| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Congress Set To Vote On DADT |
| 2010-05-27 |
| Congress is headed toward landmark votes on whether to allow gays to serve openly in the military. The House was expected to vote as early as Thursday on a proposal by Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat who served in the Iraq war, that would repeal the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell." The legislation -- a compromise struck with the White House and agreed to by the Defense Department -- would give the military as much time as it wants before lifting the ban. Under the bill, the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must first certify that the new policy won't hurt the military's ability to fight. "We need to get this done, and we need to get it done now," said Murphy. Also as early as Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee was expected to take up an identical measure, proposed by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. As in the House, the Senate provision would be tucked into a broader bill, authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars for the troops, that is expected to win broad support. Supporters said this week the Senate panel had enough votes to pass the bill after key holdouts, including Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, announced they would swing behind it. "In a military which values honesty and integrity, this policy encourages deceit," Nelson said. Nelson said a provision in the bill giving the military the power to decide on the details of implementing the policy was key to his support because it "removes politics from the process" and ensures repeal is "consistent with military readiness and effectiveness." Advocates hoped the momentum in the Senate would carry over to the House, where several conservative Democrats -- including Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi -- threatened to oppose the massive defense spending bill if it included the repeal provision. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait to vote until he can talk to the troops and chart a path forward. A study he ordered is due Dec. 1. "With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The service chiefs this week urged the Senate panel not to vote until the Pentagon could complete its survey of military personnel. "The value of surveying the thoughts of Marines and their families is that it signals to my Marines that their opinions matter," Marine Commandant James Conway wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the panel's top Republican. Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's top uniformed officer and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told graduating Air Force Academy cadets on Wednesday that they need to support a changing military. Mullen didn't speak directly about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But the chairman, who has said that the policy unfairly forces troops to lie, said service members should question convention. "Few things are more important to an organization than people who have the moral courage to question the direction in which the organization is headed and then the strength of character to support whatever final decisions are made," Mullen said. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #12 I had arsonists burn my home along with my cats, if I find them I'm likely to Burn them the same way If that happened to me and I caught these SOBs in the act, they would not do it again. I put these arsonist in the category of child abusers. Who's pushing abandoning DADT? What's the purpose of changing the existing policy? How would changing the existing policy affect military morale and readiness? Does anyone who currently serves in the military serve with anyone who is gay? How does the gay person do their job? How does this affect others and the way they do their jobs. Are gays capable of capable of killing the enemy if need be? Are there support jobs they can do effectively? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-05-27 21:29 |
| #11 I think who or what you love is none of my damn buisiness, I wish others thought the same. It'd eliminate much wasted hate. Those who think i advocate animal sex, NO, but everyone has lost a loved pet or two, and the anguish was no less that the loved one was nonhuman. I had arsonists burn my home along with my cats, if I find them I'm likely to Burn them the same way, it hurt finding small roasted bodies burned hairless, I wil NOT forget. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-05-27 21:02 |
| #10 "de"plorable....dammit |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-05-27 20:51 |
| #9 Moose, I gotta say I am disgusted by your gay hunting "license". Ship and I don't always agree, but on this you were way over the f*cking line. I understand DADT and the instances noted of unit comeradery, and don't have a problem with it. I don't need to know who/what my co-worker bonks. TMI. But to support the hunting down of gays is just aplorable. Count me off your fan list |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-05-27 20:50 |
| #8 Sorry. Didn't mean to be mean. I forgot that AnonMoose was a regular. Bad bad, no troll obvious stone cold racist, mysognist or just fuckng plain cooks. Thank god for JOE2012 |
| Posted by: Shipman 2010-05-27 20:04 |
| #7 I'll be the witness to your witless. I don't fucking forget. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2010-05-27 20:00 |
| #6 It would state that *only* when a homosexual was wearing a military uniform, *and* had self-identified as a homosexual, could they be 'culled', and only in such a manner as to not endanger the lives of other military personnel or civilians. One day we'll come for the Nazi. But I was a Nazi so I didn't cry. The 'license' would go on to state that it does not, in any way, confer legality or immunity from prosecution for homicide, if the hunter is arrested; however, it *does* authorize and encourage him to protect his command by asserting that the reason and motive for the killing is for any other reason *but* the sexual proclivities of the now deceased homosexual. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2010-05-27 19:59 |
| #5 A quick way to put the blocks to this would be to, quite literally, print and distribute a "Military Personnel Homosexual Hunting License". It would state that *only* when a homosexual was wearing a military uniform, *and* had self-identified as a homosexual, could they be 'culled', and only in such a manner as to not endanger the lives of other military personnel or civilians. The 'license' would go on to state that it does not, in any way, confer legality or immunity from prosecution for homicide, if the hunter is arrested; however, it *does* authorize and encourage him to protect his command by asserting that the reason and motive for the killing is for any other reason *but* the sexual proclivities of the now deceased homosexual. It would be a nice touch if it was 'signed' by Obama. The licenses should also have a disclaimer printed on them that they are distributed solely as a free novelty item, and that it is a public domain document, not subject to copyright. But in any event, if a few hundred of these were printed up, and discreetly slipped to military personnel, imagine the glee when they eventually went up the chain of command. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-05-27 13:46 |
| #4 it will be interesting to see if Field of Fire Webb will vote against. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-05-27 10:51 |
| #3 1.) No one has a right to serve in the military. 2.) If I have to share a room with a homosexual, I can't just quit my job like I can in the civilian world. No other job in the world forces you to live with a homosexual. 3.) If homosexuals want to serve, they already can. What's next, transgenders? Would they be allowed in the infantry? |
| Posted by: Grunt_0369 2010-05-27 10:09 |
| #2 If you have 8 to 12 years in, its time to get out. The pols are going to make unit life a frat house for the juniors and military good order and discipline is going to go out the door with a new sexual revolution in the barracks. If you can't prosecute gays for fraternization, sexual harassment or adultery, you won't be able to do it to the straights, as you've done forever, either. Nearly nothing will destroy unit integrity than that kind of behavior running through an organization. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-05-27 09:19 |
| #1 Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's top uniformed officer and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told graduating Air Force Academy cadets on Wednesday that they need to support a changing military. HEY MIKE......BLOW IT OUT YUR ASS!!! |
| Posted by: armyguy 2010-05-27 08:54 |