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.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Just a prelude to her nominating Obama as Caesar for Life.
Good Solid B-Plus on May 27, 2010 at 11:02 PM
…for Obama.
calbear on May 27, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Presenting the Liberals’ view of the ideal U.S. miltary platoon.
May God help us.
OneVision on May 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM
So, are we going to see guys wearing khaki speedos dancing wildly in veteran’s day parades?
Blake on May 27, 2010 at 11:11 PM
I think war was a near constant for the Greek city states. They just rotated out the combatants.
DFCtomm on May 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Is DADT described in a soldier’s contract with the government? If it is, and one signed up during the DADT period and then the military changes it, can a soldier void their contract? get out in a no-fault honorable discharge?
journeyintothewhirlwind on May 27, 2010 at 11:17 PM
Either khaki or camouflage, for starters.
Then in a few years they’ll push the envelope to wear hot pink and/or florals, to express their individuality. After all, we wouldn’t want them to be too stifled in their freedom of expression, now would we?
OneVision on May 27, 2010 at 11:22 PM
Hey, is it true that there is a purge going on at Hotair?
Blake on May 27, 2010 at 11:36 PM
I’ve been out of the loop lately so this is the first I’ve heard of anything about a purge. What kind of purge have you read or heard about?
OneVision on May 27, 2010 at 11:45 PM
What!? Earlier in the thread I asked for MB4′s input on this issue – I haven’t noticed him lately.
Say it ain’t so!
OldEnglish on May 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM
Allah, did you want serve instead of service? First time I read that I thought, “Service the country? WTF”
Beyond that, in this context, I have to confess that the mental picture of gays taking stances is not to my liking.
But seriously, the next step after overturning DADT is extending military benefits to partners. If extended, gay servicemen better get familiar with the concept of turning over a fraction of the military in any separation on a straight fractional basis: 50% of Pension X (period of relationship while in service/period in service).
BuckeyeSam on May 28, 2010 at 12:06 AM
“Actually, what the ancient Greeks did was far more akin to pedophilia.”
Pedophilia was a death-penalty crime in most of Ancient Greece, i.e. having sex with children under the age of accountability (12 or so). What we generally refer to as “Greek Love” was actually more of a mentoring relationship, and the notion of homosexual exclusivity and “gayness” was absolutely foreign to the culture.
The Ancient Greeks were an honor/shame based society, and the whole motivation for soldiers like the Sacred Band was not to show fear in combat and act patriotically in front of their lovers, exactly the opposite attitude of the litigation-driven hatred of the military that we’ll get out of the radical gay agenda driving the repeal of DADT. The effectiveness of our armed forces will be reduced by gay Hassans who are professional grievance mongers and malcontents. They will seek to abrogate the rules against sexual fraternization (which should and do apply to ALL servicepersons for disciplinary reasons) and wreak their typical havok for spite. It’s nothing that we haven’t seen before.
ebrown2 on May 28, 2010 at 12:17 AM
Crr6 is spewing the usual ahistorical garbage typical of its ilk.
Inter-racial marriage had to be deliberately banned by legislation in the Early American colonies because blacks and whites were under no pre-existing debarment to marry male to female without it. (Under English law, the basis for colonial law, there was no debarment of marriage by race, Gustavus Vassa and Francis Barber [Dr. Samuel Johnson's valet] married white women) Thus, striking down the ad hoc laws only restored the pre-existing status quo of male-female marriage.
ebrown2 on May 28, 2010 at 12:24 AM
As a gay man with more than a little libertarian tendencies, I just want f*** you to Ron Paul, we don’t need your vote. We don’t need the hypocrisy.
thuja on May 28, 2010 at 12:40 AM
The unexpected vote here is Judy Biggert. I hadn’t paid any attention to her before. On the other hand, given the overwhelming support for gays in the military, why didn’t more Republicans vote yes? I think I’m safe in assuming that no Democrat not even Minnick in Idaho-1 will be hurt by voting for gays in the military. I wonder if some Republican congressmen wouldn’t have slightly increased their chances of retaining their set by voting for this bill. Or is the strong GOP opposition an artifact of 2008 Democratic landslide?
thuja on May 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM
Glad it passed. Welcome to the 21st century, America.
fastestslug on May 28, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Have you seen the polling on the health care bill?
