16-12: Armed Services Committee passes repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”; Update: Repeal passes House, 234-194

posted at 7:28 pm on May 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

That looks like a party line vote, but it actually wasn’t. Susan Collins voted yes and Jim Webb voted no. Meawhile, in the House

In a floor speech on Thursday, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, denounced the policy that requires gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to keep their sexual orientation secret if they want to serve in the armed forces.

Mr. Frank noted that the Israeli military, which he called “as effective a fighting force as has existed in modern times” does not bar gay men or lesbians from service. Mr. Frank, who is openly gay, also said that he would be criticized — rightly, he said — if he were to suggest that gay men and lesbians be exempted if a military draft were needed.

Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican, accused Democrats of trying to use the military “to advance a liberal social agenda” and demanded that Congress “put its priorities in order.”…

“The military is not a social experiment,” said Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, who said lifting the ban could encourage “overt” sexual behavior in the ranks.

The full floor vote in either chamber could come tomorrow or even tonight, and I honestly can’t wait. Not because I support repealing DADT (which I do) but because it’ll be fascinating to watch vulnerable Dems and Repubs struggle with how to vote on this in an election year. Oddly enough, The Hill finds that an awful lot of House Democrats really, really don’t want to talk about it. Although the Senate, as usual, is more interesting: Will Collins be the only Republican to risk the wrath of the base by defecting? If she is, then Reid’s got a problem because Webb’s in line to be the 41st vote for the GOP on a filibuster. Or maybe Webb will decide that he doesn’t want to antagonize the nutroots quite that much so he’ll vote for cloture but then vote no on the final bill. Which way does Blanche Lincoln vote, though? Probably yes in order to protect herself in the primary run-off in Arkansas, but that’ll be another liability for her in the general (if she survives).

While we wait, here are milbloggers JD Johannes and Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive telling Rachel Maddow last night why they support repeal. Exit question: Is this going to be another 217-216 vote in the House?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: The deal is sealed in the House. 234-194, with four Republicans voting yes. Charles Djou was one of them, which is a no-brainer given how blue his district is, but I’m waiting for the roll to see who the other three are. The fact that the vote wasn’t close is a sign of how comfortable centrist Dems felt with the polling.

Update: Still waiting for the roll, which should be available here once it’s up, but the names of the five (not four) GOP defectors are already being reported on Twitter: It’s Djou, Joe Cao (also from a deep blue district), Judy Biggert, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and … Ron Paul.

Update: A shrewd point from Ben Smith: “It’s worth pausing to note the degree to which military service has replaced marriage as the public focus of the gay rights movement, and what a canny strategic posture that has been. Gays and lesbians have now spent months demanding something that’s less a right than a burden or a duty — demanding to be able to service and, potentially, die for the country. It’s a fundamentally patriotic stance, and it will offer a moral high ground to the movement for equal treatment for same-sex couples on questions like immigration and marriage.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Weeee.

Mr. Joe on May 27, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I only care if they can shoot straight.

Mr. Joe on May 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Webb impresses me as a “Old Time” democrat!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 27, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I think this policy is causing more harm than any arguable good. The military can curtail behavior significantly, so fears of bases becoming some gay rights parade are unfounded. Most service members are probably not going to talk about it much either.

Mr. Joe on May 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Im sure the Jihadis will use this to show how corrupt the US is.

Will be fun to see the anti war explode (yeah right)

William Amos on May 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Ya know, this entire two years of Democratic rule will end up with the majority of laws they pass being rolled back. Nothin but a frickin waste of time and money.

G. on May 27, 2010 at 7:35 PM

if a military draft were needed.

You KNOW that’s coming. There is nothing progs love more than enslaving people, and war. Don’t let them fool you. They love war, especially when it can serve as a distraction from the Second Great Depression they cooked up.

Rae on May 27, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Barry will be on nothing but executive orders for another two years. Another waste of time…and money…that is if we have any left.

G. on May 27, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Another step forward for the pre-existing conditions crowd.

All you injured soldiers ! Line on up for you battlefield blood transfusions !

BowHuntingTexas on May 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Remind me again what the rush is in all of this, and why we can’t at least see the military’s own recommendations before the vote?

How many gays or lesbians are in danger of being kicked out of the military in the month or so it would take for the DoD recommendations to come out?

notropis on May 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

I would prefer each military service decide on it’s own what policy to enforce. Were I still in the Corps I would have simply butt stroked any one male hitting on me or my squad. Suffice to say, we take care of our own… and it works at all levels. And for you so called jokers out there… butt stroked means getting hit in the jaw with the shoulder stock of a rifle. Clear enough, funny guys?

