    The House voted 234-194 and the Senate Armed Service Committee voted 16-12 to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell if a military study concludes that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military will not harm the effectiveness of the armed services.
    Donny Shaw of Open Congress has an informative post "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Moving Quickly in Congress" describing this week's votes on the conditional repeal, and Rachel Slajda of Talking Points Memo has provides background information in her article "Rep. Murphy On DADT: 'We Need To Act With A Sense Of Urgency Here'." Twenty-six Democrats voted against the measure in the House and five Republicans voted for it. The only members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to cross party lines on the issue were Jim Webb (D-VA), who voted against the proposal, and Susan Collins (R-ME) who voted for it.
    Slajda reports that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is threatening to filibuster the measure.
{ 12 comments }
I think we have far worse problems to worry about than this! It's rediculous! LIBERALS are so damn you know! Liberal when it suits them!!!
They need to repeal Obamacare!
The purpose and goal of our military is to protect and defend our country and its people. One would hope that our legislators keep this purpose in mind as they debate and consider this proposed change in the law.
Quidpro,
You are correct. But your caution must apply to both sides. The policy of excluding gays from military service is simply a product of cultural bias. It was adopted without any research or reasoned analysis on the question of whether it strengthens our country. The ongoing study is long past due. Furthermore, in my opinion, the burden of proof is on those who would EXCLUDE an entire class of citizens from the military.
2012,
I find myself unable to respond to your comments with rational argument! I guess you win!
Professor,
We agree that there should be further study and analysis on this issue. But we differ on the burden of proof. Those that advocate the change in policy carry the burden of proof. Our military has served us well over the years. To make what some consider a radical change in the name of combatting "cultural bias", should first require proof that our military's capacity to protect and defend the nation will not be compromised. Otherwise such a change may not be not be in anyone's interest, including those who identify as homosexual.
Where was the burden of proof that supported DADT in the first place? This legislation merely corrects unfounded logic that "assumed" the inclusion of gay personnel in the military would disrupt and/or diminish the quality and effectiveness of combat units. The real cultural bias seems to lie with those who desire to arbitrarily exclude all homosexual persons from any scenario that affords them the same rights and responsibilities of heterosexuals in the workplace. To state that repeal of DADT "may not be in anyone's interest, including those who identify as homosexual" is, IMO, condescending and seems to imply that gays are not capable of assessing situational risk and making employment decisions for themselves that may not be popular with some of their potential coworkers. Shame on you Quidpro. As an endnote, I suppose some people also thought we would lose our military superiority when "coloreds" were finally allowed to serve our country with pride and valor in the military.
Dan,
Apparently you prefer to heap "shame" upon me, rather than respond with reasoned arguments. But I have nothing about which to be ashamed. You may think that the Military is just another "workplace" where "coworkers" make "employment decisions". In this you exhibit your own cultural bias and could not be more mistaken.
As I stated above, the mission of the military is to protect and defend this nation and its people. Before we impose this change on the Armed Services, should we not, at a minimum, analyze whether the admission of active homosexuals into the military will have a deleterious effect on its mission? Those who would force this change without considering the consequences, or perhaps in defiance of them, obviously care more about advancing their own agenda rather than advancing the mission of the military. They are the ones that should be ashamed.
Finally, your "endnote" analogy fails. The racial segregation of the Armed Services was discrimination based upon immutable physical characteristics. None of us choose the pigmentation level of our skin. But homosexuals are defined by their sexual activity with persons of the same sex. They choose, through their actions, to be included in such a classification.
"Finally, your "endnote" analogy fails. The racial segregation of the Armed Services was discrimination based upon immutable physical characteristics."
At the most basic level, they were discriminated against because they were 'different' and thought to be less capable soldiers. That fallacy fell apart after 'coloreds' proved themselves in combat. I'm sorry, but no 'analysis' can replace real time exposure to military service to measure fitness for duty for those who are only 'different' by way of their sexual orientation.
"But homosexuals are defined by their sexual activity with persons of the same sex. They choose, through their actions, to be included in such a classification."
I think you are really incorrect here. Do you really believe that homosexuals simply choose their sexual orientation based upon preferred bedroom activities? It is my understanding the acknowledgment of one's own homosexuality is usually self-discovered rather than voluntarily chosen.
