US Military Gay Ban Stays

TheCommodore · Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:23 pm

This is VERY disappointing, considering all the talk.

And from a country like the US, its tragic really.

The US, a champion of human rights and fairness, I'm beginning to think otherwise.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-milit...ys-20100922-15lnu.html?autostart=1

DocLightning · Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:31 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):

The US, a champion of human rights and fairness, I'm beginning to think otherwise.

Hasn't been for a while. Not since the '60's. We're pretty socially backward here.

But what killed the bill wasn't DADT, it was the DREAM act. Why you would want to punish a child whose parents brought him here when he had no say in the matter, who has gotten good grades in school, and who wants to stay in the only country he knows... that's beyond me. I can only attribute it to cruelty.

Ken777 · Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:31 pm

I think you'll see something - maybe after the election.

In addition to DADT there will be some significant Defense funding tied up until something passes.

It's just too weird an election with the Tea Party. After the election a lot more is possible.

ozglobal · Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:32 am

I don't think I want to understand a system where such reform can only pass on the coat tails of unrelated legislation and then fails for unrelated reasons.

WarRI1 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:43 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
But what killed the bill wasn't DADT, it was the DREAM act. Why you would want to punish a child whose parents brought him here when he had no say in the matter, who has gotten good grades in school, and who wants to stay in the only country he knows... that's beyond me. I can only attribute it to cruelty.

All part of the game, why attach the Dream Act to Defense spending? The Dream Act should have succeded or failed on its own. The Politicians know how to muddy the water, both sides. You know the game, Pin the tail on the Donkey, this version is pin the blame on the other party.

fr8mech · Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:49 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
But what killed the bill wasn't DADT, it was the DREAM act. Why you would want to punish a child whose parents brought him here when he had no say in the matter, who has gotten good grades in school, and who wants to stay in the only country he knows... that's beyond me. I can only attribute it to cruelty.

That, and the fact that Republicans, were once again, apparently, shut out of the process. If this is so important, why did Reid take this route? Could it be election season posturing?

As for the DREAM Act, I have no problem, as I assume most have no problem, with granting a path to citizenship for those that serve in the military, assuming honorable service. In fact, I would grant them citizenship with their discharge papers if the other citizenship requirements can be met.

I do have a problem with the college provision. You see, as I see it, someone joins the military to serve the nation and, secondarily, serve themselves. One goes to college to, primarily better himself, with the added affect of bettering the nation, assuming good grades, a good job that produces tax revenue (among other things).

As for DADT: it will go away. It's just a matter of time. Reid made a political mistake here. Especially attaching it to the Defense Authorization Bill, along with DREAM. Those are 3 stand alone pieces of legislation and should have been presented that way.

[Edited 2010-09-21 17:56:47]

wn700driver · Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:37 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
This is VERY disappointing, considering all the talk.

And from a country like the US, its tragic really.

Correct.

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):

The US, a champion of human rights and fairness, I'm beginning to think otherwise.

We're better than a lot of other nations, to be sure. But I wouldn't say that we're any kind of beacon for it either. We still have the Death Penalty, for example... Anyway, our human rights record has been slipping... Just look at all the BS behind Prop 8...

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 4):

All part of the game, why attach the Dream Act to Defense spending? The Dream Act should have succeded or failed on its own. The Politicians know how to muddy the water, both sides. You know the game, Pin the tail on the Donkey, this version is pin the blame on the other party.

Yup. I don't know how feasible it is, since politicians would be involved in its making, but I for one would love to see a Constitutional Amendment specifically forbidding tack-ons and bill riders, as these are all too often responsible for the destruction of otherwise great ideas (and the repealing of some bad ones too...)

airtran737 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:51 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 4):
All part of the game, why attach the Dream Act to Defense spending? The Dream Act should have succeded or failed on its own. The Politicians know how to muddy the water, both sides. You know the game, Pin the tail on the Donkey, this version is pin the blame on the other party.

DADT should not have been attached to a defense budget. Congress needs to stay the fuck out of this, let the Pentagon do their study, and then go from there. DADT will be removed eventually, but it shouldn't be done by politicians trying to get last minute votes for a doomed campaign.

As for the Dream Act, this to should not be attached to a defense budget. Harry Reid is trying to show Mexicans that he "supports" them, and this is his way of shoring up a few votes. The military budget should not be the victim of people who are clinging to straws to keep their seat in the Senate.

