Breaking: Brown to back DADT repeal

posted at 11:03 am on December 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

ABC News reports that Scott Brown has announced that he will support a stand-alone repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” ending the expulsion of gay and lesbian troops from the military.  Brown’s decision gives Harry Reid 61 votes, enough to pass a cloture vote for the policy, and one final hurrah for the Democratic-controlled 111th Session — if he can fit it into the schedule:

Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown today voiced his support for a stand-alone repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, bringing the bill one vote over the 60-vote threshold that it will need to reach if and when the Senate votes on the measure in the coming weeks.

“Sen. Brown accepts the Pentagon’s recommendation to repeal the policy after proper preparations have been completed. If and when a clean repeal bill comes up for a vote, he will support it,” said Brown spokesperson Gail Gitcho.

Brown’s backing means that – on paper – supporters of the repeal have61 senators in favor of the bill. On Wednesday Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lisa Murkowski both announced their support for the stand-alone repeal. The House passed the clean repeal on Wednesday and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to bring it to a vote in the Senate before the end of the year.

However, Reid has warned that bringing the bill to a vote in the Senate is not an issue of support, but rather of time. With just over a week before Christmas, the Senate is only now kicking off debate on the START nuclear treaty and a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. It will likely be early next week before the Senate wraps up work on those two measures – and numerous GOP senators have voiced stern opposition to both bills, preferring instead to fund the government into early next year and go home for the holidays. That leaves little time for the Senate to pass the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal.

Brown voted against the military appropriations bill that contained a DADT repeal last week, objecting to a jam-down of a massive spending bill without sufficient debate or amendment opportunities.  Two other Republicans that support a repeal, Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski, voted no on the same grounds.  A stand-alone bill will avoid those issues and allow the three to switch votes and support repeal, a position publicly held or at least considered by all three prior to the lame-duck session.

The Senate has already passed the tax deal, which was the line drawn in the sand by the GOP at the start of the post-midterm session.  Brown can therefore vote for cloture on this measure without violating the earlier pledge, even if Congress hasn’t addressed the budget with a shutdown date rapidly approaching.  The GOP wants a continuing resolution anyway rather than an omnibus spending bill completing the FY2011 budget.

Reid, though, has already started debate on START, and still has to handle the budget this week as well.  He’s trying to double-track the two efforts, but Jim DeMint has threatened to obstruct if Reid tries a jam-down on START.  If DADT doesn’t come up in this session, it will have to be passed again in a Republican House after January, and that may be a problem with the GOP holding a 48-seat majority in the lower chamber.  Still, the threat of court action that would immediately impose a repeal rather than an orderly transition may move John Boehner to allow a vote without whipping the caucus early in the next session.


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 5 6 7

Let them serve openly. Else, let’s make Mel Gibson chair of the RNC.

AshleyTKing on December 16, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 8:42 PM

The 24% thing? Since the survey was set up to garner the response wanted by Pentagon brass and politicos, it’s safe to assume that the 24% figure was understated. I referenced that aspect because even with the skewed numbers, it provided a direct rebuttal to your assertion that gays often choose to separate due to hardship.

Your 90% number is wildly overstated however, and based upon an extreme liberal reading of the data.

BKeyser on December 16, 2010 at 8:51 PM

@BKeyser it’s comforting that you and you alone can read data properly but everyone else looking at it is completely lost. If your asserting that the data was tampered with than all of it is suspect and must be thrown out. There can be no other rational response. Cherry picking data that you claim is false would undermine any premise you tried to draw from it.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Okay, throw is all out. You good with that?

BKeyser on December 16, 2010 at 8:59 PM

@BKeyser sure since every other study ever done shows the same thing I’m not that worried. However you would be left with the legal battle unfolding and the cold truth of our allies and their experiences with getting rid of their bans.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Okay, you’re still bringing up the foreign Armed Forces thing as though there is some direct comparison to our own. It’s a non sequitur.

Tell me again how the military benefits from repeal? You glossed over that one earlier.

