Senate passes DADT repeal

By a vote of 65-31, the United States Senate passed H.R. 2965 which repeals the Clinton-era compromise policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  The bill will now be sent to the president for signature, having previously passed the House of Representatives 250-15.

My thanks to Virginia Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner for voting in favor of repeal.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

28 thoughts on “Senate passes DADT repeal

      1. I take that back. Thomas has the number transposed (368 instead of 638). Not your problem. Still, Nye voted for repeal. And still more, that isn’t going to get him renominated in 2 years.

        1. Ah, I didn’t notice that (I just clicked thru the Thomas link.) I thought it was odd because he supported repeal earlier. My apologies for the bad link.

          Agree it’s not going to help him in 2 years.

  1. Of course you know, all this bill does is remove 10 U.S.C. 654. So it all goes back the way it was before DADT.

    Were homosexuals allowed in the military then, or was it simply up to the individual services to decide?

    1. It will be a matter for the executive to decide, as it was before. Prior to DADT, the President delegated that decision. He probably won’t now, or he will delegate to the JCS Chairman, which will lead to the same result. It’s hardly likely that it will be left to the individual services, especially not to the current Commandant of the Marine Corps.

      1. If that’s the case, then I think gay rights activists and the Democrats just horribly miscalculated.

        If what you’re saying is true, which I’m sure it is, then why didn’t they pass a law forbidding the military from discharging anyone for their sexual preference. That’s the whole point of this fight right?

        So basically all that happened is whoever happens to be President gets to make the decision? What happens when Obama leaves office?

        They had the votes to make it law that no one can be discharged for sexual preference, they won’t have them next year.

        I hope I’m misinterpreting this, but it doesn’t look like it…

      1. Actually, I’m pretty sure the clerk’s database is having a hiccup. The header on the page says its a vote from 17 June 2010 on HR 5297. I’m trying to see if I can find where the vote on HR 2965 disappeared to.

  2. Now the question becomes will the military recognize gay marriage? I really don’t like the idea of denying anyone their civil rights, but based on my personal experiences, it could lead to some fairly significant problems.

    I’d be a rich man if I had a nickle for every married Navy girl who tried to take me back to her place after meeting on the beach. I don’t mess with married girls, so I obviously always said no. Their response was always that it didn’t matter, they were just married to get the benefits.

    This has happened literally dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times to me and even more times to my friends.

    If you can’t get kicked out for being gay, then what’s to stop two guys from getting married to gain more benefits who aren’t gay?

    Right now it may not be an issue, but 20 years from now when the gay stigma is totally gone from society, it will become a big issue. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to deny benefits, but its certainly something to consider when making the decision.

      1. What if you’re a legal resident of a state that allows gay marriage? The state you’re stationed in is not the same thing as your state of legal residence.

        1. I don’t think it will be that long. This repeal is going to be legal grounds for a lawsuit demanding military benefits for same sex couples.

          Same-sex spouses should get the same legal and tax benefits in the civilian world, so why not in the military? I give it a 2 months tops after the change is fully implemented before a law suit pops up. I give it 2 weeks before Fox News start harping on the issue…

          1. Ooops, for some reason I was thinking DOMA was a state law.

            Still, it should be an issue and I think it will be at some point. The Human Rights Campaign needs something to set their sights on next.

  3. From Wikipedia:

    Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).

  4. Max, it sounds like you are arguing to ban marriage for even heterosexual military members. If it is that much of a problem….
    I also wonder how many children those “ladies” have at home with or without a sitter, that translate into dependents. Pretty expensive for taxpayers. If it ever came to that, and I don’t think it will any time soon, a good arguement could be made for relative cost efficiency for gay service members in a civil union. Far fewer children. Private industry in some cases provides spousal benefits to gay couples and unmarried straight couples.

    Back to DADT, I am glad to see it go. I don’t think it will go back to where it once was. I don’t see something everybody seems to know about anyway, being on record as being a problem. We have some outstanding performers in the military that serve with distinction. They shouldn’t have to live in fear that they’ll be outed by somebody with a personal axe to grind.

    1. Haha, I’m not arguing for a ban on anything, I’m just giving my analysis of what the next fight is going to be about and why its a worthwhile issue to debate.

      I’m always thinking 10 steps ahead of the game which is why if you read what just happened with the repeal, you’d see that repealing DADT didn’t do any of the things people claim.

      Congress needs to pass a law saying you can’t be kicked out of the military for sexual preference. That’s what this repeal should have done, but didn’t, unless I’m totally misinterpreting something.

      People get all sensitive and combative when you rain on their parade, but to me this is kinda like the slavery amendments being passed without Brown v Board of Education happening. Yeah the law technically was changed, but they never specifically said you can’t be discharged for being gay. Most people assume that’s the case just like they assumed the slavery amendments guaranteed equal rights for slaves.

      Just another cause of Congress treating a symptom as opposed to solving the problem. They really didn’t even need to repeal DADT, they could have struck out a few sections, added in a few lines, solved the problem permanently, and gotten quite a bit more GOP support at the same time.

  5. Just to clarify;

    “(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy- Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.”

    I think if history has taught us anything on this issue it is that leaving your civil rights up to the executive branch is never a good idea…

  6. Even though I still see this as a victory, you do have some good points, Max. It isn’t over, but I am optimistic that things will be going in the correct direction.

    Thinking ahead to the next hurdle is always prudent. Can’t fault you there.

  7. Find it reprehensible and have grown REALLY tire of people putting being homosexual on parity with being a Black American. Homosexuals weren’t hung from trees, water hosed, bit by dogs, forced to sit in the back of buss, etc. STOP IT!!! Just another example of America’s moral decay… as the path, towards Sodom and Gomorra, has been cleared.

  8. Ummmm….Christian? Please point out where anybody on this thread made that analogy. You are the only person that brought up that connection. If I missed it, do quote it. We’re discussing policy in regards to DADT. Race has nothing to do with it.

    If you want to oppose the repeal on the basis of morality or the Bible, fine. At least be intellectually honest enough to go there without feigning outrage over something that was never even mentioned.

  9. I agree with you Christian, I am tired of the gay community comparing their plight to that of black americans in this country.

  10. Virginia “not enough conviction to speak with your real name” Voter, please point out where in this conversation that comparison was made. I mean before Christian did.

    As far as I saw, nobody brought that up until you two did. Assuming you aren’t the same person posting twice.

Comments are closed.