So then you agree the majority of the Americans do NOT want this repealed and the GOP will be justified in restoring the rule?
Nahh, naaah… of course you mean that the DNC is
stupidly pandering to their minority basetaking a heroic underdog stand in allowing gays to serve in the military because they don’t now nor were they in the military before Bill Clinton got DADT enacted.Nor does that change the fact that my point was that Allah seems to agree with you that this is some sort of moral historic stand that everybody agrees with (which you point out… it’s not) but when it’s the health care bill, hey… we should listen to the public.
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 12:54 AM
On its way to oblivion.
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 12:54 AM
Heath Shuler (NC-11) made a huge mistake in not voting with the Democrats on this bill. He would have lost no votes in the 11th district, but puts his support in the most populous county in his district, Buncombe county, at risk by opposing this bill.
thuja on May 28, 2010 at 1:03 AM
Ron Paul is an idiot. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the Libertarian position…its called we don’t want to know…Its called keep your bedroom life to yourself.
Conservative Voice on May 28, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Alrighty then.
crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Noo, that would be you claiming the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government the ability to take over anything it wants so long as it can make an economic case for it.
But then you’re the one who can’t seem to understand sarcasm in my original post…
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 1:10 AM
Seems you dont understand either Libertarianism or DADT.
Squid Shark on May 28, 2010 at 1:11 AM
My God, this entire thread is full of idiots. There is NO BAR TO MILITARY SERVICE for homosexuals under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The bar is to OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
Military service is not like your office job. It’s amazing to me how many people who have never slept packed so tightly together with your comrades that you’re literally lying on top of each other, think that openly homosexual behavior should be the status quo for the U.S. military.
Obviously, homosexuals have just as much right to serve as anyone else–but I DON’T WANT TO KNOW if the guy I’m showering with is homosexual.
Do those of you who support the repeal of DADT also support the de-segregation of male and female showers and sleeping quarters in the military?
q2600 on May 28, 2010 at 1:58 AM
Jet, that’s not the “definition of marriage”.
capitalist piglet on May 28, 2010 at 1:59 AM
Did I miss something ? Didn’t Obama say they were going to study this for a year first and then make a recommendation?
Seixon on May 28, 2010 at 2:58 AM
I just wanted to remind everyone of the “normal” homosexual lifestyle.
How far we have fallen from when Washington called for morality and prayer as part of military duty to putting sodomizers into units of men who they’d love to sodomize themselves.
Tim Burton on May 28, 2010 at 3:07 AM
They ran into the problem, called November 2010. They don’t force it down our throats now, they won’t be able to for years.
Tim Burton on May 28, 2010 at 3:10 AM
Nor does any of this have to do with human rights.
q2600 on May 28, 2010 at 3:22 AM
As a Marine currently serving, it’s not that big of a deal. The logistics issues are gonna be the biggest problem.
RightXBrigade on May 28, 2010 at 3:41 AM
As a Marine who EASed just a couple years back, I don’t agree with it at all.
The argument is made by gay supporters that showers and close living quarters aren’t a big deal with gays being attracted to men and hanging around other men.
Then let’s bring on the coed showers and coed bunking. Men are men, whether they want to sleep with women or men. See Burton’s link at 3:07 above.
–
This is m*therf*cking asinine. The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy. If a proposed change does not make the military more effective at killing the enemy, then it serves no purpose. Here, the purpose is to make people feel good and to make some leftist liberal at a cocktail party more popular while he brags about what he did to the military. That is no benefit, and in no way makes the country safer.
Already, gays can serve, and DADT allows for straight cowards to come up with a way to weasel out. Good riddance. Hell, open heterosexual behavior is frowned upon because most of the deployments are to places where women don’t exist; and women in service can file EEO.
It’s bullsh*t and will lead to nothing good.
—
Frank commenting on the Israeli military neglects to mention that the entire nation there acknowledges and sees the constant threat to their existence. They are all on the front lines. It brings a greater degree of discipline when there is no “in the rear” (no pun intended) – when your house can get hit by a rocket while you’re visiting family or your disco or mall bombed.