BKeyser on December 16, 2010 at 9:07 PM

No I didn’t

Okay, so you can’t answer the question. How about this one? What tangible tactical or strategic benefit would repeal provide the military that doesn’t currently exist?

well for one it reduces the number of soldiers men and women that can be caught up in blackmail to protect their careers and limits abuse of the DADT by people looking to get back at officers or fellow enlisted members that get caught up in intraoffice politics. Studies have also shown that a stable and supportive family is one of the key elements in keeping military members in the force for longer thus reducing recruitment and training costs.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:12 PM

@Saltysam why would I bother? you have stated an unwillingness to listen to anyone that doesn’t agree with you. Calling someone you’ve never met and who is in fact a very calm and mild mannered man an

extreme political bombast

. Given that this is your honest opinion I have decided that you don’t want to actually face any truths you want weak opponents that make you feel good to insult and belittle. Good day Sir.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Someone I’ve never met?

I never met Abraham Lincoln either, so any opinion of his speech in Gettysburg is illegitimate too, right?

Cmon! The article he wrote shows prejudice, extremism and bombast. What’s next, no labels?

Saltysam on December 16, 2010 at 9:12 PM

@BKeyser okay I’ve answered all your questions, now answer mine
1 Is your dislike of gays based on animus or do you have a reason to believe that gays can only be effective in the military if they pretend to be straight?

2 Since no other military, study, personal experience, or philosophical principal is good enough proof for you. What proof are you looking for?

3. If you found out that a soldier that you knew personally and respected came out as gay would you turn them in or continue on as if nothing happened?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:17 PM

well for one it reduces the number of soldiers men and women that can be caught up in blackmail to protect their careers and limits abuse of the DADT by people looking to get back at officers or fellow enlisted members that get caught up in intraoffice politics. Studies have also shown that a stable and supportive family is one of the key elements in keeping military members in the force for longer thus reducing recruitment and training costs.

Numbers? How many soldiers are caught up in blackmail schemes? What do you think the military is, Desperate Housewives?

Enlisted members in intraoffice politics? How much intraoffice politics do you think is going on in a Bradley? Is this guy worried about intraoffice politics or the guy in his patrol in front and behind him?

Stable and supportive families? What does that have to do with gays serving openly?

Did you serve?

BKeyser on December 16, 2010 at 9:20 PM

@Bkeyser no your turn.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM

@BKeyser okay I’ve answered all your questions, now answer mine
1 Is your dislike of gays based on animus or do you have a reason to believe that gays can only be effective in the military if they pretend to be straight?
A: It’s not a dislike for gays. What I dislike is anyone putting their personal agenda above that of their service.

2 Since no other military, study, personal experience, or philosophical principal is good enough proof for you. What proof are you looking for?
A: There is no study done outside of the active duty Armed Forces that matters. What I’m looking for is volunteers to serve without condition.

3. If you found out that a soldier that you knew personally and respected came out as gay would you turn them in or continue on as if nothing happened?
A: Again, I have no animosity toward gays. I served six years in the USMC. If one of my cannoneers told me he was gay, I would speak confidentially with him to determine what his motive was in making that knowledge public. I cannot speculate whether I would take this up the chain; a lot would depend on the overall circumstances. What I would not do is feel any pleasure in outing a fine Marine. If I did take it to the First Shirt, I’d do it in confidence and with a recommendation that it not go further.

BKeyser on December 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Oh Alden… if you expect an answer and get one, I am SO going to buy you a cup of Joe! I assume black? now sugar or anything else?

upinak on December 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Black no sugar; extra spoonful of dirt if you’re trying to win my heart, you must be clairvoyant or married to a Marine.

Alden Pyle on December 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM

@JellyToast @goldstarcrazy gosh I’m surprised you don’t run for office, after all you’ve won already, no need for pesky voting.

Jesus, God Himself, in which He instructs us to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19), turn the other cheek Matthew 5:39), as well as the command, “you shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). After all, we are told that God is love (1 John 4:16) and “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9). The Bible also says in 2 Corinthians 10:4, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine powers to demolish strongholds.“

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

You quote the Bible, too. Just like Satan did to Jesus. Wow. I’m impressed.
Just for the fun of it, lets do this.
Blessed are the peacemakers. That’s peace-makers.
Nothing makes really nice peace like defeating your enemies. And I’ll throw this in as a freebie. Jesus also said the meek will inherit the earth. That’s inherit… meaning, they will inherit the earth because someone else will have fought for it and won it and in turn leave it for those who never did. (like maybe, their children-see, you have to think about these scriptures. Christianity is actually a thinking religion!)
Oh, but lets just cut right to the good ones. Here’s a nice quote.

