Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

by **TexasBlue** Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:24 pm

Senate Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Associated Press
September 21, 2010

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military. The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

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

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments. (no surprise there)

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

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.

by **TexasBlue** Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

Bullshit. They first attached this bill to a bill to give raises to the troops. If they would've brought it up as a single bill, then they might have a bitch. Also, they allowed ONE friggin' amendment! Real bipartisanship that Obama keeps calling for.

All that said, the Pentagon has a review of this policy going on and they have SAID that it won't be complete till December. Why not allow that to finish?

Also, i have nothing against gays period. None. If the military brass comes to the conclusion that it wouldn't hamper troop cohesion, then i'd follow their recommendation to allow them to serve openly.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:21 am

Homosexuality in the military never did the Spartans any harm Laughing

by BecMacFeegle Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:46 am

This is madness!

by **TexasBlue** Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:51 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Homosexuality in the military never did the Spartans any harm

I'm not quite sure if it will or it won't. I personally don't care (as you know) about gays. But the military isn't a private enterprise.

I'm going to throw out a hypothetical situation;

I was in the Army ('81-'84). If i knew someone was gay and we were in the same "community" shower, would i feel uncomfortable? I don't know because i've never been in that situation. I know that gays/lesbians know who's gay and who's not and they aren't going to "hit on" someone that isn't. But if it's their nature (being gay) and they see me showering with my Wang hanging there, aren't they going to get a cheap thrill? I don't know. I'd like to have someone who's actually gay (and not bisexual) answer that one.

I try to see it in a hetero sense. A naked gal showering next to me is going to give me a problem. Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military Affraid

Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military Affraid

by **TexasBlue** Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:51 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:This is madness!

What is madness?

by i_luv_miley Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:42 pm

Complete waste of an issue. If people are willing to serve their country, then let them.

by **TexasBlue** Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:36 pm

i_luv_miley wrote:Complete waste of an issue. If people are willing to serve their country, then let them.

There's a law in place that's say they can't unless they stay "in the closet." Like it or not, it is law. Why not do what i said above? Let the Pentagon finish their study? It is their military.

by i_luv_miley Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:56 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
i_luv_miley wrote:Complete waste of an issue. If people are willing to serve their country, then let them.

There's a law in place that's say they can't unless they stay "in the closet." Like it or not, it is law. Why not do what i said above? Let the Pentagon finish their study? It is their military.

Again, it sounds good in theory. But "Pentagon study" usually means a waste of millions of dollars and many years. People just need to do what's right and quit playing politics.

by **TexasBlue** Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:09 pm

If it would hamper cohesion in the military, then it wouldn't be good.

Don't take me for being anti-gay because i'm not. Just pointing out facts. I served and i know how things work there. That's not to say i'm right or wrong... just that the military has different standards and ways of doing things.

by BecMacFeegle Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:31 pm

What is madness?

*sigh* Have none of you watched 300? Are you all unaware of internet memes?!

The correct response to someone putting: 'This is madness!'

Is to shout:

"THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!"

See...? Smile

by dblboggie Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:35 pm

BecMacFeegle wrote:
What is madness?

*sigh* Have none of you watched 300? Are you all unaware of internet memes?!

The correct response to someone putting: 'This is madness!'

Is to shout:

"THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!"

See...?

by dblboggie Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:40 pm

i_luv_miley wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:
i_luv_miley wrote:Complete waste of an issue. If people are willing to serve their country, then let them.

There's a law in place that's say they can't unless they stay "in the closet." Like it or not, it is law. Why not do what i said above? Let the Pentagon finish their study? It is their military.
Again, it sounds good in theory. But "Pentagon study" usually means a waste of millions of dollars and many years. People just need to do what's right and quit playing politics.

Too late for that ILM, that study is already underway and is expected to come out in December. I'm with Tex, I say wait for the study. This is the military, not a Sunday social group. I'd be only too happy if that study concluded that gays serving openly as gays would not hurt unit cohesion. But that should be the only concern here, the impact on the operational capabilities of the military. Everything else must take a back seat. This is why those in the military have some of their basic constitutional rights curtailed.

by i_luv_miley Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:32 pm

dblboggie wrote:I'd be only too happy if that study concluded that gays serving openly as gays would not hurt unit cohesion. But that should be the only concern here, the impact on the operational capabilities of the military. Everything else must take a back seat. This is why those in the military have some of their basic constitutional rights curtailed.

Except that it isn't about "unit cohesion". It's about politics and you know it. Everything is political nowadays. Until people quit playing that card, this kind of pointless stuff will continue. And let's be honest, who do "pentagon studies" serve anyway? It's a big reason the Pentagon is the biggest part of our budget - and the most wasteful. Whistle

by dblboggie Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:50 pm

i_luv_miley wrote:
dblboggie wrote:I'd be only too happy if that study concluded that gays serving openly as gays would not hurt unit cohesion. But that should be the only concern here, the impact on the operational capabilities of the military. Everything else must take a back seat. This is why those in the military have some of their basic constitutional rights curtailed.
Except that it isn't about "unit cohesion". It's about politics and you know it. Everything is political nowadays. Until people quit playing that card, this kind of pointless stuff will continue. And let's be honest, who do "pentagon studies" serve anyway? It's a big reason the Pentagon is the biggest part of our budget - and the most wasteful.

Well first of all, the Pentagon is far from being the "biggest part of our budget" in the interest of not letting facts get in the way of a good political debate. Our entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, take that honor. And to be honest, yes, the military at the Pentagon is very political. In fact, anything above O4 (Major, or in the case of the Navy Lieutenant Commander) is a purely political posting. One at these ranks must be political to one degree or another. However, that said, there are still those in command who have learned how to maintain a workable balance between politics and what is good for the armed forces. And I would still like to see what the final report recommends, and have a chance to read it before making a decision on the matter.

by Sponsored content

Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military

Re: Republicans block bill that would have allowed gays to serve openly in military