MNDavenotPC on May 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

To each his own I say but one of the concerns I saw from the Brass was possible aids tainted blood, or the fear of it , in a battle situation. I would rather go with what those in the Military think, not Barney Frank.

sandee on May 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Whatever!

We’re broke as a joke, giving our military secrets away, dismantling our nuke stockpile, cutting off our own ability to manufacture or produce energy, and this matters how?

Whoever takes us over likely won’t give a flying fig about gays in the military. Such silly things for a nation on the verge of collapse to be worrying about.

NTWR on May 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

I only care if they can shoot straight.

Mr. Joe on May 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM</blockquote
Sure, but the target matters too.

JellyToast on May 27, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Don’t Tell Don’t Ask.

portlandon on May 27, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Whatever!

We’re broke as a joke, giving our military secrets away, dismantling our nuke stockpile, cutting off our own ability to manufacture or produce energy, and this matters how?

NTWR on May 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

My thoughts exactly. }|-/

Dark-Star on May 27, 2010 at 7:42 PM

I guess that means doing away with separate male and female barracks, right? Or is sneaking a peek a gay-only privilege?

ROCnPhilly on May 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

People who support the repeal of DADT, like AP, have no idea why the military is really opposed to the repeal. It is simple. Not because we afraid of homosexuals, we know they serve. It is because when it is repealed the military has to BECOME a proponent for the behavior. The will have to zealously endorse it and punish any who disagree. We, the military, have seen it happen with the Equal Opportunity program. Look where it got us, anyone remember Maj. Hasan. That worked out well for us don’t you think. Allah needs to walk in our shoes a while before shooting his mouth off. You are about to witness the final destruction of the military if this BS passes.

usarmyretired on May 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

I agree. The world’s miltarys have allowed homosexuals in their midst for years. I think the USA should be just like them. You know, ineffective, paper tigers who can’t defend themselves even if they wanted to.

I sure can’t wait for the Germans, Swedes, French, Norwegians, and all the other countries who have incorporated deviant behavior into their military to come to our aid when we need them.

Better yet, our military might even be stronger if all conservatives would leave and let the liberals do the defending using their social experimentation to whatever extent they want. You go progressives!

iamsaved on May 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican, accused Democrats of trying to use the military “to advance a liberal social agenda”…

This has nothing to do with a “liberal agenda”…this affects liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between. How many liberal gays do you think would join the military? Nice to see progress on this.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:44 PM

It’s about time the policy ended.

BTW, note the above article, and mark it on your calendar. It’s likely the only time you’ll see a Democrat praise the Israeli military.

Vyce on May 27, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Susan Collins voted yes and Jim Webb voted no.

The Republican who never served voted yes and the Democrat who did serve voted no.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:44 PM

My concern stems more from the inevitable attempts to ram federal recognition of gay marriage through via this.

Sue to force the military to conduct and recognize gay marriage, then sue or lobby because the federal government already recognizes the marriages through the military so it should recognize them on a civilian level.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:48 PM

It’s a non-event. All the problems that I would fear as a result of openly gay members serving already exists, to an extent, so what’s the difference.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 7:49 PM

If they’re gonna do it, then be done with it.

But don’t tell me it’s for any reason other than placating a radical leftist lobbying group – not for the good of the country or the service or anything else of the kind.

catmman on May 27, 2010 at 7:49 PM

I say once again- this is not an issue of sex, showers, or fighting holes; this is an issue whereby Congress is trying to create a protected class within the military.

It is my belief that ultimately, very few gays will enlist (some already serving will certainly come out), particularly during wartime, but some -especially during the Obama Unemployment Era- will join solely for a paycheck. The biggest problem will be cohesion; some gays, especially those who enlist “because they can” will create an antagonistic environment and the number of Article 31′s will skyrocket. Distrust will ensue, and military readiness will suffer.

And please, no comparisons to Israel or Australia; our military’s mission is like no other. This is a bad move, and one that will discourage many more who truly love this country from serving than those who currently feel unable. Once again, Progressives will sacrifice the many for the sake of the chosen few.

BK Sgt,USMC 1986-1992

BKeyser on May 27, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Funny that Barney Fwank should mention THE DRAFT. Seeing as he and his pals are in a RUSH to get this done without waiting for the Pentagon report on implementation. The draft is just what they might have to resort to if recruitment and retention levels fall because of social experimentation.

GarandFan on May 27, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Just to be clear, the repeal is opposed by the:

-Chief of Naval Operations

-Commandant of the Marine Corps

-Army Chief of Staff

-Air Force Chief of Staff

But they must all be wrong about the implications and Uncle Jimbo, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama must be right.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:50 PM

My concern stems more from the inevitable attempts to ram federal recognition of gay marriage through via this.

