DADT Repeal passes House

Shame it will never pass the Senate :cry: They waited too long

-edit foot meet mouth

In a historic vote for gay rights, the Senate agreed on Saturday to do away with the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops and sent President Barack Obama legislation to overturn the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Obama was expected to sign the bill into law next week, although changes to military policy probably wouldn't take effect for at least several months. Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military would undergo a 60-day wait period.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_in_military

shocking that they actually did the right thing for once
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ Senate voted to cease debate around noon today, and voted to pass the bill at 3:31PM this afternoon. DADT repeal bill is on its way to President Obama right now.

I doubt there will be much dispute or debate over this issue. Not only are we younger (as gamers), the bill itself was supported by 70%+ of the population - not that that kept Republicans from voting against it, or Democrats in conservative districts from voting against it to save their asses.

At any rate, Obama's social agenda has been excellent for two years. But his economic capitulation still concerns me greatly.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Senate voted to cease debate around noon today, and voted to pass the bill at 3:31PM this afternoon. DADT repeal bill is on its way to President Obama right now.

I doubt there will be much dispute or debate over this issue. Not only are we younger (as gamers), the bill itself was supported by 70%+ of the population - not that that kept Republicans from voting against it, or Democrats in conservative districts from voting against it to save their asses.

At any rate, Obama's social agenda has been excellent for two years. But his economic capitulation still concerns me greatly.[/QUOTE]

Just noticed it on Yahoo.

Still, support doesnt really matter on whether or not something will get passed. Most were against the payroll tax cut but that still got pushed through
 
I'm disappointed that so many of the democrats in TN actually voted against this, at least my rep (Gordon) didn't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
At any rate, Obama's social agenda has been excellent for two years. But his economic capitulation still concerns me greatly.[/QUOTE]

And that's why he lost the House. Nothing else matters really.

I'm a Republican, and honestly I'm fine with the bill passing because people shouldn't be afraid to be who they are. However, it means they'll be more open to attacks from fellow soldiers who have the 'outlandish asshole' gene in them. But I doubt many gay people will say they're gay when in the military anyway.
 
Not to say they should have to, but you have to fight for your rights (no not to party) and deal with the negatives that come with it. I'm sure there will be cases of gay soldiers being attacked, but at least they don't have to hide who they are. I mean violence has always been involved in cases where a group of people were finally granted the rights they fought for, just takes a while for the uglier side of our population to be shown that people aren't going to just sit there and take it. Once you stand up to the assholes they realize they can't just walk all over you anymore.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']it means they'll be more open to attacks from fellow soldiers who have the 'outlandish asshole' gene in them.[/QUOTE]

1) It's not a gene.

2) I hope they prosecute those 'attacking' soliders to the fullest extent of the law. fuck bigotry.
 
It's about time they got rid of this stupid law. I knew gay guys and women when I served and unit cohesion never suffered because of it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

At any rate, Obama's social agenda has been excellent for two years. But his economic capitulation still concerns me greatly.[/QUOTE]

The credit card bill was pretty good, but I dont know if you'd score that under 'social', 'economic' or 'other'.

His stance on taxes doesnt really surprise me. He's never been nearly as liberal as some wished. He's always been somewhat fiscally conservative. I'd almost argue that his previous stated stance on the matter was the more surprising version.

But the Democratic Congress fucked up the expiring tax cuts long before this deal. They could have framed the debate themselves, pushing to make permanent/extend the cuts for those under $200K/250K (why such a disparity for the married?) as part of the 'stimulus' bill, or some other legislation. Then they could have castigated the Republicans as being for raising taxes so some such spin. They needed to decouple the sub-250K from the supra-250K and they should have done it when it was not expected.

But, as per their usual, the feckless Democrats didnt see that they were going to be put with their backs to the wall. The Obama administration should have seen long ago that his Senate mates would cave and should have advanced that part long ago. As it is, he made (weak) chicken soup out of chicken shit and at least got the extended unemployment benefits and we dont have to hear this crap about "raising taxes" for awhile.