In Luke 3:
“The soldiers asked John, “What about us? What should we do?”

John said to them, “Don’t force people to give you money, and don’t lie about them. Be satisfied with the pay you get.”

Notice, John never told these soldiers to leave the army. Here were two soldiers in the Roman Army and this was the perfect opportunity for John to reveal the pacifism of God. Oh well, guess He didn’t get the memo. What’s he do? He tells them to not extort money and to be content with their pay. What are soldiers paid to do? Kill people.
Hey, and guess who Jesus said had the greatest faith in all of Jerusalem? A Roman officer! An owner of a slave, no less. Go figure.

Mat. 8:5-13 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. …

13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

Well, this is rather long of me and it would be pointless to go on anyway. You’re just throwing verses against the wall thinking and hoping something clever sticks. Your not changing my mind on anything.

JellyToast on December 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Black no sugar; extra spoonful of dirt if you’re trying to win my heart, you must be clairvoyant or married to a Marine.

Alden Pyle on December 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM

I can hook you up with some Alaska Tundra, with just enough grit and volcanic ash to make your button pucker! Nope, I don’t have a thrid eye… but yes I am married to a Former Marine. :)

upinak on December 16, 2010 at 9:46 PM

3. If you found out that a soldier that you knew personally and respected came out as gay would you turn them in or continue on as if nothing happened?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Not to quibble, but if this hypothetical person came out as gay, wouldn’t they be turning themselves in? Isn’t that what ‘coming out’ is would be in this context?

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM

A. I’m not fighting for gays that are trying to join show off being gay. I’m fighting for gays and straights who don’t realize how harmful living in the closet is. You asked me why gays would need a stable relationship, despite the obvious answers that it gives you someone to live for and help out with things at home. The reason that the military chose to encourage more families is because it makes for better soldiers. Asking that the spouse of a solider to hide their entire lives from public view is unreasonable and unjustifiable.

B. The latest study was done by the military with military members and families and even that wasn’t enough for you. These gay members of the military are serving without condition. I am just making the point that one of the policies that is in place is both ineffective and unnecessary.

C. So what our saying is that being gay is that you know it doesn’t matter and in fact loosing a member of your team is more disruptive than knowing that they are gay.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Not to quibble, but if this hypothetical person came out as gay, wouldn’t they be turning themselves in? Isn’t that what ‘coming out’ is would be in this context?

catmman

not necessarily there are lots of ways to find out that someone is gay, learning about their personal life through other people, finding something online, catching them in a lie, or just realizing that they never care about dating women and asking them about it.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Also to anyone who is wasting their time with trying to debate Zekecorlain:

He never served, though his father did and he has many friends who are in the military.

He has disdain for the service, thinks it isn’t a “real job” and didn’t serve because he couldn’t be bothered with the paperwork.

He doesn’t care for the opinions of actual experienced military personnel no matter the number of years served or the extent or experience of that service. His fathers service and the service of his friends give him all the insight he needs into military policy.

He is pretty good at sticking to the repeal advocates talking points though. You won’t pull him off message.

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM

catmman on December 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Oh yeah, totally agree with you. There’s no discussion here really. He’s here to recruit and agitate. At this point, he’s pretty much just arguing with himself.

JellyToast on December 16, 2010 at 10:12 PM

@catmman #FACT catmman is actually a half-human half-cat and eats rutabaga he is also retired.

also i have no disdain for the military but i’m not blind to some of the problems in it.

I do hate paper work but it didn’t stop me from joining.

I do care about peoples opinions but I am allowed to disagree and explain why I do apologize that i am overly brash about it but at times this forum brings out the worst in debate.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Common ground on most points. My perspective is not anti-gay. I posted this before on this site, but I’ve not engaged with you before and don’t expect you took note. So if you’ll bear with me, I’ll reiterate:

When I got off the bus on Parris Island, I relinquished my history (figuratively) in the hope of earning the title US Marine. I stood on those yellow footprints a recruit. I was not a white recruit. I was not a straight recruit. I was not a Protestant recruit. I was a male recruit. (Gender applies because the training is different between males and females.)