CPL 310 on May 28, 2010 at 4:20 AM
What logistics issues? And out of curiosity, what’s your MOS/rank?
q2600 on May 28, 2010 at 4:22 AM
A site that di not have queers running it would of also posted about how the 4 top military brass wanted the vote delated until a study was complete. When you have military bloggers that are queer pushing their own agenda, then they leave certain facts out to push their own agenda.
WoosterOh on May 28, 2010 at 4:23 AM
Do you wear your sexuality on your sleeve? Ill be you do and that IF you dont, its because its OBVIOUS, right?
We will probably all shut up once its not assumed that we are like you. Its THAT exact attitude that keeps me energized – the fact that you and people like you think that we ought to live in closets – that makes me cheer when you aren’t happy. Keep it up, please :)
Its the same crap in a different diaper from you folks — we dont care as long as we dont have to see it ..
Guess what, I feel the same way about you and Beer/football/car commercials, straight couples practically having sex in malls,etc, etc…
Why dont you go spread some of your morals over there.
your_worst_enemy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 AM
Squid Shark on May 28, 2010 at 1:11 AM
says you? wow you convinced me with such stellar logic.
Conservative Voice on May 28, 2010 at 5:58 AM
q2600 on May 28, 2010 at 1:58 AM
Exactly, which is why I said it goes against libertarian principles. True Libertarians aren’t anarchists…they believe in live and let live…do what you want unless you are infringing on the freedom of another. Well I would feel quite uncomfortable if I was forced to sleep next to, shower, undress, with females…hence my mind is not focused on war and staying alive, but on dealing with an uncomfortable situation.
Conservative Voice on May 28, 2010 at 6:09 AM
If this gets done the left can go back to telling gays to not join the military just like they tell everyone else. Equality at last!!
Dollayo on May 28, 2010 at 6:22 AM
If this gets passed the left can finally tell gays not to join the military like they tell everyone else. Equality at last!!
Dollayo on May 28, 2010 at 6:27 AM
I remember when DADT passed, no one like it..on either side of the issue. It was seen as the ultimate triangulation, an effort to have it both ways. After all, Clinton supported it.
Terrye on May 28, 2010 at 7:01 AM
Conservative Voice:
True libertarians would argue about legalizing drugs and prostitution as well. Anarchy is not far off. Look at Mexico.
Terrye on May 28, 2010 at 7:03 AM
Unintended consequences- This is the beginning of some type of eventual diversity-driven MAMT (Must Ask, Must Tell). Careful what you wish for…
rogerb on May 28, 2010 at 7:29 AM
I’m OK with this decision.
Good Lt on May 28, 2010 at 7:37 AM
So,
Is winning the war in Iraq a priority with Democrats?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Is winning the war in Afghanistan a priority with Democrats?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Is preparing to do battle with a nuclear Iran a priority with Democrats?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Is preparing for the powderkeg to go off between North and South Korea a priority with Democrats?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
What is their priority?
Tinkering with SOCIAL ENGINEERING for our Armed Forces. While you’re at it, Democrats, why not dictate that the uniforms for each branch of the military to be changes to a single, rainbow-colored jump suit designed by Elton John?
olesparkie on May 28, 2010 at 7:41 AM
PS- We’ve read and heard about how DADT is so hurtful to people who choose to continue to remain in their branch of service, but will we get to hear about how many man hours are dedicated to whatever new personnel training programs (initial and annual refresher courses) come from this and the necessary cost increase in new manuals, manual revisions, establishing new offices and admin, etc.
It’s nice that we can spend so many eventual billions of dollars and burn so many manhours that could otherwise be spent perfecting actual skills to assuage the emotions of ~5% (probably less if the military is measured alone) of a population **that could serve and do their job anyway** regardless of the DADT repeal.
rogerb on May 28, 2010 at 7:41 AM
Wow your intellectual prowess does impress me. /
CWforFreedom on May 28, 2010 at 8:25 AM
Yes,thanks for clearing that up. /
CWforFreedom on May 28, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Hey, piglet ;)
The way I look at it, to many…marriage represents something special, the way it should be. It’s hard to describe, but I do see how so many see this tradition steeped in almost a mythological goodness.