NIKV69 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:09 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
But what killed the bill wasn't DADT, it was the DREAM act

In addition to Harry Reid's gross incompetence. He handled it horribly. Not a shock that two Dems including Blanche Lincoln (who voted against it to try to stop the fact her policial career is over in 6 weeks) voted against this. You will definately see a war in the lame duck session because if they don't get it done by Jan and they lose 5 or 6 seats forget it.

WarRI1 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:10 am

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 6):
Yup. I don't know how feasible it is, since politicians would be involved in its making, but I for one would love to see a Constitutional Amendment specifically forbidding tack-ons and bill riders, as these are all too often responsible for the destruction of otherwise great ideas (and the repealing of some bad ones too...)

I agree.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 7):
DADT should not have been attached to a defense budget. Congress needs to stay the fuck out of this, let the Pentagon do their study, and then go from there. DADT will be removed eventually, but it shouldn't be done by politicians trying to get last minute votes for a doomed campaign.

As for the Dream Act, this to should not be attached to a defense budget. Harry Reid is trying to show Mexicans that he "supports" them, and this is his way of shoring up a few votes. The military budget should not be the victim of people who are clinging to straws to keep their seat in the Senate.

That is all that matters to them, keeping their seat. From their very first day, that is the main agenda, not us, not the country, the clinging to power and influence for them. I have come to realize that women are just as corruptable as men. I once thought differently, not anymore.

NIKV69 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:37 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 9):
That is all that matters to them, keeping their seat. From their very first day, that is the main agenda, not us, not the country, the clinging to power and influence for them. I have come to realize that women are just as corruptable as men. I once thought differently, not anymore.

You have never seen a woman get some power?

I do believe Reid tried this as a way to try to bolster the hispanic vote in Nevada. He figured to be 10 points clear of Angle but she isn't going anywhere and is actually campaigning quite well. That could be a recount waiting to happen.

ltbewr · Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:43 am

As some have noted, wait until later this year, after the elections, for the Pentagon evaluation. Hopefully it will be open to ending DADT, but at least it will be on their timetable, to property put any changes into place so it works right. The repeal will not mean the ending of other military laws and rules on inappropiate sexual behavior as it should, but more importantly, it will make sure, as in civilian life, of being Gay/Lesbian, itself, is not of conquence.

WarRI1 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:48 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
You have never seen a woman get some power?

I have, over the years as women got into local politics here, I had hope that they might be different, alas it was not to be. They fall into the trap of power and influence just like men. Once they get it, they do not want to let go either. Equality has been achieved.

OA412 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:58 am

Quite sad really that our military is still not able to join the ranks of Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK, and Uruguay in allowing gay men and women to serve openly.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 6):
We're better than a lot of other nations, to be sure. But I wouldn't say that we're any kind of beacon for it either. We still have the Death Penalty, for example... Anyway, our human rights record has been slipping... Just look at all the BS behind Prop 8...

dxing · Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:05 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
But what killed the bill wasn't DADT, it was the DREAM act.

What killed it was political posturing by Harry Reid.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8):
In addition to Harry Reid's gross incompetence. He handled it horribly. Not a shock that two Dems including Blanche Lincoln (who voted against it to try to stop the fact her policial career is over in 6 weeks) voted against this.

Yep. All the GOP asked for was the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill that would have been proceduraly voted down as a matter of course by the democratic majority but Reid wasn't even willing to compromise that much. Now who is the party of NO?

Alias1024 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:33 am

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 7):
DADT should not have been attached to a defense budget. Congress needs to stay the fuck out of this, let the Pentagon do their study, and then go from there. DADT will be removed eventually, but it shouldn't be done by politicians trying to get last minute votes for a doomed campaign.

The legislation wouldn't have immediately removed DADT. The DADT section of the defense appropriations bill would have allowed for the removal of DADT from the United States Code only after the study was complete and had shown that the repeal would have no detrimental effects on military readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, and recruitment, and that relevant rules for implementation of the recommendations from the study had been created. Here's the relevant section.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...c111:1:./temp/~c1110Dij4G:e267053:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 11):
As some have noted, wait until later this year, after the elections, for the Pentagon evaluation.

That's exactly what the legislation did. It waited for the recommendations of the evaluation currently under way.