But what proponents of repeal are pushing for, some probably unwittingly, is for gay recruits to stand on those footprints. They are asking for sexual orientation to take precedence over all else. They’re asking for gays to be separated from the balance, singled out based upon their personal behavior (for lack of a better word.) And in doing so, they’ll create a protected class to the detriment of all those who currently serve -gay and straight.

To understand my POV, you probably have had to serve, and probably in the Corps. Ours is a brotherhood that requires absolute faith and trust in our fellow Marines. That starts by earning the title, a feat accomplished by a decidedly few Americans. It’s reinforced through the knowledge that black, white, male, female, straight or gay, we’re all OD green. Just OD green. Just Marines. Not gay Marines. Not white Marines. Just Marines.

BKeyser on December 16, 2010 at 10:25 PM

dakine on December 15, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Naval officers only serve 2-4 years in specops, what’d ya do for the other 19 years?

Alden Pyle on December 16, 2010 at 7:41 PM

**crickets chirping** Still waiting… Google won’t help you here.

BTW Hawkdriver can back up all his claims of service with facts, as even the blackest of the actively serving spookies can without compromising OPSEC, but you’re retired and a little long in the tooth to worry about that, so it should be no prob.

What theatre did your combat take place in?
What team were you on? Which company in that team.
Here’s a hint each team is assigned to a specific theatre.

I took part in operation Lawnmower, (drug interdiction) it was about as dark as assignments get, SEAL 2 was TAD to our MEU for the tour. There’s a hint for ya Team 2 covers Central America. I was an 0331 at the time. See how easy that is, and I don’t even have to kill you after I told you because it was a loooooong time ago.

Not for nothing but O6′s serve an admin role in Naval Spec Ops Com I don’t recall ever seeing them outside of LittleCreek and never operational in the field, Team 2 fielded an LTJG (02) while their LT (03) monitored commo at S-2 once they were boots down.

Putting a full bird CAPT (06) on a combat mission team is equivalent to a Marine Battalion Commander sitting in a OP/LP. Not exactly an efficient use of your personnel. Not to mention, it’s a young guys game, by the time you make 06 you’re a little old to still be an effective operator. Not that I don’t believe you or nothing, it just seems a tad bit outside the norm to anyone who’s been in the biz for a while.

Alden Pyle on December 16, 2010 at 10:27 PM

@catmman whoops I had put a joking tag in that first line but i must have lost it, I’m sorry if that seemed rude i was trying for jokey

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Alden Pyle on December 16, 2010 at 10:27 PM

alden, jesus dude.. how old are you?!?! That sounds like it was in the early 80′s? My Hubby was a 0331… it would be odd if you both served together.

Small world?!

upinak on December 16, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Alden Pyle on December 16, 2010 at 10:27 PM

He knows he’s been found out as a liar, he won’t be back, at least on this topic.

Hold fire until he thinks the coast is clear and sticks his head up. Then – both barrels.

Rebar on December 16, 2010 at 10:47 PM

I don’t think we need more Bradley Mannings in the military.

Really Right on December 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM

@BKeser i can understand your view point but allow me to use your analogy, You understand that becoming a Marine means putting aside your past and accepting a new identity, you are afraid that gays being open will force an unwelcome addition to that identity that you fear will detract from duty and the job and harm the functioning of the marines. The point I would like to make is that DADT is actually already doing this and needs to be removed to strengthen the functioning of the Corps . By allowing a matter of sexuality to override all other concerns about the skill and job performance of a Marine you force a spotlight on gays that is both unwelcome and unnecessary. DADT proves that gay soldiers are just as capable in their job as their straight counterparts. Forcing them to pretend to be straight to satisfy the misguided beliefs of their soldiers insults the people being lied to.
In my life my two best friends have been former Marines and I have to tell you, that lying to them about being straight was the wrong thing to do and I’m glad I came out to them. I’m the godfather to two wonderful kids and both men have helped me become a better man. While there are moments that I tell them something they didn’t want to hear they’ve both done far worse things than i have for fun. Yeah there are moments when it’s obvious we have completely different desires, it doesn’t harm the friendship it makes it better.
I think your fears will come to naught when you find out which of your fellow marines were gay and that you think no less of them.
I hope this makes sense it’s been good chatting with you.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Homosexual men have a high propensity to dress in drag.
They put on uniforms for the wrong reasons.

“Look at me, I’m a Catholic priest!”

“Look at me, I’m soldier!”