Thing is, marriage is taken so lightly these days. How many stars are on their 3rd or 4th marriage? There’s a 50% divorce rate. And are pre-nups, no-fault divorce, and child custody battles a part of the mythos of that wholesome traditional marriage?
The only thing that changes by allowing gay marriage, is that marriage is between two persons who love each other and desire to spend the rest of their lives together in union. Two persons, rather than “man and woman”.
And how does changing only that ruin the whole idea of marriage? Because everything marriage is supposed to stand for and be is still being upheld.
JetBoy on May 28, 2010 at 8:30 AM
While we’re ripping the moral core of the military to shreds, presumably officers can start having affairs now as well, yes?
TexasDan on May 28, 2010 at 8:30 AM
That’s why you never leave an animal cornered…
When you catch ‘em in a loophole like that they have to resort to name calling.
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 8:50 AM
Look if we’re going to change the definition of marriage from a model based on monogamus procreation to some ideological fantay of a purely mythical concept then what’s wrong with allowing polygamy (which has historical precedent) or polyamorous marriages? Why just be intellectually dense and use a definition which denies marriage rights to others?
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 8:54 AM
I disagree. Heath Shuler is going to be reelected by a wide margin. If anything, his postion on this will pick up additinal votes for him. He is voting the will of the people of his district. You can agree or disagree with his position but there is no argument he represents the majority of his constituents and does it well.
Personally, I wonder why the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell is even on the radar of the democrats at a time when so many more important national issue face our nation. This is a social experiment fostered upon our military by a democrat party run amok. From the war on terror to the gulf oil spill the democrats do nothing but ring their hands and blame bush. Obama has proven his incompetence and shows can’t govern. When does Obama begin to take ownership for the issues facing our nation. I mean real issues, not the phoney social issues like DADT. He is absolutely a one term president. Even the liberal pundits are turning against him due to his incompetance of leadership. The liberals in congress continue to pass bills into law that the American people do not support. Then to rub salt in the still festering wound, they waste valuable time on something as stupid as the repeal DADT. Incompetence in government for all to witness. Harry S Truman must be turning over in his grave because the buck stops everywhere where except President Obama.
kanda on May 28, 2010 at 9:00 AM
They have to do this on Memorial Day weekend?
Hopefully openly gay folks will be forced into the draft since having to serve in a PC military will be suicide. No bullets, reading Miranda rights, PC rules of engagement and Gay agenda.
FUBAR
Hening on May 28, 2010 at 9:07 AM
If Susan Collins supports open homosexuality in the armed forces, why didn’t she join and blaze the path?
Hening on May 28, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Cool, they want homosexuals in? I say we stop segregating the sexes in the military too. As a straight male, I would surely have appreciated being allowed to shower with the girls….
quikstrike98 on May 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM
It appears the preliminary data coming from the DADT survey of the military is not fairing very well at all. As a result, Congress will repeal DADT “before” the results come out. Then the deed is already done. The voice of the military members will fad into the background noise.
OldSarg on May 28, 2010 at 9:33 AM
DADT hurtful? Too freakin bad! What, is joining the military suppose to make you feel happy and gay? Well, yeah, I guess now you can feel gay about it all!
What the heck has this country come to? Poor little policy hurts people, Makes them suffer a little, makes them feel bad cause some boys want to have sex with other boys out in the open and not have to “feel bad” about it!
Nothing good will come of this! Nothing good at all!
Our whole military system now is going to have the change to accommodate the “feelings” of a few gay people! The entire system, the foundation (and hey! That’s what Obama said he wanted to change so here you go!) The entire system, structure and foundation of our military will have to change!
Our services have a MORAL/CHRISTIAN foundation folks! Hate it all you want, that is what has given us a military service that is the best and strongest in the world! That is one of the reasons we can fight wars while relying not on a draft but on a volunteer force!!
Some of you “reasonable” folks think this is just about letting some gays serve openly. Aww, isn’t that nice. Yeah, that’s like saying ObamaCare was just about insuring the uninsured!
