The end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Chucktshoes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Saturday voted to strike down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation. By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,†a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay, lesbian and bisexual troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban, and said it was “time to close this chapter in our history.â€

“As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best-led and best-trained fighting force the world has ever known,†he said in a statement after the Senate, on a preliminary 63-to-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block final action on the repeal bill.

The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military.

It followed an exhaustive Pentagon review that determined the policy could be changed with only isolated disruptions to unit cohesion and retention, though members of combat units and the Marine Corps expressed greater reservations about the shift. Congressional action was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.

Supporters of the repeal said it was long past time to abolish what they saw as an ill-advised practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country.

“We righted a wrong,†said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut and a leader of the effort to end the ban. “Today we’ve done justice.â€

Before voting on the repeal, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants who came to the United States at a young age, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check.

The 55-to-41 vote in favor of the citizenship bill was five votes short of the number needed to clear the way for final passage of what is known as the Dream Act.

The outcome effectively kills it for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain since Republicans who will assume control of the House in January oppose the measure and are unlikely to bring it to a vote.

The Senate then moved on to the military legislation, engaging in an emotional back and forth over the merits of the measure as advocates for repeal watched from galleries crowded with people interested in the fate of both the military and immigration measures.

“I don’t care who you love,†Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the debate opened. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn’t have to hide who you are.â€

Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying earlier that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery for prostate cancer on Monday.

The vote came in the final days of the 111th Congress as Democrats sought to force through a final few priorities before they turn over control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans in January and see their clout in the Senate diminished.

It represented a significant victory for the White House, Congressional advocates of lifting the ban and activists who have pushed for years to end the Pentagon policy created in 1993 under the Clinton administration as a compromise effort to end the practice of barring gay men and lesbians entirely from military service.

Saying it represented an emotional moment for members of the gay community nationwide, advocates who supported repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell†exchanged hugs outside the Senate chamber after the vote.

“Today’s vote means gay and lesbian service members posted all around the world can stand taller knowing that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will soon be coming to an end,†said Aubrey Sarvis, an Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and his party’s presidential candidate in 2008, led the opposition to the repeal and said the vote was a sad day in history.

“I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage,†Mr. McCain said. “And we could possibly and probably, as the commandant of the Marine Corps said, and as I have been told by literally thousands of members of the military, harm the battle effectiveness vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military.â€

He and others opposed to lifting the ban said the change could harm the unit cohesion that is essential to effective military operations, particularly in combat, and deter some Americans from enlisting or pursuing a career in the military. They noted that despite support for repealing the ban from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other military commanders have warned that changing the practice would prove disruptive.

“This isn’t broke,†Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said about the policy. “It is working very well.â€

Other Republicans said that while the policy might need to be changed at some point, Congress should not do so when American troops are fighting overseas.

Only a week ago, the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy seemed to be dead and in danger of fading for at least two years with Republicans about to take control of the House. The provision eliminating the ban was initially included in a broader Pentagon policy bill, and Republican backers of repeal had refused to join in cutting off a filibuster against the underlying bill because of objections over limits on debate of the measure.

In a last-ditch effort, Mr. Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key Republican opponent of the ban, encouraged Democratic Congressional leaders to instead pursue a vote on simply repealing it. The House passed the measure earlier in the week.

The repeal will not take effect for at least 60 days, and probably longer, while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition, the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal “consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.â€

“It is going to take some time,†Ms. Collins said. “It is not going to happen overnight.â€

In a statement, Mr. Gates said that once the measure was signed into law, he would “immediately proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change carefully and methodically, but purposefully.†In the meantime, he said, “the current law and policy will remain in effect.â€

Because of the delay in formally overturning the policy, Mr. Sarvis appealed to Mr. Gates to suspend any investigations into military personnel or discharge proceedings now under way. Legal challenges to the existing ban are also expected to continue until the repeal is fully carried out.