[Edited 2010-09-21 22:44:08]

iairallie · Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:33 am

I'm sure don't ask don't tell is (and should be) on it's way out in the not so distant future. But I think that maybe we should save the major policy changes for peacetime.

Mudboy · Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:48 am

Quoting iairallie (Reply 16):
But I think that maybe we should save the major policy changes for peacetime.

I agree 100% with this statement, this should not be done during a time of war. During peace time, I have no problem with it.

Aaron747 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:01 am

Quoting iairallie (Reply 16):
But I think that maybe we should save the major policy changes for peacetime.

Or maybe, just maybe, in a time of war we should make sure that people who want to serve are not kept out or otherwise under duress because of who they are. Just a thought to counter an obvious cop-out.

Mudboy · Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:09 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Or maybe, just maybe, in a time of war we should make sure that people who want to serve are not kept out or otherwise under duress because of who they are. Just a thought to counter an obvious cop-out.

I would say it is not a cop-out, it has to do with unit cohesion. When you are deployed in a war zone, you do everything together, sleep, eat, shower, etc. I have mixed feelings on this, as to not wanting to disrupt morale, during a time when troop morale is of the most importance.

blrsea · Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:19 am

If the gay ban is overturned, the military could also save some money by combining both men and women's restrooms and showers, and having unisex bathroom/showers, right?

NIKV69 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:46 am

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 17):
I agree 100% with this statement, this should not be done during a time of war. During peace time, I have no problem with it.

Yea but the war on terror isn't ending anytime soon.

kappel · Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:57 am

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 19):
I would say it is not a cop-out, it has to do with unit cohesion. When you are deployed in a war zone, you do everything together, sleep, eat, shower, etc. I have mixed feelings on this, as to not wanting to disrupt morale, during a time when troop morale is of the most importance.

In none of the countries mentioned by OA412

Quoting OA412 (Reply 13):
lbania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK, and Uruguay

is troop morale an issue on this point AFAIK. I am definitely certain that in the Netherlands it's no problem at all. The posturing about troop morale is a load of BS and (implicit) homophobia IMHO. I'm not gay, but I never understood why people should be treated differently just because of their sexual orientation (not to mention gender, religion or skin colour, but that's another issue).

san747 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:11 am

Republicans have never opposed/filibustered a defense spending bill before. I guess there's a first time for everything, but it's sad and says a lot about what their priorities and motivations are.

That said, was it wise to stick a DADT repeal and a controversial piece of legislation concerning immigration in this defense spending proposal? No, not really. That's asking for trouble in this partisan climate.

Quoting dxing (Reply 14):

Yep. All the GOP asked for was the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill that would have been proceduraly voted down as a matter of course by the democratic majority but Reid wasn't even willing to compromise that much. Now who is the party of NO?

Because the last time the GOP asked to "offer amendments" it watered down the health care reform bill into a weak shell of itself that nobody wanted, which, appropriately enough, is exactly what they set out to do. And before you respond, ask yourself- are you happy with the health care bill that passed and got signed?

Severnaya · Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:38 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
The US, a champion of human rights and fairness, I'm beginning to think otherwise.

Ah the USA.

The country that tells others how to behave and how to respect human rights and at the same time turning into one of the worst countries i'll say. There's still the death-penalty, there's Guantanamo Bay on Cuba, there's the invasian in Iraq with its associated problems (Abu Ghraib etc) and such called 'anti-terrorism' measures have to be taken where privacy is affected.

Aaron747 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:58 am

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 19):
I would say it is not a cop-out, it has to do with unit cohesion. When you are deployed in a war zone, you do everything together, sleep, eat, shower, etc. I have mixed feelings on this, as to not wanting to disrupt morale, during a time when troop morale is of the most importance.

That's a steaming pile of horse manure, plain and simple. If you are a mature adult, you can handle knowing someone in your unit is gay. You do everything together - that's right - and that's why it's a brotherhood. Knowing that when they're off-duty they're going to cruise people of the same sex changes nothing about how they're going to watch your back and vice versa when under fire. And when AQ rebels are lobbing RPG rounds at you that won't be on your mind either. Morale will be aided by knowing that people can keep their mind on the mission rather than being 'outed' by someone who suspects and/or doesn't like them. The people who can't handle a gay person in close proximity to them have nobody to blame but themselves.