This is not about repealing a blasted thing! This is about instituting a host of new liberal coercive policies upon the military to force it to bend to the liberal, Marxist agenda! Repealing DADT means nothing of itself without instituting law to enforce and coerce! The homosexuals, those few wonderful gay people who demand we bow down to their blasted lifestyle now must have their feelings protected at every turn! New sensitivity trainings will need to be enacted! New penalties and punishments will need to be enforced! Some soldiers will need to be made examples of!”
“Oh, Corporal Jones, I see you are a Methodist, soldier! And your CO says you attend church services every Sunday. Now we have a report that private Blah accused you of making him feel uncomfortable with his gayness by reading your Bible openly in his presence? Is this true soldier, and you expect us to promote you to Sgt?!”
“Capt. Smith, You are at this hearing because it has come to our attention that you have allowed a Boy Scout troop to take a tour of your Post over the weekend! You realize don’t you, that the Boy Scouts of America is a bigoted organization? You offended the proud homosexuals serving within your National Guard unit! You know that this is a violation of our military code! You are now demoted and fined a months pay!”
This congress, the homosexual lobby and that wonderful group called “gay conservatives” have just (if this thing actually does get repealed) they have just set in place a policy that will be at direct odds with the existing structure already in place. Only one structure can stand. You can not have a moral, largely Christian, conservative institution while at the same time passing laws that demand it fall!
The Bible is a book that has as great degree of respect and honor within our military! Sure, not ever solder or even a majority of them are practicing Christians, but the Bible and Christian traditions carry a large degree of respect! This Obama congress will now have the means, the authority and the reason to declare war on that respect! To protect the new victim class they have just created, gays serving openly within our military!
From our Generals to our Chaplains, to Sunday services on base right on down the line to the private who confesses he is a Christian! All now will be suspect! All now will have to bow to the gays serving within our armed forces! And this will not be like enacting a new policy on civilians within the workforce or within our schools! This is a whole new wonderful frontier for the libs! Every soldier is the property of the government! The potential for abuses threats and intimidation may be unprecedented! A soldier confronted on base or in a war zone for the crime or penalty of offending a gay soldier will be entirety at the mercy of his accusers.
Yeah, this is just about allowing a few gays to serve openly. Right! You bet!
JellyToast on May 28, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Congratulations gays. Now will you please STFU and leave the other 95% of us alone?
rockmom on May 28, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Some people take the conserve in Conservatism a little seriously. Social arrangements 17 years old aren’t exactly those one would think are high priority for conserving.
thuja on May 28, 2010 at 9:40 AM
You don’t get it? This is about Democrats desperately trying to avoid a total wipeout in November by shoring up their base. Repeal DADT, nominate a lesbian to the Supreme Court, attack the Arizona immigration law, make nice to Netanyahu, dredge up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – all about getting the Dems’ core constituencies out in November.
rockmom on May 28, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Such nice sentiment. When you all leave us alone, I suppose we can STFU.
JetBoy on May 28, 2010 at 9:52 AM
The only time I’ve ever showered with a group of other women was during basic training in the Army Reserve, 35 years ago. I remember how uncomfortable it was, since none of us was accustomed to showering en masse, and how we all looked everywhere but at each other — and not out of shame, but out of modesty and the determination to respect each other’s privacy as much as possible (I know, because several of us talked about that afterward). Adding a sexual component to the situation would have made it far more uncomfortable. Yes, I know that military service often involves discomfort (and worse), but I’m just saying that not everyone wants to be ogled in the shower, even if it goes no further.
So, what “demographic” will want their demands met next?
KyMouse on May 28, 2010 at 9:54 AM
I don’t care about your sex life or any “identity” it provides. And you’re free to have a lifelong career in the military just like everyone else whose sexual identity I don’t care about.
All done here?
rogerb on May 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM
We’ve been trying, but you insist on parading your lifestyle in our schools, in our towns, in our churches, and now in our military. I have homosexuals in my family and have known and loved many (and lost a fair number to AIDS.) Nobody could accuse me of being a “homophobe.” I’m just sick of 5% of the population getting to dictate to the rest of us. I can’t even watch a popular TV show with my kids without getting hit in the face with homosexuality. Homosexuals have ruined the Episcopal Church, which brought me to Christ. Enough already!
rockmom on May 28, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Hear hear… sexual segregation is just more hatred by the conservative nazis. It would solve the whole transgender problem too.
