the Senate for political reasons; others warned the repeal could undermine “unit cohesion’’ in the military.

“There will be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America,’’ said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in sardonic remarks, acknowledging the repeal had the support to pass. “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage.’’

Brown was joined in defeating the filibuster by Republican senators Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Mark Kirk of Illinois; George Voinovich of Ohio; and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Republicans John Ensign of Nevada and Richard Burr of North Carolina supported the repeal measure on its final passage.

Brown declined to discuss the issue yesterday, through his office.

Some Bay State conservatives were deeply disappointed yesterday. The Massachusetts Family Institute blasted Brown for backing the repeal.

“Senate Republicans including Senator Brown made a vow not to vote on ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ until the budget was resolved, and they broke trust with the people,’’ said Kris Mineau, the group’s president.

“In doing so, they not only have put special interests above fiscal interests but also have put our troops at risk during wartime.’’

But gay rights advocates, who had slammed Brown for opposing the defense bill that contained language to end the policy, heaped praise on him yesterday. The Bay State’s largest gay rights organization, MassEquality, applauded him for crossing party lines “to take an affirmative vote in favor of LGBT equality.’’

Army veteran John Affuso, 43, of Boston, was so moved he phoned Brown’s office yesterday to thank him. Affuso chose not to reenlist in the mid-1990s largely because of the “don’t ask’’ policy.

“It’s about time,’’ said Affuso, who is gay. “I think about the thousands of people whose careers have ended because of this policy. They just wanted to serve their country.’’

Good on them. Some Republican Senators aren't complete troglodytes after all.

[Scooter]

Republican opponents accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of rushing the bill through the Senate for political reasons; others warned the repeal could undermine “unit cohesion’’ in the military.

“There will be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America,’’ said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in sardonic remarks, acknowledging the repeal had the support to pass. “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage.’’

Just watching an embittered and toothless McCain having a fit over this was reward enough.

I wonder, since the mainstream media is so "left wing" and all, why it is that none of them managed to ask McCain during this process why, if in 1993 he was advocating that legislators defer to the opinion of the joint chiefs on this matter, that this time around he was not willing to take his own advice.

And since so many Republicans are SO concerned about unit cohesion, how about asking them why their gums weren't flapping in protest when soldiers known to be gay had their discharges put off so they could be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, sometimes for multiple tours. Didn't that threaten unit cohesion? Why was it ok for gay soldiers to be sent overseas, risk their lives, in some cases to be killed or wounded, only to come back when their tour or tours were over and be kicked to the curb?

Then again, they were deploying known drug addicts and ex-convicts as cannon fodder, so desperate were they to keep up their numbers, couldn't expect them to keep the faggots at home, could we?

[Lord Jim]

The final vote was 65-31 with eight Republicans voting in favor of repeal.... (3 Republicans and one Democrat didn't vote)

[Lord Jim]

why their gums weren't flapping in protest when soldiers known to be gay had their discharges put off so they could be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, sometimes for multiple tours.

Soldiers who openly came out as gay were sent to serve multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Scoot, do you have a link on that?

[Guinevere]

Brown has flipped on this issue more times than a batch of pancakes on the IHOP griddle -- but in the end, he did the pragmatic thing. At least he's not a total idiot -- he has to run for reelection in 2012 and the Dems are already targetting him. This vote will go a long way to helping him with the Massachusetts Republicans who tend to be more socially liberal than other Republicans.

Thank god the nonsense of DADT is finally over. The vote last week was shameful, and the backlash was loud. Could it be that the Senators listened?

[rubato]

"...
Just watching an embittered and toothless McCain having a fit over this was reward enough.

I wonder, since the mainstream media is so "left wing" and all, why it is that none of them managed to ask McCain during this process why, if in 1993 he was advocating that legislators defer to the opinion of the joint chiefs on this matter, that this time around he was not willing to take his own advice.
... "

His flip-flops to get the support of the Republican powerbrokers were Rovian in their cynicism. McCain showed such a complete collapse of morality I have to wonder if there isn't some underlying degenerative brain disease going on.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

I wonder if anyone is planning a big Coming Out party for the thousands of brave, selfless homo's who are now serving so nobly.

Now we can all watch over the next couples years as the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play. THis will be yet another Pandora's Box.

[Joe Guy]

I wonder if anyone is planning a big Coming Out party for the thousands of brave, selfless homo's who are now serving so nobly.

Now we can all watch over the next couples years as the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play. THis will be yet another Pandora's Box.

Those darn homos!!

Always being gay and everything!

They shouldn't be allowed to be honest about their sexuality.

The next thing you know they'll be letting them hold hands while they march!

[loCAtek]

Sheesh, I had more problems with lezzies, than with gays. Not that they'd come on to you hard, (unlike the guys, at least they took 'no' for an answer) No, it's just that they always thought they were 'butcher' than you, for not needing men.

Wenches seemed to think 'my ass is badder than yours!' ...or was that just a pissing contest?

[Gob]

A victory for sanity against the forces of bigotry.

[dgs49]

It is positively Orwellian how the proponents of this measure (in this forum at least) employ the language of conservative convention to castigate those who - ironically - seek to maintain those conservative conventions.

Opponents of this measure are "immoral," "bigots," and "troglodytes."