Quoting Severnaya (Reply 24):
There's still the death-penalty, there's Guantanamo Bay on Cuba, there's the invasian in Iraq with its associated problems (Abu Ghraib etc) and such called 'anti-terrorism' measures have to be taken where privacy is affected.

Painting with broad strokes there huh? One of the worst? We're no paragons of virtue, don't get me wrong, but one of the worst? Hey, at least we've thrown racist mobs in prison when they beat people senseless in the streets, and that's all I have to say about that.

Mudboy · Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:01 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 22):
The posturing about troop morale is a load of BS and (implicit) homophobia IMHO.

Have you ever served in a combat unit, on a FOB in a war theater? When your friends get wounded and killed, on top of not knowing if today is your day? or missing your family, and sometimes sleeping outside in austere environments, having to constantly be on alert for hostiles, IEDs, VBIEDs, IDFs, morale tends to get low. So, now you throw this big change in the mix, and yes, there are many that are homophobic and there are many that are not, but this the wrong time to add tension, especially to the tip of the sword. It is kind of hard for people to understand how life is in a war zone, when they are at home watching it on TV, or reading about it on the internet. And my concern is mostly for the GRUNTS, not the POGS, because they are out there on the tip of the sword.

With that being said, I have no problem with DADT being repealed, just a little further down the road.
Stay Safe everyone.

TheCommodore · Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:04 am

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
now you throw this big change in the mix, and yes, there are many that are homophobic and there are many that are not, but this the wrong time to add tension, especially to the tip of the sword.

Oh come on !

Other army's cope, in the "theater of war", and do so without issue.

How come your saying the US army is different ?

fr8mech · Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:46 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 27):
How come your saying the US army is different ?

It's not the our military is any different, but to throw a major policy change at the military during a time of war is stupid. Wait it out until things settle. Yes, DADT will be repealed, (not really sure why Congress saw fit to butt into this area in the first place, but I'm sure it was a Clinton/Gingrich thing), but it will have to wait.

On the other hand, I'm wondering if it would have gotten passed the cloiture vote if Reid had presented it alone. I think it would have. This was strictly political posturing from the Leader. You pick the Leader.

Quoting san747 (Reply 23):
Because the last time the GOP asked to "offer amendments" it watered down the health care reform bill into a weak shell of itself that nobody wanted, which, appropriately enough, is exactly what they set out to do. And before you respond, ask yourself- are you happy with the health care bill that passed and got signed?

No, I'm not happy that it was signed at all. The GOP was trying to kill the bill, not make it more palatable...kill it. Would they have done the same here? Probably, because a)this does not belong in the authorization bill, b)still waiting on the Pentagon's review and c)they believe the base doesn't want it.

cpd · Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:55 am

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
? When your friends get wounded and killed, on top of not knowing if today is your day?

Does it really change anything in that case? I don't think it does, and nor should it change anything. I'd be more worried about making it through the day alive, and making sure everyone else does the same.

I would have thought the people over their and fighting have the maturity to be able to handle this sort of thing in a sensible way.

[Edited 2010-09-22 04:57:35]

ImperialEagle · Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:43 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 19):
When you are deployed in a war zone, you do everything together, sleep, eat, shower, etc. I have mixed feelings on this, as to not wanting to disrupt morale, during a time when troop morale is of the most importance.

Hmmmmm. So let me understand this train of thought. If no one knows who is gay and who isn't-----everything is alright-----but if you know someone is gay then you can't be in close quarters with them, or you can expect morale to deteriorate?

Almost 25,000 gay troops dishonorably discharged, more that 13,000 in the last 16 years----many of them highly experienced and well decorated.
And, will we ever know how many gave their lives in the line of duty?

I wonder what the scumbag politicians will do when being gay is no longer a topic of discussion?
Maybe they will go after people of a different race----ooops, they already did that. Maybe they will go after different ethnicities------ooops, they already did that.

Here's a link to an Opinion from today"s New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22wed1.html?_r=1&hp

[Edited 2010-09-22 05:57:31]

fr8mech · Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:44 pm

Quoting cpd (Reply 29):
I would have thought the people over their and fighting have the maturity to be able to handle this sort of thing in a sensible way.

I believe most of the individuals do, but I don't think the organization is ready for such a policy change. The US military is a large organzation that does only one thing efficiently; in all other things it is cumbersome and unwieldy.