Really Right on December 16, 2010 at 10:53 PM

*pets* @Really Right

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I think LGBT guys and gals also deserve to serve the country in the way they think best.

So, if they want serve as openly gay soldiers, so be it.

IMMEDIATELY SEND ALL OF THEM IN BATTLEFIELD RIGHT THERE IN AFGHANISTAN!

TheAlamos on December 17, 2010 at 12:57 AM

Dakine, I read most of the thread exchange. If Alden Pyle has you pegged correctly I’m not sure what I’d say. You used your career as evidence of your knowledge in your argument to repeal DADT. That’s bad enough. But if you’re not really who you say you are and you used a lie to cow a real Air Force vet like F15Mech in debate, put Jenfidel in her place and compare your “combat” record to mine it is no better than the guys walking around with medals they didn’t win. Are any of the issues we debate here so important that we have to sell our souls to lies.

These are some truths. I don’t know of one military friend or workmate who wants this repealed. I’ve spoken with a young W2 this very week who cinfided to me that he and his enlisted wife will both be leaving the military because of the repeal. That’s truth. The the real world. Real people who wanted to make the military their career but woun’t consign themselves to living a lie of acceptance. You can call them both foolish, but they have more honor than you.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2010 at 5:10 AM

confided…

hawkdriver on December 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM

Small world?!

upinak on December 16, 2010 at 10:32 PM

45, my parents signed for me at 16 and I left 2 days after graduating high school.

It’s possible I crossed paths with your hubby, the Suck is a small family, who was he with? I had duty station time on both coasts (Pendleton and LeJeune), Panama, Columbia, El Sal, TAD to 8th Marines for a Med Cruise to play with the Moosies, and spent more time than I care to recall on the west coast of Africa (Congo, Liberia et al).

Alden Pyle on December 17, 2010 at 6:18 AM

Repeal of DADT is intended to change the military from being a reservoir of traditional values. To implement acceptance of gays in the military, Admiral Mullen has testified, will take re-education. That re-education is flatly contrary to traditional religious belief that treats homosexuality as sinful. Leftists view sensitivity training as a way to propandize for their agenda, never mind that it has nothing to do with and is a distraction from the mission of the military.

All of this is to say that Scott Brown is being a short-sighted ass. Brown is showing himself to be a JAG attorney. Combat guys won’t do this.

Phil Byler on December 17, 2010 at 6:36 AM

JellyToast on December 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM

I think your missing the point of meek. It doesn’t mean cowardly, but those who are not braggarts will take control. This is true, because they are the ones that work in the background and will succeed while the braggart is spending time bragging and not improving and making moves that matter.

Tim Burton on December 17, 2010 at 7:13 AM

Let them serve openly. Else, let’s make Mel Gibson chair of the RNC

So they want to serve “openly”, huh? Fine. Fist, I mean first, they have to explicitely declare themselves to be homosexuals in writing in their service records. Second, all open and declared homosexuals should immediately be deployed to the front lines of combat in Afghanistan replacing current combat troops. The moral superiority of their open-mindedness and tolerance will win over the hearts and minds of Islamic extremists bent on forcing subjugation to sharia law world-wide. And if they don’t win over the hearts and minds, well, at least they succeeded in foisting their minority will upon the military.

olesparkie on December 17, 2010 at 7:20 AM

Wow…glad I missed this worthless thread. What a bunch of dorks.

Jaibones on December 17, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Alden Pyle on December 17, 2010 at 6:18 AM

Sweetie, email me @ helpingpalin at gmail

upinak on December 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Is everybody forgetting the problem with HIV infected blood on the battle field? Yeah… let me help my wounded buddy here. Wait! I forgot my rubber gloves?

kens on December 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM

I think your missing the point of meek. It doesn’t mean cowardly, but those who are not braggarts will take control. This is true, because they are the ones that work in the background and will succeed while the braggart is spending time bragging and not improving and making moves that matter.

Tim Burton on December 17, 2010 at 7:13 AM

I know it doesn’t mean cowardly. I didn’t mean to imply that it did. I simply see this as a sign of the future. There will be a generation that will inherit the earth from a generation that fought for it.

JellyToast on December 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Sweetie, email me @ helpingpalin at gmail

upinak on December 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Just shot you a line from my yahoo account

Alden Pyle on December 17, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7