In addition to Ms. Collins, Republicans backing the repeal were Senators Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and George V. Voinovich of Ohio.

“It was a difficult vote for many of them,†Ms. Collins said, “but in the end they concluded, as I have concluded, that we should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing to put on the uniform of this country.â€

Mr. Lieberman said the ban undermined the integrity of the military by forcing troops to lie. He said 14,000 people had been forced to leave the armed forces under the policy.

“What a waste,†he said.

The fight erupted in the early days of President Bill Clinton’s administration and has been a roiling political issue ever since. Mr. Obama endorsed repeal in his presidential campaign and advocates saw the current Congress as their best opportunity for ending the ban. Dozens of advocates of ending the ban — including one severely wounded in combat before being forced from the military — watched from the Senate gallery as the debate took place.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed Republican complaints that Democrats were trying to race through the repeal to satisfy their political supporters.

“I’m not here for partisan reasons,†Mr. Levin said. “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now.â€

[Chief07]

Another social experiment using the military.

First it was woman in combat rolls and woman on ships.

Woman on ships caused a lot of stress on long deployments.

I don't have anything against gays. Just don't

talk about it around me.I think the don't ask, don't tell was working fine.

Glad Im retired.

[buck1032]

Another social experiment using the military.

I think the don't ask, don't tell was working fine.

Glad Im retired.

That pretty much sums it up for me. No tire like retire.

[BimmerFreak]

Thank God! Now TGODavid can finally join the Army!!!!

[Punisher84]

Good.

[mikegideon]

Good.

+1. The Homos are coming! Hide your junk

[Guest Bluemax]

I haven't spent any time in the military, but over the years have played enough sports to know that anyone who would stand up in a locker room or barracks and say their gay and proud is not going to have a pleasent expereience... just an opinion

[mikegideon]

I haven't spent any time in the military, but over the years have played enough sports to know that anyone who would stand up in a locker room or barracks and say their gay and proud is not going to have a pleasent expereience... just an opinion

How long ago? Things have really changed in the last 20 years. I think the military will still maintain order. We don't need to forget that they surveyed the troops on this issue. Seems that all the objections were outside the military

[Tncobra]

After we destroy some place, the gay brigade could move in to redecorate.

[mikegideon]

After we destroy some place, the gay brigade could move in to redecorate.

At least the ones that aren't all bloody after a long day of killin'

[Guest Jamie]

With as much other crap as this country has to worry about, this whole DADT thing is just a non-event. Much ado about nothing.

Give it a few years and everybody will either have forgotten all about it, or be wondering what all the fuss was about.

[Guest Bluemax]

How long ago? Things have really changed in the last 20 years. I think the military will still maintain order. We don't need to forget that they surveyed the troops on this issue. Seems that all the objections were outside the military

Mike. I sincerely hope you are right. Just curious..how do you feel other countries ( Russia for example ) will view this and how will it affect their opinion of our military's capability. Please bear in mind that I have no problem with homosexuals but the old fashioned stigma that male homosexuals are somewhat effeminate still exists; correct or not, Again let me stress that I'm not trying to provoke an arguement only a healthy debate

[Guest Jamie]

Y'know Max, I've been shot at before... and I can't say that I was much worried about whether or not the person doing the shooting was also gonna try to make any kind of sexual advances or anything of the like as well, at the time. Nope, avoiding the bullet and stopping the person sending 'em from delivering any more was the only real concern.

I can't imagine the other nations of this world are going to feel any different concerning our military, or the prospects of having to face those men and women...

Then again, it would probably be to our advantage if it did cause them some unnecessary concern, or get them to underestimate what they would have to face.

[mikegideon]

Mike. I sincerely hope you are right. Just curious..how do you feel other countries ( Russia for example ) will view this and how will it affect their opinion of our military's capability. Please bear in mind that I have no problem with homosexuals but the old fashioned stigma that male homosexuals are somewhat effeminate still exists; correct or not, Again let me stress that I'm not trying to provoke an arguement only a healthy debate

Don't most other militaries already allow gays? Sure, there's the male homo stereotype, but I know several that don't fit into that. That's the bad thing about stereotypes.