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Like I said, anyone who thinks this is just about letting gays serve openly must think ObamaCare was just about insuring the uninsured!
This is not about repealing, but about instituting a whole new host of policies, laws and tactics to transform our military from a largely conservative and effective institution into a liberal and ineffective one. Not only will the military system have to change to accommodate gays, but it’s mission will have to change as well.
Whatever offends a gay advocate, will now also be an offense to the military. Everything from the Boy Scouts, to the Bible to the cross and any organizations, traditions or practices that are or have been affiliated or associated with anything “anti-gay” will now be suspect.
Obama, our wonderful dear leader himself, with all the powers the Commander in Chief has, will have the law behind him to fully declare open season on anything he personally considers anti-gay. Except, I will say, for the Muslims within the military.
I don’t know how that will play out, but the target will be “all things Christian.”
JellyToast on May 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Don’t worry. That will be next.
DFCtomm on May 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Wonder what’s going to happen to the first openly homosexual soldier who gets captured by the Taliban? And I thought this Administration was trying to be more open to the Muslim world. Placing openly homosexual soldiers in their lands sure isn’t going to help there.
rockmom on May 28, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Very well said.
Lourdes on May 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Of course it will. Just like they targeted the Episcopal Church and ruined it. They will recruit activists to join the military and start filing lawsuits right and left. They will demand homosexual professors at the military academies. They will demand severing all ties with the Boy Scouts. They will file suit every time a homosexual gets passed over for a promotion claiming that his/her superiors are homophobes. There will be massive sexual harrassment claims all the time. Eventually we will see officers court-martialed for insensitivity to homosexuals.
rockmom on May 28, 2010 at 10:26 AM
No it won’t. Leftists won’t support open marriages because there’s no social control over that.
Skywise on May 28, 2010 at 10:30 AM
^^ Liberal fascism.
Lourdes on May 28, 2010 at 10:31 AM
The only people that really should have a right to vote on this period should people that are serving, have served with honorable discharges or Gays that are interested in actually serving.
I’ve been in 18 years, and can’t wait to finish my last 2 more till I retire. There is nothing wrong with “Dont Ask, Don’t Tell”. It works. Repealing it is going to cause so many problems.
cfooteman on May 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Same with the Catholic Seminaries, which then led to homosexual priests, along with an emphasis by that crowd, over time, on more of same (heterosexual applicants were discouraged by pro-homosexual or homosexual admission boards, and if admitted, many were later discouraged and left the Seminaries by the same untoward environment).
This process began a while ago in Catholic Seminaries and has only recently begun to be remedied, but it was a change brought about by a Church (a hapless change, hapless perspective, naive to a point of self destruction) who thought “inclusiveness” was somehow going to resolve homosexuals “feeling” “disenfranchised” or something similar — an attempt to “outreach” that fails to take into consideration the reality of what’s being embraced into and by what as to outcome.
It’s a process of the activism that has also affected the Episcopal Church, the Scouting programs, among others…
And speaking of such, the one thing Obama HASN’T done in this DADT removal campaign is take the opinion and advice of the military into consideration…he and the Left Congress have run to every activist group, every lobbyist, etc., yet have ignored the most important source for information and that’s the military.
Adm. Mullen needs to be replaced, also.
Lourdes on May 28, 2010 at 10:38 AM
“Twenty-six Democrats voted against the amendment while five Republicans voted for it.
The five Republicans who voted for the bill are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Anh “Joseph” Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Judy Biggert (Ill.). Several vulnerable Democrats also voted for the repeal amendment, including Reps. Walt Minnick (Idaho), Jerry McNerney (Calif.) and Michael McMahon (N.Y.). Other Democrats in tight races voted against the amendment, including Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.).”
Lourdes on May 28, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Let me repeat this:
The five Republicans who voted for the bill are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Anh “Joseph” Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Judy Biggert (Ill.).