The crew of Lefties who post here have asserted time and time again over the years that there is no "Natural Law," there is no objective morality. Each person determines for him/herself what is "right" and "wrong." And yet, seeking to maintain a moral convention that is thousands of years old and virtually universal in Western Civilization is "immoral."

The irony is priceless.

But of course the pattern plays out over and over again. The moralizers of the Right are simply and stupidly lost in a time warp of unthinking convention, while the lofty and exalted Left seeks to show us the way. Who are We to tell a woman that she must carry to term this bit of invenient tissue that has attached itself to her uterus? We are IMMORAL, HEARTLESS atavists. The "moral" thing to do is to preserve the mother's woman's right to kill it.

Sometimes when I read the garbage that is posted here I feel like I need to take a shower.

[Scooter]

My how sour the grapes are tasting today

[dgs49]

Actually, Scoots, I'm not particularly vested in this discussion, one way or another.

Having served in the Army alongside the occasional fudge packer, without difficulty or incident, and knowing that the military brass will seek to make the best of it regardless of how wrong-headed an initiative may be, I don't expect the U.S. military to disband or be measurably disrupted.

But many aspects of this are troubling. The military services are not supposed to be a sociological test lab where policy wonks can try out different theories of association. There is a mission to be pursued, and if this experiment gets in the way of accomplishment of the mission, then shame on the bastards who perpetrated it.

I started another thread to consider some of the unintended problems that are likely to come out of this change, but no one was interested in pursuing it.

What will be the re-entry "rights" of the fourteen thousand who were drummed out over the past 17 years? What about those who previously got "dishonorable" discharges?

What about soldiers who now flock to the states where same-sex marriages are legal (it is relatively easy for a service member to establish residency), get married, and want dependent benefits (and base housing) for their civilian spouses? Any problems? I don't know.

The "fortunate" thing is that the economy is so lousy that very few servicemen will leave the service in protest - there are no jobs for them on the outside.

Can transsexuals be far behind? Cross-dressers?

[Scooter]

Actually, Scoots, I'm not particularly vested in this discussion, one way or another.

Of course you're not. The viturperative sputtering is about your hemorrhoid flare up, I guess.

The military services are not supposed to be a sociological test lab where policy wonks can try out different theories of association. There is a mission to be pursued, and if this experiment gets in the way of accomplishment of the mission, then shame on the bastards who perpetrated it.

And what were the effects on "the mission" when 70+ linguists fluent in Arab and Farsi were yanked out of their jobs and discharged? You don't think that the gap in intelligence gathering that created had any effect on "the mission"? You don't think it has any effect on "the mission" when unit cohesion is disrupted by yanking experienced soldiers out of the field for interrogations about their sexuality, sending them home and replacing them with green recruits?

I started another thread to consider some of the unintended problems that are likely to come out of this change, but no one was interested in pursuing it with me because I have amply demonstrated, on this as on so many other subjects, that my prejudices are simply too ingrained to allow me to see reason.

Fixed that for you.

What will be the re-entry "rights" of the fourteen thousand who were drummed out over the past 17 years? What about those who previously got "dishonorable" discharges?

It would seem to me that anyone who is otherwise eligible to re-enlist should be able to do so and retain their previous rank. Anyone who lost benefits they would have had based on their time of service, if given anything other than an honorable discharge, should be able to access those benefits. Other than that, it's difficult to turn back the clock beyond a certain point. When the services were desegregated, to my knowledge there was no retroactive adjustments made to account for the fact that black soldiers essentially had their military careers cutoff because there were virtually no opportunities for advancement. I would imagine that experience would set some sort of precedent.

What about soldiers who now flock to the states where same-sex marriages are legal (it is relatively easy for a service member to establish residency), get married, and want dependent benefits (and base housing) for their civilian spouses? Any problems? I don't know.

Federal DOMA would appear to me to block any attempt by same-sex couples to have their marriages recognized for such purposes. Any benefits that are available to unmarried heterosexual couples (and I don't know if any are) could easily be extended to same-sex couples in that case.

The "fortunate" thing is that the economy is so lousy that very few servicemen will leave the service in protest - there are no jobs for them on the outside.

If a soldier is so rattled by serving alongside a homosexual that he/she feels the need to leave the service, then they clearly aren't tough enough to keep it together in the face of enemy fire, so good riddance.

Can transsexuals be far behind? Cross-dressers?

When both men and women are wearing completely indistinguishable shirts, pants, boots, etc., what possible difference could this make? Were you expecting a transexual soldier to report to the front in pumps and pearls?

[liberty]

When it comes to sex I have been referred to as liberal, but when it come to the military I am quite conservative. In the military the most important thing is effectiveness, mission accomplishment and one important consideration in that regard is unit cohesion. The members of a unit need a familial sense among them, it can mean the difference between life and death. When fragging starts in the unit it is all over.

Shame on you Scooter if anyone has a right to complain about military policy it is John Mc Cain. You might laugh at him as the hunch back, but he got those deformed shoulders courtesy of your noble, peace loving, human communist.

[Scooter]

You may believe that McCain deserves a pass for his hypocrisy on this issue; I do not. He is spitting in the face of every gay soldier currently serving, and spitting on the graves of all those gay soldiers who died serving their country. Does their sacrifice count for nothing in your eyes?