Other militaries are going to view us based on our effectiveness at the business of war. They are not letting gays into the military all of a sudden. They have always been there. A patriot is a patriot.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

Don't most other militaries already allow gays? Sure, there's the male homo stereotype, but I know several that don't fit into that. That's the bad thing about stereotypes.

Well, France has an army, if that tells you anything.

As far as a social experiment, please bear in mind that the gheys are already among us. So long as they don't try to touch my junk or redecorate my house......I think I'll be fine.

[Guest Bluemax]

Don't most other militaries already allow gays? Sure, there's the male homo stereotype, but I know several that don't fit into that. That's the bad thing about stereotypes.

Other militaries are going to view us based on our effectiveness at the business of war. They are not letting gays into the military all of a sudden. They have always been there. A patriot is a patriot.

Mike, thats is a very good point

[mikegideon]

Well, France has an army, if that tells you anything.

As far as a social experiment, please bear in mind that the gheys are already among us. So long as they don't try to touch my junk or redecorate my house......I think I'll be fine.

Shows what you know about most homos. They'll do a better job, and won't waste near as much money as your average girl

[Guest Jamie]

What if they're lesbian interior decorators?

[Guest Bluemax]

Don't most other militaries already allow gays? Sure, there's the male homo stereotype, but I know several that don't fit into that. That's the bad thing about stereotypes.

Other militaries are going to view us based on our effectiveness at the business of war. They are not letting gays into the military all of a sudden. They have always been there. A patriot is a patriot.

Mike, I did a little research and have to concede this discussion to you. As it turns out at least 37 countries including Russia, The United Kingdom and Israel currently allow Homosexuals in the military

Edited December 20, 2010 by Bluemax

[Guest Bluemax]

What if they're lesbian interior decorators?

I think I have that movie xxx

[Guest Jamie]

Max... you owe me one monitor cleaning.

[mikegideon]

What if they're lesbian interior decorators?

All the bad, and none of the good

[mikegideon]

I think I have that movie xxx

ANY lesbian movie just works.

[buck1032]

Here's a copy and paste of my reply on another board. I did edit the curse words,

Any one want my take on this? It is a big deal in a cluster fork sort of way. Yes there are gays in the service and they serve well. I have served with them and they did not walk on egg shells. It all comes down to discretion. Hetero's in today’s service can not come into the shop talking all sort of smack about screwing some girl/woman/female/ho/skank/prostitute, etc. It is a PC world, even in the military. Where I see "issues" is when the openly gays start talking "smack" and scream discrimination when they are told to shut the fork up, nobody wants to hear it.

And now what is the services going to do when two homosexual or two lesbians want to get together and play "house". Are they going to get BAQ/COMRATS even though they are not married? It is a whole can of worms from the decision to let them in to full implementation.

I do not want to come off as bashing homosexuals or lesbians, but lets face it. We are forked as a nation, when a very small percentage of the population gets to dictate policy and procedure to the majority.

I dont care if you want to swing from the ceiling fan with a coke bottle shoved up your bum singing kumbaya, I just dont want it see it or hear about it.

Carry On.

[Guest Jamie]

We are forked as a nation, when a very small percentage of the population gets to dictate policy and procedure to the majority.

Minorities of all sorts have been dictating policy and procedure for a very long time now. And when they're called on it, or prevented from doing it, they scream "Discrimination!!!" at the top of their lungs.

Sorry, but there's no such thing as equality... especially not when the fewer of you there are, the more say you have in how things are done.

But that's exactly the world we live in.

( I'm much more concerned about the people who aren't even U.S. citizens that are dictating P and P. )

Edited December 20, 2010 by Jamie