Gay Movement Suffers Humiliating Defeat - Senate Keeps "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

They wouldn't listen to Lady Gaga?

**** PICTURE REDACTED ****

(Thought I'd censor myself, for a change.)

I will ascribe political courage to her, for not buying in to the forced choice between principle and goodies.

But the meat dress...won't someone think of the meat dress???

Maybe PETA put on some behind-the-scene pressure to kill the bill.

Before y'all keep on with the gloat party, consider who really "lost" this one.

Our military, who won't get the volunteer numbers they need, and could achieve if the law was overturned.

I guess my perspective is big picture vs. small-minded special interests.

Naran:

Like EqualityMaine isn't a special interest? Still, I agree with you. This is an issue with potential benefit. I know some RETIRED gay ex-military. Good guys. I was on record here saying that the military should "experiment" with this issue -- back before 'da war.

Sitll, it may require some fine tuning. It may be like "gay marriage", in that the liberal side wanted too much, too fast. It isn't like there are only two choices - DADT and no fine tuning at all.

TJC - no way am I suggesting that the gay rights side is devoid of special interests.

As you rightly surmised, my concern is more with the big picture - this vote essentially says RED LIGHT to valuable, potential military personnel who would otherwise join, and serve well, for ALL of us.

This one is truly an example of "Point one finger, and you have three others, pointing right back at yourself."

DADT wasn't the only amendment in question, the more objectionable one in my view was the Burris Amendment allowing elective abortions to be performed in taxpayer-funded domestic and international military bases.

Collins made the right decision, for a number of reasons. Votes, as we know, have consequences. Here is the Susan B. Anthony List on those consequences:

"Votes have consequences, and forcing this bill through Congress makes no electoral sense for Democrats looking to survive this November’s mid-term elections. Democratic support for taxpayer subsidization of abortion in this bill, once again, represents a clear overstep by the Obama-Reid agenda. Despite polling showing the majority of Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion, the President and Congress continue to look for ways to fund abortion. The Obama Administration and Congress are on a collision course with public opinion and they pass this bill with abortion funding at their own peril.”

For the "big picture" types - here is a list of the nine controversial issues that demand more, not less, examination.

Could someone tell me exactly what "serving openly in the military" means? Do straight people serve "openly"? I mean, do straight soldiers get up in the morning and tell their fellow soldiers, "hey, I'm straight, just thought you'd like to know that". So, is it some kind of special status that gays want in the military?

What's wrong with "don't ask, don't tell"?

Why does anyone HAVE to advertise their sex life, or absence thereof?

More importantly, this also shelves the so-called DREAM ACT.

Yes, I have a problem with the Dream Act, glad to see it torpedoed. I think DADT is pretty dumb.

Here is my take. (like it really matters. I know... ;-)

I could care less. Really. It's not my issue. My military "career" may be tied for the most insignificant ever, so I can't even speak from any experience. I have spent several times the years working with the military as a civilian in support areas than I ever did in uniform.

HOWEVER

I do understand that the Military is a serious business, best left to the real "Brass" to make important decisions, unaffected by political correctness, polls, popularity, etc. It's not the place for social experiments IMHO. If the "brass" believe that serving openly gay in the armed forces is a dangerous thing, than I need to take their word for it. The "Brass" seem pretty united on this as far as I know, so I'll default to their experience. There must be more to it than the bumper-sticker and buzzword debates I hear in the press.

Again, we can all have our own opinion, and again, it really doesn't rate very high on the "really important stuff" scale with me, so I won't be debating anyone on it. I am sure you all have great points, I just trust in the "Brass" and let them decide how to build and maintain the best fighting force in the World.

Does that make sense?

I think DADT is a misnomer. It has only a little to do with "advertising" one's sexual preference.

Under DADT, you can still be discharged for gay activity wherever it takes place.

While I don't support changing definitions or granting special rights or privileges, I also don't support denying people privileges other citizens have -- and particularly not when in the same breath, the legislature is looking at allowing illegal aliens to join the army and "win" citizenship.

First of all, it's crazy to allow non-citizens who are engaged daily in illegal activities to serve, but prohibit legal citizens from serving based on their engaging in legal activities.