DADT's time will come. It's not this year because Reid was posturing for the Dems. It probably wouldn't have been this year anyway, but politics has truly poisoned this issue.

Mudboy · Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:30 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
? When your friends get wounded and killed, on top of not knowing if today is your day?

Quoting cpd (Reply 29):
Does it really change anything in that case? I don't think it does, and nor should it change anything. I'd be more worried about making it through the day alive, and making sure everyone else does the same.

You don't think your buddy getting killed or wondering if you are next, lowers your morale? That was the point I was trying to make, if you had not taken what I said out of context.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 30):
Hmmmmm. So let me understand this train of thought. If no one knows who is gay and who isn't-----everything is alright-----but if you know someone is gay then you can't be in close quarters with them, or you can expect morale to deteriorate?

Some would have problems with it, while others would not.

dxing · Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:13 pm

Quoting san747 (Reply 23):
Republicans have never opposed/filibustered a defense spending bill before. I guess there's a first time for everything, but it's sad and says a lot about what their priorities and motivations are.

Again, Harry Reid inserted an amendment that has nothing to do with defense spending in the defense bill, namely the dream act. GOP members wanted the same opportunity to offer amendments that the democrats could have voted down by majority vote. Reid is doing nothing but using the defense bill to help his own polticial campaign. That should be the most reprehensible thing about this whole affair.

Quoting san747 (Reply 23):
Because the last time the GOP asked to "offer amendments" it watered down the health care reform bill into a weak shell of itself that nobody wanted, which, appropriately enough, is exactly what they set out to do. And before you respond, ask yourself- are you happy with the health care bill that passed and got signed?

Please name one single major amendment offered by the GOP that "watered down" the healthcare bill and how it managed to pass on a majority vote, even out of any of the various committees involved in crafting this albatross. Please cite a source for that as well. Here's a couple that didn't.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=399&mid=7675805&pt=msg

One of the most important in this link follows as such:

- Protect employers who offer health care coverage to their workers. As written, the Democratic health care bill would gut ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act), the federal law that makes it possible for millions of American workers to receive quality health care benefits and other benefits through their employers. Rep. John Kline (R-MN) offered an amendment to fix this flaw and shield employers who offer health care coverage to their workers from being caught up in a web of legal liability systems that would vary from state to state. The Kline amendment was killed in committee.

If that isn't a clear sign that liberals won't be satisfied until everyone is under the governments thumb I don't know what is.

As well as....

- Keep President Obama’s pledge that health care reform will not add to the deficit. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) offered an amendment to prohibit the government-controlled health care system from taking effect unless the legislation is and remains “deficit neutral.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan “scorekeeper” for Congress, has determined that the bill as drafted will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. The McClintock amendment was killed in committee.

Am I happy with the law, hell no. It is nothing more than another liberal created bureaucracy that will begin to bloat in size and invade ordinary Americans rights to deal with their own health care. It is a job killer and an income taker.

kevi747 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:42 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
When your friends get wounded and killed, on top of not knowing if today is your day? or missing your family, and sometimes sleeping outside in austere environments, having to constantly be on alert for hostiles, IEDs, VBIEDs, IDFs, morale tends to get low.

Now imagine all of those things with the added stress of living everyday in fear of losing your job for being gay. It must suck to be a gay soldier.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
but this the wrong time to add tension, especially to the tip of the sword.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 19):
I have mixed feelings on this, as to not wanting to disrupt morale, during a time when troop morale is of the most importance.

Do you honestly think American soldiers are that emotionally sensitive? I meet US military personnel all the time at my job and they're all "big boys and girls". I'm quite sure they can handle it.

Frankly, it's shameful that this is even an issue. Come on, America. Catch up with the rest of the world.

NIKV69 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:54 pm

Quoting Severnaya (Reply 24):
Ah the USA.

The country that tells others how to behave and how to respect human rights and at the same time turning into one of the worst countries i'll say. There's still the death-penalty, there's Guantanamo Bay on Cuba, there's the invasian in Iraq with its associated problems (Abu Ghraib etc) and such called 'anti-terrorism' measures have to be taken where privacy is affected

Invasion in Iraq? You forget what you did in Afghanistan?

[Edited 2010-09-22 07:57:29]

Okie · Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:54 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
As for DADT: it will go away. It's just a matter of time. Reid made a political mistake here. Especially attaching it to the Defense Authorization Bill, along with DREAM. Those are 3 stand alone pieces of legislation and should have been presented that way.