Though I do have to ding him one more time for not being politically savvy enough to at least extend it one more year through 2013. Now it's going to be a front and center election year issue for him as you *know* the Republicans in the house are going to pass a bill that makes the cuts permanent sometime in Aug/Sep of 2012 and force the Senate's hand. With an election instantly looming, who knows how many Democrats will defect in an (ultimately futile) attempt to save their jobs. I'll lay $20 right now that Jim Webb (Va) will be one of them. ;)
 
I'm hoping that some good lawyers are clever enough to get this turned into a recognition of survivor benefits and what not which will eventually bleed into recognition of gay marriage, or at the very least a recognition of "partnerships" to the effect that human beings that prefer their same gender in matters of sexual intercourse can get the same benefits as everyone else.
 
I wouldn't look for it any time soon. Insurance companies for example wouldn't want to be forced to recognize the person's partner as their spouse, thus granting them coverage under an employee policy.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']They needed to decouple the sub-250K from the supra-250K and they should have done it when it was not expected.[/QUOTE]

Good points all around, hostly, but I agree with this most of all. That said, the right talking points have a way of obfuscating the massive chasm in income/wealth inequality such that most people really underestimate that gap. They think of "small businesses" spoken to them by Hannity et al. They do not think of the investment banker who will take home tens (of not hundreds) of millions in pay, hundreds of thousands in guaranteed bonuses, and not create a single job due to the nature of their work.

These same people debate the estate tax endlessly, with a large portion of the population incorrectly thinking their wealth is subject to it (surveys show a consistent 17% believe they're subject to the estate tax when they die, and that number is closer to 4,300 households - a helluva lot less than 0.1% of the population). Our political discourse is eaten up with time spent debating issues relevant to only the wealthiest. But most on the right think that small family farms are threatened by the estate tax. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, combined with an aversion to facts (what, you surely don't think pointing out facts will change the minds of those on the right, do you?) that have us in the problem we do. Nothing Republicans or their prophets say stands up to even the slightest scrutiny, but that doesn't make it ineffective. We like narrative, not reality.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Though I do have to ding him one more time for not being politically savvy enough to at least extend it one more year through 2013. Now it's going to be a front and center election year issue for him as you *know* the Republicans in the house are going to pass a bill that makes the cuts permanent sometime in Aug/Sep of 2012 and force the Senate's hand. With an election instantly looming, who knows how many Democrats will defect in an (ultimately futile) attempt to save their jobs. I'll lay $20 right now that Jim Webb (Va) will be one of them. ;)[/QUOTE]
I read somewhere that the Republicans refused to sign onto any plan that extended any tax cuts past 2012 and that's why the Dems got such a seemingly good deal on it.
[quote name='depascal22']It's about time they got rid of this stupid law. I knew gay guys and women when I served and unit cohesion never suffered because of it.[/QUOTE]
I also knew gay soldiers and nobody had shit to say outside of the normal crap enlisted joes give each other.
 
I was listening to NPR earlier and a few of the callers seemed to think it was no big deal. That they too knew plenty of gay or lesbian people in the military and that this wouldn't change much. I suppose there is a lot of symbolism in it, doesn't mean it's not important, just that it may not change much in a practical respect.
 
In the long term, I don't expect it to change much.

I think, for the short while, we'll hear a bunch of reports of situations where individuals are persecuted for their sexual preferences - but, as Myke said, a few good disciplinary actions should take care of that pretty quick. Assuming our military justice system can, of course, differentiate between actual bigotry and the "normal crap" (as speedracer calls it).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In the long term, I don't expect it to change much.

I think, for the short while, we'll hear a bunch of reports of situations where individuals are persecuted for their sexual preferences - but, as Myke said, a few good disciplinary actions should take care of that pretty quick. Assuming our military justice system can, of course, differentiate between actual bigotry and the "normal crap" (as speedracer calls it).[/QUOTE]

I don't think you'll hear anything. There are gay people that are serving now. They just can't be open about it. Even when they're allowed to be open about it, it's not like they're going into battle with assless BDUs or purple M-16.

Life will move on much to the consternation of hard core right wingers and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

The only downside I see to all this is that straight soldiers won't have an easy out anymore. It used to be that a soldier could out himself as gay when things just got too crazy. Now, they will be forced to do something more extreme to get a discharge.

Before the Unholy Three jump in here and get all shitty, let me be very clear. That one small downside doesn't trump the overall good of allowing gay soldiers to be open about their sexuality.
 
The difference being, with DADT in place, someone who's being harassed might be less likely to step forward for fear of being discharged.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The difference being, with DADT in place, someone who's being harassed might be less likely to step forward for fear of being discharged.[/QUOTE]

You wouldn't be discharged for saying that you were being harassed. You could always go to your supervisor, NCOIC, First Sergeant, or unit commander and say that you were being harassed because they thought you were gay.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You wouldn't be discharged for saying that you were being harassed. You could always go to your supervisor, NCOIC, First Sergeant, or unit commander and say that you were being harassed because they thought you were gay.[/QUOTE]

It still seems like an actually gay man would be less likely to say anything since them being gay is against the rules and they wouldn't want to put any focus on it by people who could discharge them if they thought they were gay.

I'm sure that's complicated by the fact that gay-bashing and calling each other $$$s, etc. is a "normal" thing for a lot of men (especially in a situation where you're surrounded mostly by men 24/7, all trying to prove how manly they are), so it would be difficult to really complain about that to a superior and be taken seriously if the superior is of the same mindset, regardless of whether you're actually gay.
 
It wasn't against the rules to be gay. You weren't allowed to be openly gay. You could always go to your First Sergeant with a complaint that the guys were getting a little too crazy with their hazing. You could NOT be discharged because someone thought you were gay. The only way you could be discharged is if you came out and said you were gay or were caught having sex. That's it.

That being said, most hazing was directed at guys that didn't carry their weight not for being effeminate.
 
'scuse me? We were focusing on your economy - well, at least giving the Republicans everything they wanted in an economic plan - well before repealing DADT came to the table.

What's your point? Your triteness is merely a way to mask you having to take an actual stance on something. Being a snark and a curmudgeon is not a political standpoint.

What haven't we done economically? Well, we haven't fixed it yet, that's for sure. But let's not blame debating and voting on DADT for that. Let's blame falling back on long-refuted trickle down policies. Let's blame people who think that we need to decimate the middle class so we can pay for tax cuts for the wealthy so we can help the middle class. let's blame people who elected "deficit hawks" to office who clearly don't give a flying fuck about the size of deficits and will run for office again in 2012 on their promise to slash the deficit.

Let's not blame a simple piece of legislation, backed by 80% of the support of the public (not to mention our military leaders), for not paying attention to the economy.

We're paying plenty of attention to the economy, we're just debating the ideas and policies of the dumbfucks people like you elected into office. We haven't been ignoring it.

So, again, what's your point? Show some integrity and actually have a stance on something, as being a snark contributes fuck-all and makes you come off as a child, unwilling to actually say what they mean or stand up for.
 
[quote name='SpazX']You believe there's really a distinction between those?[/QUOTE]

There's a big difference when it comes to procedure. In one case, you're allowed to be gay as long as you aren't open about it and aren't caught having sex. In the other case, another soldier can accuse you of being gay and you have to prove your innocence. Do you see the difference?
 
Perd is the Jay Leno of the vs forum, full of one liners that nobody thinks are funny. He doesn't care enough to actually make a well thought out statement, but he can't can't help but dirty the forum with his little turds of thought.
 
[quote name='Clak']Perd is the Jay Leno of the vs forum, full of one liners that nobody thinks are funny. He doesn't care enough to actually make a well thought out statement, but he can't can't help but dirty the forum with his little turds of thought.[/QUOTE]

He gave up a long time ago. I think he knows that everyone comes down on the left of him so he would just rather spout bad one liners than anything close to debate.
 
[quote name='depascal22']He gave up a long time ago. I think he knows that everyone comes down on the left of him so he would just rather spout bad one liners than anything close to debate.[/QUOTE]

With the way some people on here debate, you can't blame him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top