Secondly, if the Congress would stop mixing in these hugely different items in one bill, our legislators could vote for or against the issues at hand and would not have to vote against something they're for because it's attached to something they're against -- or vice versa.

With congress ready to adjourn so the democrats can go home and attempt to bail water before the Republican tsunami in November, I'm glad this issue will be laid to rest for a very long time.

Recruitment has not been a problem. Put that red herring back in the lake.

Recruitment stats for the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. (look back, they've met their goals)

The Army 101 percent
The Navy 100 percent
The Marine Corps 100 percent
The Air Force making 100

The Army National Guard 112 percent
The Army Reserve 125 percent
The Navy Reserve 100 percent.
The Marine Corps Reserve 144 percent .
The Air National Guard 124 percent ,
The Air Force Reserve100 percent

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2010recruiting/a/october.htm

Our military, who won't get the volunteer numbers they need, and could achieve if the law was overturned.
I guess my perspective is big picture vs. small-minded special interests.

Maybe you could help us 'small minded ' folks see the 'big picture' by providing evidence that the net number of volunteers would be increased if the law were overturned. Isn't it possible that your assumed increase in homosexual volunteers might be offset by a reduced number of volunteers who want no part of serving with open homosexuals?

Under DADT, you can still be discharged for gay activity wherever it takes place.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Sec 125, (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex can be discharged.

That includes (can I say it here?) oral sex.

Isn't that "Natural" carnal copulation ? At least since the Clinton impeachment vote?

We should be cutting our military by 5 to 10 percent a year for the next decade.

All other comments aside, which is proof of the "divide and conquer" intent, the real travesty here is the practice of all or nothing bundling into seemingly mundane legislation.

In my working years, I had more than one occasion to read Defense Appropriations Bills coming out of Murtha's shop, and more important, the "Report Language" that accompanied the Bills.

This was in the range of 20 years ago, and I can tell you that there is no way you could see these documents and have any trust in our government or respect for those in power.

Feeding frenzy only begins to hint at the behavior, along with quid pro quo, I've got the goods on you, etc.

I'm hard pressed to think of one example of honesty and principle I ever encountered.

DADT, Dream Act, and anything else you can think of.....they're all chips in the big high stakes poker game, where cheating is the standard.

The Appropriations Bills, which must be passed to keep government operating, are the perfect tools for this bravo sierra. I remember Tom Allen trying to prove his conservative bona fides by stating how he had voted for every defense appropriations bill that came to the floor. Why wouldn't you; there's nothing to lose, and every one MUST be passed.

It's the town budget writ large; one way or another, you've got to pass it. The only question is who can get the most leverage out of the process.

If enough general officers feel strongly that the policy should be repealed, then the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be amended. Simple as that. Leave the Senate out of it. The Army is not a democracy or a center for social experimentation. Disclaimer: 3 years active Army, 25 reserve, retired as master sergeant (E-8).

Hey Mike. Thanks for your service.

Coupling social policy, or peanut allergies, or any other vastly detached issue with road repair, for example, is an abomination. Or, if you prefer, an "obamanation."

SENATOR COLLINS SPEAKS ON FLOOR REGARDING DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL, "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" POLICY

September 21, 2010

Washington, DC -

U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the Senate floor regarding today's cloture vote on the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization bill, which includes a provision to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The full text of her remarks follows as delivered:

"I come to the floor to discuss the defense authorization bill and the don't ask, don't tell provisions included in it. Let me start by making my position crystal clear: I agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the don't ask, don't tell law should be repealed. It should be repealed contingent upon the certifications of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that its repeal would not have an adverse impact on military readiness, recruitment and retention. And those are exactly the provisions that are included in the defense authorization bill.

"My view is that our armed forces should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing and capable of serving our country. The bottom line for me is this: if an individual is willing to put on the uniform of our country, to be deployed in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk his or her life for our country, then we should be expressing our gratitude to those individuals, not trying to exclude them from serving or expel them from the force.