At one time Burris also had something in the legislation to turn the military installations in to abortion clinics as well.

The bill was never anything but political posturing before election time, looking for votes, the electorate appears to be a little more informed these days. The tag line will be Repubs voted down Abortion, Gay's in the Military, Immigration, and Defense spending.

We will see how this is played out during the upcoming elections, sounds like a major backfire on Reid at this point playing the electorate as stupid.

Okie

seb146 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:00 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
That, and the fact that Republicans, were once again, apparently, shut out of the process.

Because they could not get amendments to the bill added. They are, once again, the party of "no" strikes again! Their supporters are screaming for smaller government. This would be one way to prove it: Stay out of people's bedrooms and stay out of people's heads!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
I think you'll see something - maybe after the election.

Boehner (sp?) is probably looking to pass it if/when he becomes speaker of the House so he can run for President by saying "look what I did for human rights, the military, and the gays!"

slider · Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:17 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
That, and the fact that Republicans, were once again, apparently, shut out of the process. If this is so important, why did Reid take this route? Could it be election season posturing?

This whole don't ask/don't tell thing is nothing but a pure political election cycle ploy....Obama PROMISED to repeal it. Hence, he needs this red meat issue becuase his own core constituency is PISSED.

He needs this issue to help energize the liberals, esp the social libs on the left, since voter turnout is already tipping strongly to the right with the TEA Party wave.

agill · Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:28 pm

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):

If the gay ban is overturned, the military could also save some money by combining both men and women's restrooms and showers, and having unisex bathroom/showers, right?

Don't know if we still have that, but it used to be like that here. I think grown ups can handle that.

Aaron747 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:22 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 32):
Some would have problems with it, while others would not.

Shouldn't be an issue - you do what you're told and get the job done. I'm sure there are plenty of people serving who don't like getting up early for three years straight - but they still do it. This "some would have problems with it" business is just another cop-out allowing an idiotic and discriminatory policy to continue. A dose of reality would help.

TheCommodore · Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:09 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28):
but to throw a major policy change at the military during a time of war is stupid.

Do you really think it would make a difference. I'd have thought that the US military is up to it.

Quoting cpd (Reply 29):
I would have thought the people over their and fighting have the maturity to be able to handle this sort of thing in a sensible way.

Right on !
And if some solders don't seem to have the "maturity" to cope, they shouldn't be fighting anyway, send em home !

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 30):
Almost 25,000 gay troops dishonorably discharged, more that 13,000 in the last 16 years----many of them highly experienced and well decorated.

That figure is absolutely shocking, and should embarrass the Government into doing something about it. Now.

Quoting kevi747 (Reply 34):
Do you honestly think American soldiers are that emotionally sensitive? I meet US military personnel all the time at my job and they're all "big boys and girls". I'm quite sure they can handle it.

According to Mudboy, once the gays are let in, all hell will break loose. Remember, don't drop the soap !!

Quoting Slider (Reply 38):
Obama PROMISED to repeal it.

And he should be doing so with Bi-partisan support.
The fact that this is NOT happening speaks volumes about the political processes in the US.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 40):
This "some would have problems with it" business is just another cop-out allowing an idiotic and discriminatory policy to continue.

mt99 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:34 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 38):
Obama PROMISED to repeal it.

He promised, he got elected on his promises, ergo the people want this repealed.

Starbuk7 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:55 pm

Nobody seems to be addressing the face the neither DADT nor the Dream Act should have been attached to the Defense Spending Bill.

These are two separate issues and should have their own separate bills. Neither have anything to do with defense spending.

All bills that go through congress should be "one subject" bills, nothing else added to them but the initial subject that they are meant to address.

kappel · Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:09 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
Have you ever served in a combat unit, on a FOB in a war theater?

Nope I have not. But I am an adult. As are the soldiers in the US army.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):
but this the wrong time to add tension,

It's the right time to decrease tension by repealing this. What tension would it add? The army will not turn into Sodom because the gays can suddenly be open about it. IMHO, nothing will change. Besides, the US has been at war for 9 years, with no end in sight. There will always be a reason not to repeal DADT for those that want to find a reason.

AGM100 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:39 pm

Poor Harry .... he must be so worried. Trying this little stunt ... he is still going to lose to whats her name . thank god.