"Those who would force this change (on the military) without considering the consequences, or perhaps in defiance of them, obviously care more about advancing their own agenda rather than advancing the mission of the military"
Any consideration of consequences must naturally include weighing both potential benefits and liabilities. Since the skill sets sought by the military don't normally include sexually oriented activities, I believe that a person's sexual orientation would only be an intangible factor. I have no agenda other than to argue for equal rights and opportunities for ALL Americans who have the skills, desire and courage to choose employment in the military branches, police forces, fire departments, hospitals, school classrooms, and public agencies where they may encounter prejudice based on any characteristic that makes them different from the majority in that workplace. And yes, serving in the military is a 'job'; a very dangerous and disciplined job, but still a job that, until proven otherwise, must not trample the equal rights of any citizen by claiming some issue "might" be a problem when there is no preponderance of evidence showing that to be true.
I heaped shame on you for suggesting that: "such a change may not be not be in anyone's interest, including those who identify as homosexual." Who are you to tell anyone other than your minor child what is in their best interest? I'm not anti-military or pro-gay in this discussion. I merely want to see these employment decisions made fairly and without any 'but what if' exclusions.
Since you ask, let me tell you who I am, Dan. I am an American citizen who cares deeply about this country and its people. We enjoy many blessings that I would like to see passed down to my children and future generations. Among these blessings is the right to engage in the civic and political affairs of this country including the right to speak out on important issues. One of the most the important issues concerns the defense of this country from its enemies. So yes, Dan, I have every right to speak out as to what I consider the best interests of this country. You may reject my advice, but you have no right to silence me. Such an attempt is shameful.
Let us now turn to my argument, the substance of which you have avoided beyond your attempts at shaming. Let us suppose that Congress adopts the position that you advocate and rushes to repeal the Clinton era "don't ask, don't tell" law and requires the armed services to admit open homosexuals. If you are wrong that such a change will not have an adverse effect on the mission of the military to protect and defend this nation, then all of us will bear the consequences. This includes, of course, those among us that prefer to engage in homosexual relationships. Thus, Dan, it logically follows that an ill-advised repeal of the present policy may not be in the interest of anyone including the homosexuals about whom you claim so much to care.
You said:"If you are wrong that such a change will not have an adverse effect on the mission of the military to protect and defend this nation, then all of us will bear the consequences. " (and) "Thus, Dan, it logically follows that an ill-advised repeal of the present policy may not be in the interest of anyone including the homosexuals about whom you claim so much to care.
I said:"Any consideration of consequences must naturally include weighing both potential benefits and liabilities. " (and) "serving in the military is a 'job'; a very dangerous and disciplined job, but still a job that, until proven otherwise, must not trample the equal rights of any citizen by claiming some issue "might" be a problem when there is no preponderance of evidence showing that to be true. "
Your arguments seem to be based on a fear of unknown results. You offered no specific history or clear evidence to support what adverse effects or consequences would/could result from the inclusion of homosexuals in the military. You repeatedly base your position on a worse case outcome without even acknowledging the possibility of a favorable result. My arguments, as I hope others will view them, are based on equal rights, opportunity, and the assumption that homosexuals should be given the same opportunity to succeed or fail as anyone else in the military. Reward their accomplishments and punish their failures….but, as an American citizen, how can you deny them the same rights that you hope your own children will enjoy when they reach adulthood???
You are correct, Dan. I have not offered evidence that repeal of DADT will result in adverse consequences. Please re-read my prior comments. The only conclusions I have reached are: (1) We should not change the law without a thorough review and analysis of the possible repercussions of such a change including, especially, whether such a change adversely effects the defense of the country; and (2) The burden of proof should lie with those that would change the status quo.
Nor have you offered any evidence that changing the law will result in a positive contribution to the mission of the military and make us safer. Nonetheless, you appear to favor change heedless of the unknown consequences in order to advance your idealistic view of "equal rights, opporunity, and the assumption that homosexuals should be given the same oppotunity to succeed or fail as anyone else in the military".
If my caution proves to be unwarranted, the country will not suffer any catastrophic consequences and homosexuals will still be able to serve in the military provided they comply with the present law. in the meantime we can take the time to study and analyze the possible effects. But if your rush to change the law proves to be wrong, then the consequences may well be catastrophic. And the spread of equal rights that you advocate may, ironically, be stopped, or even reversed.
PS. I see no point in continuing this dialogue. Feel free to respond, but I shall move on to other matters.
RE:"But if your rush to change the law proves to be wrong, then the consequences may well be catastrophic. And the spread of equal rights that you advocate may, ironically, be stopped, or even reversed."
If I believed there were any reasonably projected chance that such a change would result in Armageddon or reversal of our civil rights, I wouldn't even consider supporting the repeal of DADT or the unrestricted inclusion of homosexuals in the military. However, this issue will not be resolved as a result of informal online debate, so we can both go to sleep tonight knowing that neither of our opinions will amount to a hill of beans when it comes time to decide the fate of DADT, the military, or any group of individuals. I do agree with you on one point…..continuing this thread is not worthwhile.
Comments on this entry are closed.