"That is why, during consideration of this bill in May, I supported the compromise provisions that were put forth by Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Levin. At a previous Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Adm. Mullen if there were any evidence at all that allowing gay and lesbian troops to serve had harmed military readiness in those countries that allow their service now. At least 28 countries including Great Britain, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Israel, allow open service by lesbian and gay troops. We have no greater allies than Great Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel, and none of these countries - not one - reports morale or recruitment problems. At least nine of these countries have deployed their forces alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom and at least 12 of these nations allowing open service are currently fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

"There is a cost involved in our current policy. According to a 2005 GAO report, American taxpayers spend more than $30 million each year to train replacements for gay troops discharged under the don't ask, don't tell policy. The total cost reported since the statute was implemented, according to GAO, has been nearly $200 million, and that doesn't count the administrative and legal costs associated with investigations and hearings, and the military schooling of gay troops such as pilot training and linguist training.

"We are losing highly skilled troops to this policy. According to the GAO, eight percent of the service members let go under don't ask, don't tell held critical occupations defined as services such as interpreters. Three percent had skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or Korean.

"More than 13,000 troops have been dismissed from the military simply because of their sexual orientation since President Clinton signed this law in 1993. Mr. President, society has changed so much since 1993. And we need to change this policy as well.

"But let me say that I respect the views of those who disagree with me on this issue, such as the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. McCain. And I will defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments on this issue, and other issues that are being brought up in connection with the defense authorization bill -- and there are many controversial issues in this bill. They deserve to have a civil, fair and open debate on the Senate floor. And that is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the Majority Leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments.

"This would be the 116th time in this Congress that the Majority Leader or another member of the majority has filed cloture rather than proceeding to the bill under an agreement that would allow amendments to be debated. What concerns me even more is the practice of filling up the amendment tree to prevent Republican amendments. And if that is done on this bill, it will be the 40th time.

"Now, Mr. President, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I support the provisions in this bill. I debated for them; I was the sole Republican on the Committee that voted for the Lieberman-Levin language on don't ask, don't tell. I think it's the right thing to do, I think it's only fair. I think we should welcome the service of these individuals who are willing and capable of serving their country. But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down debate and preclude Republican amendments. That too is not fair.

"So I'm going to make one final plea to my colleagues to enter into a fair time agreement that will allow full and open debate, full and open amendments to all the provisions of this bill, including don't ask, don't tell, even though I will vote against the amendment to strike don't ask, don't tell provisions from this bill.

"Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks. Again, I call upon the Majority Leader to work with the Republican leaders to negotiate an agreement on the terms of debate so that we can debate this important defense policy bill this week, including the vital issue of don't ask, don't tell."

###

Snowe Statement on Defense Authorization Bill
September 20, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) released the following statement regarding tomorrow’s procedural vote on the Defense authorization bill and the majority’s intention to limit the number of amendments considered:

“First and foremost, the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing, especially as this bill is the largest discretionary authorization measure that Congress considers, that the bill describes the policies and programs that provide resources and direction to the nearly 2.4 million men and women of the military – active, reserve and civilians, including the courageous Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that two of the three amendments don’t even relate to the military. It is therefore imperative that Senate deliberations on the defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that Senators may wish to offer.

“Moreover, as I have previously stated, given that the law implementing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in place for nearly 17 years, I agree that it is overdue for a thorough review. The question is, whether we should be voting on this issue before we have the benefit of the comprehensive review that President Obama’s Secretary of Defense ordered in March, to secure the input of our men and women in uniform during this time of war – as the Joint Chiefs of Staff from all of the services have requested prior to any vote. We should all have the opportunity to review that report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.”

####

Although I have read in several places that Collins wants to vote for repeal of DADT, unless I'm reading it wrong -- which could be the case -- she is not.

Is that right?

Even rhinos like Collins is understanding that tea party conservatives would through her out in 2012. Good sign my friends.

She does want to repeal DADT, but she did not agree with lumping it in with other major issues like the Dream ACT.

...through her out in 2012.

Are you a legal secretary? !!!

AH-HH-HH. =))) You're repeating yourself, Michelle, but I do enjoy your sarcasm.

One of the monstrosities in this bill is the Burris Amendment, which allows doctors who are funded by tax money to use taxpayer-funded military hospitals to perform abortions, in the United States a well as on military bases abroad. This despite the pretend "ban" on federal funding going to fund abortions.