Ros-Lehtinen is a lesbian.
Joseph Cao is an extremely confused Liberal who runs as a Republican, don’t know what his behaviors otherwise include.
Djou has gotten off to a very, very bad start in Congress.
Ron Paul is a lost looney man, I don’t expect sanity from him, but this vote is his gruesome worst.
Judy Biggert, I have no idea who, what, why.
Lourdes on May 28, 2010 at 10:44 AM
It’s the conservative thing to do. We’re not the party who lumps human beings together in groups, rather we look at them as the individuals they are.
In related Ron Paul news, yesterday he introduced the Private Option Health Care Act! Finally! I wonder how many GOP Congressmen will cosponsor this repeal of Barry’s Big Medical System?
With Just Six Words, Ron Paul Can Box in the Republican Establishment in November
Rae on May 28, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Regarding my comment on a purge:
I read elsewhere that emails were sent out to a bunch of people that they would be automatically banned if they said _____ or _____ or tried to get pass the censors by saying _____ or ______.
Blake on May 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Already happening in Canada. The mounties wanted to crack down on a bunch of polygamists, but got advised by government lawyers that is was a bad ideal because if the issue was addressed in court then the ban on polygamy would probably be overturned.
DFCtomm on May 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Well, if he hadn’t before (I just never noticed), at least AP is now more explicit in his advocacy for this outcome. That’s fine, so far as it goes. But from the comments, it seems most of us differ, and differ strongly on this point.
As a veteran and continuing reservist, this really depresses me, that everything J.E. Dyer has warned about will now happen. I’m depressed over the fact that serious Jews and Christians will see their kids raised in a society that will ultimately tell them their religious texts are inherently bigoted.
I’m depressed that we’ve just given one big boost to the same Multiculturalist philosophy that has wrecked our economy, destroyed lives at Fort Hood, has had professors and university presidents fired for holding the wrong opinion, and ministers in Europe and Canada facing legal charges for “hate speech.”
To be a professional and hold Judeo-Christian values in this world is now closer than ever to becoming an impossibility, and with that my basic reason for being an active conservative. When the full consequences of this measure are finally played out, I hope you guys remember this when you begin wondering why conservatism in any guise can’t seem to get the votes it used to. Good luck, folks.
Alexander on May 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM
I’ve seen this question posted many times on these threads, but I’m still waiting for someone to try to answer it.
I know it sounds a bit silly, but it’s a serious question at its core. Can ANYONE who supports the repeal of DADT offer an answer to this one?
Abelard on May 28, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Abelard, there is none. And it doesn’t matter to them, apparently. All that matters to this blog are fiscal issues and whatever politics lead up to elections.
Alexander on May 28, 2010 at 11:31 AM
I’m an atheist myself. However, I don’t see societies who promote it and stick it to the religious every chance they get as some sort of brave new world. Not sure why AP and others are always pushing it.
Blake on May 28, 2010 at 11:33 AM
You are pitiful man to make such a wild accusation. Ros-Lehtinen’s district has a large gay population and her religion, liberal Judaism (not sure whether she is a Reform Jew or a Conservative Jew) is pro-gay marriage. That is why she voted the way she did.
And by the way she has a husband.
thuja on May 28, 2010 at 11:35 AM
You want a politicized military? Here you go. You got it.
Would someone show me one geographical area or institution where the homosexual lifestyle is welcomed and embraced that is conservative?
Our Universities? California? New York City? The teacher’s unions? Hollywood? Do we really think our military will remain as it is once the doors to homosexuals are flung wide open? Not just flung open, but has someone like Obama standing watch?
You can play games all you like thinking this is just about allowing a few gays to serve, but it is not. This is not even about the gays. This is about destroying another great institution of America, that being, our military.
JellyToast on May 28, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I’m cool with it.
Tzetzes on May 28, 2010 at 12:29 PM
test
Blake on May 28, 2010 at 12:34 PM
There is a difference to wanting to legalize drugs and prostitution and blowing smoke in people’s faces and doing unprovoked lap dances and then demanding payment. Like I said, live and let live until it infringes on someone else’s freedom. I should have the freedom to not know about your sex life…I should have the freedom to not accept certain lifestyles as acceptable.