So did the GOP block it or was it the democrats who voted against it ... ? I though they had a majority ?

Quoting Kappel (Reply 44):
nothing will change

So why is it a issue ? It is a attempt to legitimize gays as a "group" even better a minority group. Once the federal government classifies being gay as a minority class rather than a lifestyle it changes allot of things. I am not judging it as right or wrong .. I am just pointing out the strategy of gay rights activist. It probably will not change much at all for the soldiers sailors and marines ... but it is a major legal status shift at the fed level and a big prize for the movement. Simply put they are willing to use the military as a test ground for legal precedence building ..once the military legitimizes gays as a special group then the argument can be used in many other ways . Step by step they keep the pressure on until they win ; its a good strategy and will work in the end.

If you are a gay man ... its hard to take the emotion out of it I understand that. My point is based around the legal strategy of the issue.

Alias1024 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:41 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28):
(not really sure why Congress saw fit to butt into this area in the first place,

Because DADT is federal law. The military can't just eliminate it. Congress has to remove if from the United States Code.

This DADT legislation should have been a complete non-issue. It didn't force the military to do anything. If the study comes back and says that repealing DADT would hurt unit cohesion then nothing in the legislation would have forced a repeal.

The only reason this has been made into an issue is due to the religious beliefs of the Christian conservative wing of the Republican party. They've mischaracterized the legislation to make people believe that DADT is being shoved down the military's throat, when it is not, and used that mischaracterization to gain support for blocking the legislation.

ER757 · Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:42 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 19):
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Or maybe, just maybe, in a time of war we should make sure that people who want to serve are not kept out or otherwise under duress because of who they are. Just a thought to counter an obvious cop-out.

I would say it is not a cop-out, it has to do with unit cohesion. When you are deployed in a war zone, you do everything together, sleep, eat, shower, etc. I have mixed feelings on this, as to not wanting to disrupt morale, during a time when troop morale is of the most importance.

Maybe I am mis-understand what you're saying here, so correct m if I'm wrong. The way I read it, you are saying that gays shouldn't be admitted until peacetime. So do we kick them out if another war starts while they're serving? If so, what's the point?

vikkyvik · Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:03 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 45):
once the military legitimizes gays as a special group then the argument can be used in many other ways

I don't understand your point

The military already treats gays as a special group, by saying they can be fired simply for admitting as such.

Repealing DADT would stop treating gays differently. They would no longer be a special group.

Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 43):
Nobody seems to be addressing the face the neither DADT nor the Dream Act should have been attached to the Defense Spending Bill.

Um, except for all these people:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
But what killed the bill wasn't DADT, it was the DREAM act.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 4):
All part of the game, why attach the Dream Act to Defense spending?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
Especially attaching it to the Defense Authorization Bill, along with DREAM.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 7):
DADT should not have been attached to a defense budget.

Quoting san747 (Reply 23):
That said, was it wise to stick a DADT repeal and a controversial piece of legislation concerning immigration in this defense spending proposal?

Quoting dxing (Reply 33):
Again, Harry Reid inserted an amendment that has nothing to do with defense spending in the defense bill, namely the dream act.

ImperialEagle · Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:19 pm

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 46):
The only reason this has been made into an issue is due to the religious beliefs of the Christian conservative wing

IMO the Republican Party was officially hi-jacked during the push to elect Reagan. Zealots have controled it ever since.
So much for seperation of church and state. And where does "less government" figure into this when religious zealots legislate open discrimination against a specific group of TAX PAYING American Citizens???!!! Are we to believe that religious intrusion is o.k. and everything else is "invasive" government?

I think gay people just want "equal rights" not "special rights" anyway!

At one time the Republican Party stood for fiscal conservatism and less government. That was a loooong time ago and I see no sign that it is EVER going to return. The Democrats have lost the balance of a conservative wing. The lobbyists have created a hopelessly corrupt two-party system and the Congress and Senate are glaring examples.
The so-called Tea-Party is also embracing the lobbyists, so I see no improvement with them either. The closer they align themselves with the Republicans the more it looks like the same old s*%t to me.
So go figya. A political cluster-f*%k.

I think until our political system is free of lobbyists and zealots and moves to "center", we are doomed to endure these ridiculous swings to the far right or left.

If gays get any good legistation out of a branch of the government as it is, it will just be hit and miss.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net