Sue to force the military to conduct and recognize gay marriage, then sue or lobby because the federal government already recognizes the marriages through the military so it should recognize them on a civilian level.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Would that really be so wrong?

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Would that really be so wrong?

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Letting a court bypass a power delegated to the states under the 10th Amendment, overriding the laws passed either by the voters or their legislators, to force the nation to recognize a redefinition of marriage it doesn’t want to recognize?

Yeah, that might not be good.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Would that really be so wrong?

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Every gay person has the right to marry. If they chose not to marry, that is their fault.

portlandon on May 27, 2010 at 7:55 PM

If the military goes on strike to protest the Democrats’ homosexualization plan, will the Democrats suddenly be opposed to government employees going on strike?

Who will they call in to force the strikers back to work?

Buddahpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Scandal: first case of man/man sexual assault in basic training barracks will cause a recruiting drop unheard of. Tailhook won’t hold a candle.

Black Adam on May 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM

It is because when it is repealed the military has to BECOME a proponent for the behavior. The will have to zealously endorse it and punish any who disagree.

This.

Fallen Sparrow on May 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM

And let JetBoy’s response serve as a warning.

No “we’d never do that” or “please, you’re overreacting” to my fear of ramming gay marriage recognition through the courts thanks to the DADT repeal.

The response is, “Would that really be so wrong?” Not denial but a foundation for justification.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM

I personally just want to know what it will take to get gay people to shut up. First it was civil unions “give us civil unions and we’ll be happy”, and then it was marriage. What comes after that? Is the homosexual community going to attempt to mandate a compulsory gay friend? I hate to break it to you but you can’t legislate people liking you anymore than us conservatives can legislate morality.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Kudos to Maddow for conducting a calm, respectful, snark-free interview there.

A refreshing change for MSNBC.

The Ugly American on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

BK Sgt,USMC 1986-1992

BKeyser on May 27, 2010 at 7:49 PM

And thank you for your service Sgt.

And your comments lead to my point:
My opinion is…..I have no business having an opinion on this. I am not in the military, nor was much of congress. The military does not exist to provide career paths, it exists to protect the nation.
So it pisses me off no end that Congress is even involved, this is a military matter. And these clowns cant even wait until the military forms an opinion? BS.

JusDreamin on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

While we wait, here are milbloggers JD Johannes and Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive telling Rachel Maddow last night why they support repeal

Really?

They went on her show? A far-left kook?

I’m done with their site.

artist on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:44 PM

There are plenty of liberals in the military, you know. Just because they are in the military doesn’t mean they are less liberal. I heard a young Airman the other day at the doctor talking about how he would have voted for Nader a few years back had he been old enough and how he was a ‘Green’ through and through.

I guess my biggest problem is that a homosexual feels they can’t serve without displaying their sexuality on their sleeve yet keep stating they are doing nothing of the kind.

catmman on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

usarmyretired on May 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

My husband agrees with you. He had a few bad experiences when he was in the service. It made for uncomfortable times.

Connie on May 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Kudos to Maddow for conducting a calm, respectful, snark-free interview there.

A refreshing change for MSNBC.

The Ugly American on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

That’s b/c they agree with her.

artist on May 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM

The Army will have to offer family housing for same sex couples, and of course benefits.

Scandal: first case of man/man sexual assault in basic training barracks will cause a recruiting drop unheard of. Tailhook won’t hold a candle.

Black Adam on May 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM

QFT.

portlandon on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Every gay person has the right to marry. If they chose not to marry, that is their fault.

portlandon on May 27, 2010 at 7:55 PM

The old “gays can marry too” argument. Well, why not make gay marriage legal, and then you too would have the right to marry someone of the same sex like anyone else.

Letting a court bypass a power delegated to the states under the 10th Amendment, overriding the laws passed either by the voters or their legislators, to force the nation to recognize a redefinition of marriage it doesn’t want to recognize?

Yeah, that might not be good.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:54 PM

When it comes to marriage tho, it needs to be recognized by all states. And all this “redefinition” of marriage stuff…it really isn’t. For what IS the definition of marriage? A union of two people who promise to love, honor, and cherish each other.

Both DADT and gay marriage should not be up for a popular vote. Basic equal rights aren’t for the polls. People of the nation have been “forced” to accept things they didn’t want to by law. And if that’s what it takes, so be it.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

That’s b/c they agree with her.

artist on May 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Yes… on this particular issue… as she slyly mentioned in her closing comments.