Want to do drugs, great…just don’t do it on my lawn or expect me to pay for your welfare payments.
Conservative Voice on May 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Times like this I miss William Buckley and the slogan of National Review, “Standing athwart history yelling Stop.”
Nearly every bad idea in our history was pushed by someone calling it, “progress.” It’s only progress if that’s the direction you really want to go.
Homosexuality remains a sexual perversion. I see no reason why it should be encouraged among the military, while those who object to it have no option but to shut up.
Quit doing social experiments with the military. It’s not progress. At least the DADT policy has the benefit of keeping it effectively private, so it doesn’t interfere with military duty.
tom on May 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Two people. So, two cousins? Two children? Any two people?
It’s implicit in marriage that the “two people” are an adult man and an adult woman.
Even polygamy was never one marriage to multiple women, but simply the existence of multiple one-man-one-woman marriages. Each marriage started independent of the others, and each marriage could be ended through death or divorce independently of the others.
That’s funny. I could have sworn you just said that DADT had nothing at all to do with a liberal agenda.
Wait, I bet I can find the quote:
I suppose “gay marriage” is a big item on the conservative agenda?
tom on May 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’
Yeah. What a loon! He’s the only Republican with the cojones (or even an interest, apparently) to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare.
Rae on May 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM
What happens now, does the sky fall?
SC.Charlie on May 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Marriage was never “defined” as a property transaction. Neither was it ever “defined” that marriage only consisted of a man and a woman of the same race.
Unless you’re redefining the meaning of “redefining,” marriage has always consisted of a man and a woman.
You’re confusing reasons for marrying a particular person with the definition of marriage itself.
Maybe you shouldn’t try your hand at logic. You don’t seem to have the knack for it.
tom on May 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM
The anti-gay folks ought to be dancing in the streets. If there is just a repeal of DADT law doesn’t that mean the pre-1993 rules would be in effect?
SC.Charlie on May 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Cousins? Technically, yes. While there’s prejudices and stereotypes to deal with, cousin couples are not forbidden by the Bible, although some states may not allow such marriages.
You say ‘children’ – what ages define a ‘child’ for the purposes of marriage? Not that long ago (historically speaking) young people that would be considered ‘children’ today were marrying because the average life expectancy was shorter.
Just pointing these things out.
Dark-Star on May 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM
On the bright side, maybe now the Air Force will get someone who can design a better looking uniform!
JeffVader on May 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM
I can’t say with absolute certainty, since I got out before DADT was introduced, but that is extremely doubtful.
It’s much more likely to be a combination of regulations in the UCMJ and orders from the top.
malclave on May 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM
JeffVader on May 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Let’s ask the guy who did the Village People’s costumes, I’m sure he’ll come up with something tasteful yet elegant.
NoDonkey on May 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM
No. They’ll never STFU, never leave us alone.
The Thin Man Returns on May 28, 2010 at 8:16 PM
Then let me point out that marriage is meant for a man and a woman, not just any two people. jetboy was trying to conveniently apply it to just anytwo people, which makes no sense, since children don’t marry, father and son don’t marry, mother and son don’t marry, etc.
Obviously, even though it’s technically accurate to say two people get married, that doesn’t just mean any two people.
Now you can get really technical about the usage of the word children, and point out that what we consider to still be children might be considered adults in another time and place. But that’s just nibbling around the edges at the exact border of when someone stops being a child — therefore not able to marry — and becomes an adult who can marry.
And let me point out that there is no such ambiguity about whether someone is a man or a woman. Barring “freaks of nature” and outright surgery, you’re male or female, never somewhere in between.
tom on May 28, 2010 at 8:53 PM
“Already happening in Canada. The mounties wanted to crack down on a bunch of polygamists, but got advised by government lawyers that is was a bad ideal because if the issue was addressed in court then the ban on polygamy would probably be overturned.”
Exactly, polygamy, unlike “gay marriage,” has a long world-wide multicultural history of acceptance as an institution. Every argument for “gay marriage” is far equaled or exceeded by arguments for multiple marriage.
ebrown2 on May 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »