Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban

[CptSternn]

http://tinyurl.com/2wtny43

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.

The mostly partisan vote dealt a major blow to gay rights groups who saw the legislation as their best hope, at least in the short term, for repeal of the 17-year-old law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming congressional elections this fall, as many expect, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year. With that scenario looming, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that a lame-duck session was being planned and that lifting the ban would be taken up then.

The episode upset advocates who believe that neither President Barack Obama nor Reid did enough to see the measure through.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Democrats included the repeal provision in a $726 billion defense policy bill, which authorizes a pay raise for the troops among other popular programs. In a deal brokered with the White House, the measure would have overturned the 1993 law banning openly gay service only after a Pentagon review and certification from the president that lifting the ban wouldn't hurt troop morale.

But with little time left for debate before the November ballot, the bill languished on the Senate calendar until gay rights groups, backed by pop star Lady Gaga, began an aggressive push to turn it into an election issue.

Earlier this month a federal judge in Los Angeles declared the ban an unconstitutional violation of the due process and free speech rights of gays and lesbians. The decision was the third federal court ruling since July to assert that statutory limits on the rights of gays and lesbians were unconstitutional.

Reid agreed to force a vote on the bill this week and limit debate, despite Republican objections. A Nevada Democrat in a tight race of his own this fall, he also pledged to use the defense bill as a vehicle for an immigration proposal that would enable young people to qualify for U.S. citizenship if they joined the military.

Republicans alleged that Reid was using the defense bill to score political points with the Democratic base.

"This is not a serious exercise. It's a show," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Democrats countered that the bill merely reflects public opinion. Recent polls suggest that a majority of Americans think the ban on gays in the military should be overturned.

"We're going to fight for this," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

But at least for now, the question of how and when to change the policy returns to the Pentagon, which had set a December deadline to complete a study of the effects of lifting the ban. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that he supports Obama's goal of repeal, but Gates made it clear he thought the process should move gradually.

It is not clear how quickly the Pentagon might make its own recommendations. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell declined to comment Tuesday on what he called "an internal procedural matter for the Senate."

Initially, advocates had thought that Democrats might win the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP objections and advance the bill. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Maine Republican, was seen as a crucial vote because she supports overturning the ban.

But Collins ultimately sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that the bill shouldn't advance because Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.

Democrats also failed to keep all of their party members in line. Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both of Arkansas, voted with Republicans to scuttle the bill. The vote was 56-43, four short of the 60 required to advance under Senate rules.

Lincoln said she objected to the limits on debate and wanted a chance to offer amendments that would benefit her state. In a statement, Pryor said the bill deserved more serious debate than was being allowed.

"There needs to be a genuine and honest effort to craft a defense bill that senators from both parties can support, because supporting our troops should not ever be a partisan issue," he said.

When it became clear that Democrats would lose, Reid cast his own vote in opposition as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, doing so enabled him to revive the bill.

Conservative groups hailed the vote as a victory for the troops. "At least for now they will not be used to advance a radical social agenda," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

[CptSternn]

So repubs don't want gays to get married, be eligible to be considered for hate crimes against them, or be in the military.

It's pretty sad when pretty much every other first world country in existence today has already given these rights to their citizens.

[Raza]

The 'right' to be in the millitary isn't on the top of my list of things to worry about, though. I wonder why they care so much. If anything, it's a nice safeguard against potential future drafts.

Which doesn't mean it's not a stupid law. Just one that I could see working out in people's favor.

[vindicatedxjin]

Yah as much as it is indeed discriminating if I were gay, I would be completely happy knowing that I would never have to be in the military.

[HumanePain]

So the Republicans block an entire military spending bill, a bill required to fund the defense of our nation, just so they can keep out Americans who want to serve their country.

I am so disgusted by the stupidity of our "leaders". SO FUCKING STUPID!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Raza

The 'right' to be in the millitary isn't on the top of my list of things to worry about, though. I wonder why they care so much. If anything, it's a nice safeguard against potential future drafts.

Which doesn't mean it's not a stupid law. Just one that I could see working out in people's favor.

Who cares if an entire group's right to free speech is violated and their status as second-class citizens reenforced? Just so long as I can maintain my anti-establishment street cred and hypothetically use widespread prejudice and bigotry to my own advantage in the future?

[Alan]

I consider the fact that open homosexuality is not allowed in the military as my safeguard if there's ever a draft.
But that DOES NOT mean that a whole demographic should be suppressed from integration in society; saying so would just be stupid or stupidly egotistic.

[KontanKarite]

I think: That the draft should be expanded to cover all orientations and genders.

I once thought like Raza and Alan. But then I found out you could file as a conscientious objector with the state.

Basically, I don't blame you guys for using it as a loop hole, but the service NEEDS to be more integrated and nebulous.

Honestly, I'm not surprised that Raza would say something like this.

[Despanan]

Not to mention that a draft is much more likely to occur when the military is understaffed because it turns away/discharges thousands of competent, able-bodied VOLENTEERS because some people are uncomfortable by what they do with consenting adults behind closed doors.

Also, I'm willing to wager it's more complicated than simply saying "I'm gay". Most people think all you have to do is marry an American to get a green-card, but my cousin has been married to this Dutch dude for over a year and immigration still won't let him in the country.

I have a feeling that if there was a draft, you pussies would have a much harder time avoiding it than you think.

[Alan]

In what context would there be a draft anyway again? And I mean, ever.

Short of another World War, there's no way the government would try to pull off a Vietnam again.

[Saya]

The point is though that there are many people in the army trying to make a living, and to make that living they need to keep their sexuality secret or they'll get fired, and that's bullshit. You wouldn't allow that with any other job.

I don't really agree with military service either, but plenty of people do, plenty of people feel they need to do it too, I know if we had DADT here a lot of people would be shafted because a lot of people join the army so they can get an education they would otherwise have to dig themselves in debt for.

[ape descendant]

Don't ask don't tell is a horrible policy. It is a gross violation of the first amendment.

All of these anti-gay policies are getting really, really old and the sad thing is that so many people who don't see themselves as a part of the LGBT community are quite apathetical about all of it in general, or have really stupid reasoning as to why its somehow ok that people are being denied the same rights that they enjoy every day.

[Versus]

A lesser known fact about the "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue." policy letter is that it's actually just a supportive document of the already long established Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's essentially a vague (or comprehensive, depending on how you want to look at it) list of "Don'ts" in the military, and the things that you can be punished with for doing them. For example, did you know that missionary is the only authorized sexual position? Sodomy, of any kind, to include that of occurrence between a man and a women, is a crime? Oral sex, flirting, even foreplay depending on how you want to interpret it.

The entire document is essentially a catch-all way to fuck you, because ultimately crime and punishment is decided by your immediate commander. You can be discharged for any number of retarded reasons that aren't even crimes anywhere but the military if your commander doesn't like you. If he can't figure it out, he passes it up. And sometimes it keeps going up, and it becomes what you might call "High Profile." I've read the DADT policy letter out of curiosity. It says "commander's discretion" as well.

Talking about anything sexual in the military is almost always technically inappropriate anyway. I'll bullshit with my immediate co-workers all day, but as soon as a female walks by I have to pretend like I'm not interested in women in the slightest. It's especially awkward for those of us whose job is specifically an aspect of combat because we have very minimal exposure to women on account that they are restricted from those particular occupations. I'm don't mean to insensitively compare the threat of sexual assault/harassment to a life of bigotry and discrimination, but in practicality it's not much different. Just replace co-workers with civilians, and women with other soldiers, and you have what I would imagine as the work life of a gay service member.

Ultimately, "Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't mean anything. Other then the obvious discrimination, I wouldn't be too upset about this because it doesn't really change anything. It doesn't stop gay and lesbian American's from enlisting, and that's what is important, right?

I don't know. I'm in the army, so I have slightly more insight concerning the rules and regulations. But I'm also not gay. Maybe I'm speaking from a perspective that is lacking the experience in anything homosexual necessary to make a valid point. Understand that I'm speaking from a practical perspective, not an ethical one.

[Raza]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Who cares if an entire group's right to free speech is violated and their status as second-class citizens reenforced? Just so long as I can maintain my anti-establishment street cred and hypothetically use widespread prejudice and bigotry to my own advantage in the future?

Like I said, it's a stupid law. No need to reitterate it in heavier and more generalized terms, I get what's wrong about it.

And I will definitely use bigots' prejudice against them. Their poor judgement on the subject of their bigotry is their unifying weakness, and if I can play that against them I won't pass up the chance.

[KontanKarite]

Wow, you sound horrible, Raza.

[Raza]

You tend to listen to me horribly, so that's not wholly unexpected.

I'm talking about things like getting away with being somewhere you're not supposed to by pretending to be a wholesome heterosexual couple making out with your partner-in-crime, or using the fact that macho guys will see you as physically harmless when you're wearing makeup and nailpolish to your advantage. Avoiding military 'duty' by being (or pretending to be) gay is a good example, too. I've heard stories about activists infiltrating nationalist meetings by virtue of being white and having the right local accent, coming out with useful info.

Prejudice at it's core is just a kind misjudgement. People suffer from it, yes, but the people doing it also suffer from their own poor decision making. This can be a good thing when they make themselves your enemy.

[Versus]

@ Raza

Alan kind of said it already. The point you are trying to make is really just circumstantial of an extremely unlikely occurrence.

But there is a some validity in the policy, however insensitive it may be. The fact of the matter is, the United States military tries to appear as conformist as possible. It simply reacts to the current social standards. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I'm not wrong when I say that it's not accepted in American society. As such, the military maintains it's retarded laws.

Think about it this way, though. Without the "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue" policy, it would not be illegal for the military to investigate you with just a suspicion of your sexual orientation. As there is no gay-test, the only way to be discharged from the military for being gay is to admit that you are gay under investigation. It's kind of like a sneaky way of saying "It's okay to join, but keep it on the down-low because I can't save you yet." In that sense, DADT protects homosexual service members until they receive equal rights in America.

In my mind, DADT is kind of like the START treaties. Meaningless, but a step in the right direction.

As a side note, service members don't have Freedom of Speech regardless of if they are gay or not. Look in the UCMJ if you want, but it's there. Don't rules suck?!

[Raza]

Originally Posted by Versus

@ Raza

Alan kind of said it already. The point you are trying to make is really just circumstantial of an extremely unlikely occurrence.

Me being drafted into the US military? Yeah, I'd say it is. =P

Originally Posted by Versus

Think about it this way, though. Without the "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue" policy, it would not be illegal for the military to investigate you with just a suspicion of your sexual orientation. As there is no gay-test, the only way to be discharged from the military for being gay is to admit that you are gay under investigation. It's kind of like a sneaky way of saying "It's okay to join, but keep it on the down-low because I can't save you yet." In that sense, DADT protects homosexual service members until they receive equal rights in America.

Bolded part. Wouldn't that hold up with or without DADT in place? If admission is the limit of their investigations, DADT is pretty much the worst they can do - and if that's the case, writing it down as a rule can only fortify worst-case practise.

I see what you mean about it sort-of kind-of reassuring purposefully covert homosexuals in the military, but not making a dedication to prosecute something you have no power over anyway is really just saving face, and not particularly generous to the people that you're admitting you can't catch.

Then again, a lot of sucky rules got struck starting with that kind of pragmatism. Maybe 's'more of a turn towards the right direction than a full-blown step, but I do get what you're saying.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Raza

Bolded part. Wouldn't that hold up with or without DADT in place? If admission is the limit of their investigations, DADT is pretty much the worst they can do - and if that's the case, writing it down as a rule can only fortify worst-case practise.

Not necessarily. Admission would not be the limit of an investigation without DADT, but the end-state. Believe me when I say that personal freedoms do not exist for us.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Raza

You tend to listen to me horribly, so that's not wholly unexpected.

I'm talking about things like getting away with being somewhere you're not supposed to by pretending to be a wholesome heterosexual couple making out with your partner-in-crime, or using the fact that macho guys will see you as physically harmless when you're wearing makeup and nailpolish to your advantage. Avoiding military 'duty' by being (or pretending to be) gay is a good example, too. I've heard stories about activists infiltrating nationalist meetings by virtue of being white and having the right local accent, coming out with useful info.

Prejudice at it's core is just a kind misjudgement. People suffer from it, yes, but the people doing it also suffer from their own poor decision making. This can be a good thing when they make themselves your enemy.

Don't worry your pretty little head, Raza. If there ever WAS a draft, you'd be perfectly useless anyway. It's not like you could fake being fit for duty.

Seriously, I know what you're talking about and I used to think exactly like you on the issue. Problem is, it's dishonest and down right cowardly. Want to avoid a draft or military service? Then be a fucking adult and do it the honest way. If it bothers you that god damned much then go file as a conscientious objector, you fucking wuss. Christ, you're lame.

[Raza]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Seriously, I know what you're talking about and I used to think exactly like you on the issue. Problem is, it's dishonest and down right cowardly. Want to avoid a draft or military service? Then be a fucking adult and do it the honest way.

Yeah, I know. Rules like that need to be broken, not circumvented. Although CO status isn't really that much better, in that regard.

Nothing 'adult' about that realization though, so don't flatter yourself.

[Versus]

Kind of (very) off topic... but what's wrong with the draft?

[Raza]

A draft? You need to ask?

It's a bunch of people - a government, in this case - telling innocent people to either serve and fight to the death at their command, or face harsh punishment of some kind.

I honestly can't see anything that isn't wrong about it. It's "I'm stronger than you and you will do what I tell you or I'll kick your ass" at it's purest, and cleverly applied to create a cycle that sustains the balance of power as it is.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Raza

A draft? You need to ask?

It's a bunch of people - a government, in this case - telling innocent people to either serve and fight to the death at their command, or face harsh punishment of some kind.


I honestly can't see anything that isn't wrong about it. It's "I'm stronger than you and you will do what I tell you or I'll kick your ass" at it's purest, and cleverly applied to create a cycle that sustains the balance of power as it is.

To the first: I disagree. I believe It's only one method of mobilization to serve the country's defense. America is a representative democracy. It's not forcing innocent people to do anything, because everyone that could be drafted also has a vote of who will represent them and make the chose to have a draft or not.

To the second: Could you provide an example?

[Raza]

Originally Posted by Versus

To the first: I disagree. I believe It's only one method of mobilization to serve the country's defense. America is a representative democracy. It's not forcing innocent people to do anything, because everyone that could be drafted also has a vote of who will represent them and make the chose to have a draft or not.

Yeeeaaaahhhh.... no.

Representative democracy? Isn't. At no point during the life of an average voting citizen of a representative 'democracy' will anything they put on their ballot affect how their government interacts with them. Even if it worked as advertised, multiple choice is not the same as freedom... and it does not work as advertised, especially in the USA where you have all of two options and each party is guaranteed to rule whenever the other was last to screw up.

Representative democracy is somewhat like homeopathic autonomy; diluted until no traceable amount of the original substance remains, then packaged and sold for placebo comfort to naive consumers.


So no, they never really get a say. Their assigned nationality is the product of birth, not choice. The government was there when they were born and it is there when they come of age and get drafted, and at no point have they been anything but the suffering object in that one-sided relationship. And even if by freak accident of living in the right county in a swing state during an election where realistically viable candidates had different opinions of the execution of a draft and would have been willing and able to execute these when elected (do you see this happening?) so that a cast vote had, say, a hundredth decimal chance of affecting the voter's life on this issue - how often do people generally get to vote before the age for military service?