The Ugly American on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

People who support the repeal of DADT, like AP, have no idea why the military is really opposed to the repeal. It is simple. Not because we afraid of homosexuals, we know they serve. It is because when it is repealed the military has to BECOME a proponent for the behavior. The will have to zealously endorse it and punish any who disagree. We, the military, have seen it happen with the Equal Opportunity program. Look where it got us, anyone remember Maj. Hasan. That worked out well for us don’t you think. Allah needs to walk in our shoes a while before shooting his mouth off. You are about to witness the final destruction of the military if this BS passes.

usarmyretired on May 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Good comment.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 8:02 PM

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

People have a right to marry?

huh.

Inanemergencydial on May 27, 2010 at 8:02 PM

They can’t wait until December when the study and analysis are done. They have to rush it through. Just like they did with healthcare and the spendulous bill.

November 2010 can’t come soon enough. I really hope that we can flip the house and senate. If not, 2 more years of this nonsense.

texasconserv on May 27, 2010 at 8:04 PM

People have a right to marry?

huh.

Inanemergencydial on May 27, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Yep. Glad you learned something today, emergencydial.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:04 PM

That Va. Sen. Webb is “right” on this issue (opposing repeal of DADT) is due not to his former military service & therefore knowledge on this topic, but more due to just blind stupid luck. He was bound to get one right sooner or later.

In Virginia, we’re still waiting for Mark Warner to get one right.

kelley in virginia on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Get ready to add “Homosexual Awareness/Heritage Month” to the endless litany of recognitions of specific classes, races, genders and now sexual orientation to military event calendars.

catmman on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM

You KNOW that’s coming. There is nothing progs love more than enslaving people, and war. Don’t let them fool you. They love war, especially when it can serve as a distraction from the Second Great Depression they cooked up.

Rae on May 27, 2010 at 7:37 PM

The level of projection in this post absolutely astounds me. Progressives love war? They love enslaving people? They caused the economic downturn? I highly doubt YOU even believe what you’ve written.

cjw79 on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Both DADT and gay marriage should not be up for a popular vote.

Same sex marriage has been up for a vote in 37 states and failed in every one of them!

Basic equal rights aren’t for the polls.

Homosexuals already have equal rights!
Same sex marriage and DADT aren’t about equal rights, they’re about special rights.

People of the nation have been “forced” to accept things they didn’t want to by law. And if that’s what it takes, so be it.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

So, which group must be forced to accept things they didn’t want to by law?
The 1-3% of the population that chooses to embrace unnatural, deviant homosexual behavior as a lifestyle or the rest of us?

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Next comes trans gender, bi-sexual,trans what ever.I just can,t wait to see a 6ft tall soldier who is waiting for his sex change surgery talking to MSNBC in his pink dress telling them the army needs to put him or her or it in the women barracks so he can adjust to his or what ever new life as a women in the new army.

thmcbb on May 27, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Funny how no one will answer the separate quarters/showers/bathrooms question.

I’ll do it.

Yes, they will have to.

What’s a few billion more dollars?

artist on May 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Allah needs to walk in our shoes a while before shooting his mouth off.

I gave you a clip in this very post of two servicemen arguing that the policy should be repealed. They’ve walked a mile in your shoes, and then some. It’s a cop out to point the finger at me instead of at me and them.

Allahpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM

When it comes to marriage tho, it needs to be recognized by all states.

No, it really doesn’t.

And all this “redefinition” of marriage stuff…it really isn’t. For what IS the definition of marriage? A union of two people who promise to love, honor, and cherish each other.

According to the New Progressive Dictionary of Kumbaya and Patchouli, yes. According to actual history and tradition, no.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Changing that would be a redefinition.

Both DADT and gay marriage should not be up for a popular vote.

Yes, anything you have a history of losing on shouldn’t be up for a popular vote.

Basic equal rights aren’t for the polls. People of the nation have been “forced” to accept things they didn’t want to by law. And if that’s what it takes, so be it.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Except that there’s no basic right to marry anyone you wish. Your definition:

A union of two people who promise to love, honor, and cherish each other.

So if I’m in love with my first cousin I can get married? How about if I’m in love with my brother? My father? None of those would violate your definition, so you’re in favor of allowing people to marry their parents, right?

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM

thmcbb on May 27, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Yup, it’s coming.

artist on May 27, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Allahpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Have you ever told the forum why you support repealing DADT?

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM

“The military is not a social experiment,” said Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, who said lifting the ban could encourage “overt” sexual behavior in the ranks.

…two points:

A) To Rep. Gohmert, bingo…big, drippy Texas-sized bingo. That said, Wilson used it when he screwed segregation down tightly, Truman when he outlawed it, and the Army of the ’70′s was awash in “Race Relations” pimp-ery, used to push all sorts of “self-esteem” rubbish in the ranks. Nowhere in the US is the idea of uniformity of conduct welcome…except in the military. Go ahead and repeal this law (and update the sodomy provisions of the UCMJ, if that hasn’t been done already), and you’ll have the pendulum swing the other direction. Homosexuals from Massachusetts, Vermont and other places where homosexuals will “marry” will demand — not request, demand, in accordance with the conduct the homosexual lobby is accustomed to using — parity with actually married personnel (housing, allowances, and I wouldn’t put pregnancy uniforms by them)….

B) You don’t need this or any other policy to be torpedoed to “encourage ‘overt’ sexual behavior in the ranks”. I served long enough in uniform to see the end of the WAC corps and the spread of women into the “general population”…and then to see readiness suffer when it was found that 1/4 of female personnel were pregnant at any one time across the board. Furthermore, who on Planet Earth thinks that you can bottle 18- to 30-year-olds up together and keep them from bumping genetalia like so gerbils on mescaline. College students, first time away from home, have NOTHING on the average private/airman/seaman for pure, unalloyed horn-doggieness…both male and female. That, and coming from a society which no longer requires its citizens to actually cast off childish things, many of ‘em remain 18 until they’re 35…fratboys and drive-in girls with stripes all down their arms, rutting like rabbits.

…now, I’m sure that the good gentleman from Texas was referring to overt homosexual behavior, but I can assure everyone here that this is already a factor in the Army, at least (don’t get me started on the Navy…ask me sometime why they used powdered soap onboard ship). In the Army, lesbians for some reason liked to become MPs, while gaysters gravitated toward the various intelligence disciplines…but, your mileage may vary.

…that said, did it cause waves? Damned straight it did.

But, as you can see, Sen. Collins made a political decision, while Sen. Webb — a combat veteran — made a decision which one might assume is slightly more informed.

We get the government we deserve. Once in a while, it’s unfortunate that this government is empowered to make stupid decisions effectiong military operations, discipline and deployment. Guarenteed, before they vote on these life-risking matters, they check the polls.

Puritan1648 on May 27, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM

You’re so out of your mind it’s impossible to have a reasonable debate about this with you.

I personally just want to know what it will take to get gay people to shut up. First it was civil unions “give us civil unions and we’ll be happy”, and then it was marriage. What comes after that? Is the homosexual community going to attempt to mandate a compulsory gay friend? I hate to break it to you but you can’t legislate people liking you anymore than us conservatives can legislate morality.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Civil unions were always considered a “first step”…not the ultimate conclusion, to legally recognized couples. We all realize that change in this matter was never going to be full and immediate. Baby steps.

All this is about is being on equal ground as any other American. And believe me, the vocal gay liberal groups I’d like to shut up. They ain’t helping. But the sooner we can all put “gay vs. straight” crud behind us, the better.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

thmcbb on May 27, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Why keep the sexes separate? If gays can handle any sexual attraction issues, so can straights, right? Or are gays just a better at that sort of thing?

ROCnPhilly on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Furthermore:

A union of two people who promise to love, honor, and cherish each other.

I love, honor, and cherish my child. And my mother and father. And my uncles, aunts, and cousins.

All of them meet the definition of people I should be allowed to marry.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Why keep the sexes separate? If gays can handle any sexual attraction issues, so can straights, right? Or are gays just a better at that sort of thing?

ROCnPhilly on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Precisely. Can the men now use the same facilities at the same time as women? Why not? Because they’re sexually attracted to one another? So the assumption is that straights can’t restrain themselves but gays can.

I feel I’m being discriminated against here.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:14 PM

I love, honor, and cherish my child. And my mother and father. And my uncles, aunts, and cousins.

All of them meet the definition of people I should be allowed to marry.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Come on, am-pun…you know fully what is meant there. Even when we don’t agree, I do hold your opinions in high regard. Don’t spoil that with nonsense.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Changing that would be a redefinition.
amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Wouldn’t be the first time marriage has been “redefined”. It used to be a property transaction. The husband would purchase the wife from her father. We’ve “redefined” it since then.

In many states, marriage also used to be defined as “marriage between a man and a woman of the same race”. We’ve changed that too.

So the whole “we’d be changing the definition of marriage!!11!!” argument doesn’t really get you anywhere. You’d be better off trying to argue why we shouldn’t change the definition this time.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Why keep the sexes separate? If gays can handle any sexual attraction issues, so can straights, right? Or are gays just a better at that sort of thing?

ROCnPhilly on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Excellent point. There go the female recruiting statistics if you implement that one, although these days girls may not be put off by having to bunk with males.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I’m not sure that the Israeli military can be used as a yardstick on this issue.

They have an obligation to serve – including a long reserve stint, and have a relatively high incidence of questioning orders, going awol, etc.

Best to judge via the purely professional forces.

OldEnglish on May 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Why keep the sexes separate? If gays can handle any sexual attraction issues, so can straights, right? Or are gays just a better at that sort of thing?

ROCnPhilly on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Well gays must be handling their “sexual attraction issues” because they already share showers with straights in the military. Remember, this isn’t about letting gays serve in the military, it’s about letting them serve openly.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

I hate to say this, but after dealing with Narutoboy last night, that it’s nice to have a well mannered troll. I’m happy to see you.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM

You’re so out of your mind it’s impossible to have a reasonable debate about this with you.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Why?
Because “being reasonable” means agreeing with you?

I’m being perfectly reasonable.
You’re the one who’s irrational because you want what you want when you want it.
Impulsive, unbridled desire is what drives homosexuals anyway.

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Come on, am-pun…you know fully what is meant there. Even when we don’t agree, I do hold your opinions in high regard. Don’t spoil that with nonsense.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Dude, you provided the definition in question after criticizing my characterization of the definition of marriage. I assumed you were saying what you meant considering that context.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

So it’s comparable to the bigotry and discrimination of the pre-Civil Rights period.

Why do Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the majority of black California residents defend bigotry and discrimination comparable to the pre-Civil Rights period? A disgrace!

Seems like there’s more important work in trying to convert Barack Obama away from being the reincarnation of Orval Faubus — another Democrat — than in trying to convince conservatives on a web forum they’re wrong.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Well gays must be handling their “sexual attraction issues” because they already share showers with straights in the military.
crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

The only reason they’re able to share showers with straights in the military is because the UCMJ keeps their aggressive, predatory behavior in check.
Repealing DADT would change all that.

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:24 PM

So it’s comparable to the bigotry and discrimination of the pre-Civil Rights period.

Why do Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the majority of black California residents defend bigotry and discrimination comparable to the pre-Civil Rights period? A disgrace!

Seems like there’s more important work in trying to convert Barack Obama away from being the reincarnation of Orval Faubus — another Democrat — than in trying to convince conservatives on a web forum they’re wrong.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:23 PM

You’re trying to dance around my post and I think you know it.

Let’s try this slowly.

Have we changed the definition of marriage before?

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM

The only reason they’re able to share showers with straights in the military is because the UCMJ keeps their aggressive, predatory behavior in check.
Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:24 PM

LOL.

Have you had a bad experience?

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Well gays must be handling their “sexual attraction issues” because they already share showers with straights in the military. Remember, this isn’t about letting gays serve in the military, it’s about letting them serve openly.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

It is more than that. It is a open acceptance of a morale-negative behavior.

As a refresher: My question was, “Why keep the sexes separate?”

ROCnPhilly on May 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Were I still in the Corps I would have simply butt stroked any one male hitting on me or my squad.

MNDavenotPC on May 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Please don’t give me straight lines like that. You have no idea how hard it is to pass up.

malclave on May 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I hate to say this, but after dealing with Narutoboy last night, that it’s nice to have a well mannered troll. I’m happy to see you.

DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM

heh. Thanks.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

usarmyretired on May 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

I don’t need to “walk a mile in your shoes” to tell you that your military culture is too insular. And frankly, the attitude you espouse causes more problems with military readiness than repealing DADT ever will.

BradSchwartze on May 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

People of the nation have been “forced” to accept things they didn’t want to by law. And if that’s what it takes, so be it.

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 8:01 PM

…over 70% of the nation didn’t want Obamacare…we got it anyway.

…over 63% or so want it repealed…Obama’s party and enablers turn a deaf ear.

…now, they’re to be coerced into accepting this pandering to an incredibly repulsive interest group — repulsive for what they do in the public arena, like try to destroy their opposition rather than engage them.

Obama comes into office and unemployment begins to skyrocket, the economy is weak and we’re at war in two differing countries openly (fighting as proxies large parts of Pakistan, most of Iran and just about every undulating Richard in “Palestine”)…and what does this gaggle of ideological purists do? Their “fundamental transformation” of what they see as a nation of ignorant, knuckle-dragging redneck peasants by pandering to their “base”: amoral and occasionally violent unions, especially public sector goons; antisocial homosexual wreckers, for whom the ends justify the means; and the folks who want to use the “green movement” for their own totalitarian ends. The economy, the wars, even this latest business off the coast of Louisiana, are all unwelcome distractions from their mission: keep the peasants in line.

Welcome to the Age of Obama, where coersion is king.

JetBoy…you’re in tune with the spirit of the age….

Puritan1648 on May 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Have we changed the definition of marriage before?

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM

No, merely the conditions.

OldEnglish on May 27, 2010 at 8:29 PM

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I’m just curious; have YOU ever been through Basic Training? The Drill Sergeants have ways to rob their recruits of sexual desire, you know.

BradSchwartze on May 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM

You’re trying to dance around my post and I think you know it.

Let’s try this slowly.

Have we changed the definition of marriage before?

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Marriage has existed for thousands of years in many forms in many culture but never in any forms has it ever EVER been between the members of the same sex.

Sorry.

Try studying history. Or logic.

tetriskid on May 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM

You’re trying to dance around my post and I think you know it.

Let’s try this slowly.

Have we changed the definition of marriage before?

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM

In my opinion, the laws you’re talking about didn’t meet the traditional (and I mean long-spanning moral and not the national) definition of marriage, either. So I’m glad they were changed.

Throughout history the definition has been a man and a woman. That’s the definition (again, moral and not national) that I want to defend.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Will gays be allowed to be in the barracks rooms of other gays without penalty?

Because when I was in, it was worth 2 weeks’ restriction and pay if I’d been caught in the barracks room of a female soldier, whether or not anything was going on.

Fair’s fair, and we want equality, right?

malclave on May 27, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Welcome to the Age of Obama, where coercion is king.

JetBoy…you’re in tune with the spirit of the age….

Puritan1648 on May 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Puritan, you totally nailed it!
Thanks.

Jenfidel on May 27, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Well gays must be handling their “sexual attraction issues” because they already share showers with straights in the military.

With it made abundantly clear that, if they do what the gay and lesbian community supports and endorses in terms of demanding sex from and sexually harassing your coworkers, they’re toast.

For some reason, a clear policy that demonstrates the gravy train stops when you screw around has a way of chilling bad behavior.

Remember, this isn’t about letting gays serve in the military, it’s about letting them serve openly.

Correction. It is about removing the consequences for gay and lesbian individuals who sexually harass, demand sex from, and play sexual favorites.

No one seriously believes that an Obama Party that refuses to enforce Federal immigration laws and which refuses to punish minorities who openly intimidate and harass voters is going to allow the military to enforce rules. This is about giving privileged and protected status to gay-sex liberals to purchase votes for the Obama Party, plain and simple.

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2010 at 8:32 PM

I’m just curious; have YOU ever been through Basic Training? The Drill Sergeants have ways to rob their recruits of sexual desire, you know.

BradSchwartze on May 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM

1) Nope.

2) Interesting. You know who evidently thinks it can’t be sufficiently robbed? The Commandant of the Marine Corps. He wants gays living in separate barracks.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:35 PM

LOL.

Have you had a bad experience?

No, just a demonstration of what the gay and lesbian community endorses and supports.

And what the gay and lesbian community considers acceptable workplace behavior.

For some reason, the Obama Party mayor, RT Rybak, supported and endorsed the latter and promoted her, despite her established record. Again, it’s more important to Obama Party members to pander to minorities even if those minorities attack others. Typical.

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM

AP let me guess you never served in the military? I find that most people who support this never served. I guess the letters from the four chiefs of staff were not enough for you.
Then again AP you will sit here high and dry and not have to worry about it. The same way you want to use those men and women as a social experiment because you won’t have to deal with it you also want them to do the fighting for you because you won’t serve.

Jdripper on May 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM

I don’t need to “walk a mile in your shoes” to tell you that your military culture is too insular. And frankly, the attitude you espouse causes more problems with military readiness than repealing DADT ever will.

BradSchwartze on May 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I honestly don’t care about the issue anymore – your incompetence in observation or ignorance of the military is disturbing. Much more, if you’re going to bash the military, may I point out there are sites such as KOS or LGF as a proper forum?

Military culture is what it is, good and bad, because the mission boils down to one thing: break things and kill people.

TheEJS on May 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Again, I can’t out-military expert “Uncle Jimbo” or Nancy Pelosi. Nor can I out-military expert several of my fellow Hot Air commenters.

I only have the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Air Force Chief of Staff, Army Chief of Staff, and Chief of Naval Operations on the same side of the issue as me.

Maybe I need to reassess my position, then.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM

So the whole “we’d be changing the definition of marriage!!11!!” argument doesn’t really get you anywhere. You’d be better off trying to argue why we shouldn’t change the definition this time.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Nice try but no soup for you. Marriage has always been about the union of men and women. You change that equation and I don’t care what you call it but it isn’t marriage.

I frown on redefining words to mean something else. It’s a damn shame you can’t listen to the theme song for the frikking Flintstones without being under the impression Bedrock is some sort of Sodom. (They had a gay old time) Or listen to “Old Lang Syne” without laughing at the reference to dressing up in homosexual clothing (now we don our gay apparel). Gay was a perfectly good word once. Now it means stuff like this. And that’s a damn shame.

I don’t know about the rest of the country but as far as I am concerned if you must have gay unions just call it something else. Give it a nice foo-foo name. Maybe something in French. Just don’t try and call it marriage.

Guardian on May 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM

but never in any forms has it ever EVER been between the members of the same sex.

Sorry.

Try studying history. Or logic.

tetriskid on May 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Well, you’re flatly wrong about that. Several Western nations recognize same-sex marriage.

Marriage has existed for thousands of years in many forms

Exactly. You’re agreeing with me on my basic point. We’ve changed the definition of marriage numerous times throughout our history. So you’re just trying to argue why we shouldn’t change it this time.

In my opinion, the laws you’re talking about didn’t meet the traditional (and I mean long-spanning moral and not the national) definition of marriage, either. So I’m glad they were changed.

Ok, me too. But there is no “long-spanning” moral and national definition of marriage. People thought the laws I mentioned were moral (otherwise they wouldn’t have existed) until people started to try to change those laws.

Throughout history the definition has been a man and a woman. That’s the definition (again, moral and not national) that I want to defend.

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Ok, fair enough. But I’m just saying the “changing the definition” argument is sort of a non-starter. It’s used quite a bit by your side because it creates the false impression that marriage has been some sort of static, unchanging institution for all of human history. Obviously that’s not the case.

If you’re just arguing why you think it shouldn’t change this particular time, then that’s intellectually honest enough. I would argue that against changing the definition in certain instances as well. Just not this one.

crr6 on May 27, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Will gays be allowed to be in the barracks rooms of other gays without penalty?

Because when I was in, it was worth 2 weeks’ restriction and pay if I’d been caught in the barracks room of a female soldier, whether or not anything was going on.

Fair’s fair, and we want equality, right?

Excellent point. In order to follow the same rules, gay and lesbian soldiers would have to be provided completely separate quarters.

For some reason, the Obama Party and its gay-sex liberal core don’t want that. They want it to be so that, to use the equivalent, you could have walked into the female barracks and ogled to your heart’s content, then had any woman who objected sent to “sensitivity training” to remind her that she had no right to object and that it was sexist of her to do so.

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Mr. Frank noted that the Israeli military, which he called “as effective a fighting force as has existed in modern times” does not bar gay men or lesbians from service. Mr. Frank, who is openly gay, also said that he would be criticized — rightly, he said — if he were to suggest that gay men and lesbians be exempted if a military draft were needed.

WTH?!? I find myself in agreement with Barney Frank? I think it just got chilly in Hell.

It’s about time it ended though.

Yakko77 on May 27, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Gays should be able to serve, but not at the risk of our military being able to effectively do their jobs. That means it is up to the military to figure out how/if/when such a thing could be accommodated and not politicians.

crashland on May 27, 2010 at 8:41 PM

They just don’t listen, don’t want to hear. All the service Chiefs said lets wait, they just ignore it. God, I’m glad I’m retired.

PaCadle on May 27, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Would that really be so wrong?

JetBoy on May 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Yes, and I’ll tell you why. ‘Marriage’ is a religious custom. Most religions do not condone gay marriage. In the eyes of the followers of those religions this would sully the covenant.
Long story short: What if we did away with the gov having anything to do with ‘marriage’, and simply let them handle legal civil unions? Then people that want to exchange marriage vows can, as they usually do now, preform this custom with the spiritual representative of their choice.

shibumiglass on May 27, 2010 at 8:44 PM

amerpundit on May 27, 2010 at 8:35 PM

The Commandant of the Marine Corps apparently can’t trust his Drill Instructors to work his recruits hard enough that sex can’t enter the picture during Basic Training.

Either that, or the Commandant is a shining example of an insular culture that needs change.

BradSchwartze on May 27, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Well, you’re flatly wrong about that. Several Western nations recognize same-sex marriage.

And several others recognize child marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage.

So therefore, according to your logic, the United States’s failure to do so is wrong-headed, close minded, and bigoted.

Now, go ahead and spin how the US is different and that we shouldn’t necessarily make our decisions on what “other people do”.

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4