Proposal To Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell Approved By House

Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday delivered a victory to President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation. The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.

"I know that our military draws its strength on the integrity of our unified force, and current law challenges this integrity by creating two realities within the ranks," Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., said.

Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members. The House vote came just hours after the Senate Armed Services Committee took the same course and voted 16-12 in favor of repealing the 1993 law. In both cases the measure was offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Obama and leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had actively supported the repeal so that gays could serve in the military without fear of being exposed and discharged. In a statement after the House vote, Obama hailed the day's congressional action as "important bipartisan steps toward repeal."

"This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity," Obama said. "This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security," Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights organization, said after the Senate panel's vote.

During an all-day House debate on the bill approving more than $700 billion in spending for defense programs, Republicans repeated statements by military service chiefs that Congress should not act before the Pentagon completes a study on the impact of a repeal. Congress going first "is the equivalent to turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, 'Your opinion, your view, do not count,'" said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Democratic supporters stressed that the amendment was written so that the repeal would not go into effect until after the Pentagon publishes in December the results of a survey on how service members and their families view the change, and until the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military's ability to fight.

The chief sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., who served in the Iraq War, said that when he was in Baghdad "my teams did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay if they could fire their assault rifle or run a convoy down ambush alley and do their job so everyone would come home safely."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that of the 13,500 members of the military who have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell," more than 1,000 filled critical occupations, such as engineers and interpreters. He compared the arguments of the opposition to 1948 speeches in Congress when lawmakers warned that integrating the troops would undermine morale in the military.

The drive to repeal the ban still faces a tough road ahead in the full Senate, where Republicans are likely to filibuster it.

"I think it's really going to be very harmful to the morale and effectiveness of our military," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a leading opponent of the repeal.

The Senate probably will take up the bill next month.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait for the December report.

Under "don't ask, don't tell," military leaders don't investigate a service member's sexual orientation as long as the person does not disclose that he or she is gay or has a same-sex relationship, which are grounds for dismissal.
Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7026085.html

Score one for liberty. Almost. Just a bit further.

Also, McCain can eat a dick.
 
Now with Kung-Fu action!
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
1,761
Best answers
0
Another point for Obama. Whilst the law did have some logic behind it, the discrimination it caused really needed to go.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
It didn't so much cause the discrimination as it did completely ignore it and allow it to exist.

But seriously, really McCain?
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
It's amusing, albeit somewhat disturbing, seeing the kinds of reactions coming from those that oppose this.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
For all of my problems with Obama and his administration, this just shows me that I did indeed make the right choice and pick the lesser of two evils. How anyone can not support this is disgusting.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
I still don't understand how your ability to wage war is measured by your sexuality.
Oh well, this is a nice first step indeed. Ofcourse it will take some time till we see high ranked homosexual people in the military.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I still don't understand how your ability to wage war is measured by your sexuality.
Oh well, this is a nice first step indeed. Ofcourse it will take some time till we see high ranked homosexual people in the military.
That isn't the issue. Because the military is dominated by heteros and male chauvinism, it is believed that having openly gay members, especially of the flamboyant variety, would break down unit cohesion and lower morale. This is complete and utter bull**** as evidenced by the integration of blacks in the military.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
That isn't the issue. Because the military is dominated by heteros and male chauvinism, it is believed that having openly gay members, especially of the flamboyant variety, would break down unit cohesion and lower morale. This is complete and utter bull**** as evidenced by the integration of blacks in the military.
Thing is, the military is looking for a specific kind of people. So let me start stereotyping here, you won't see alot of white nerdy guys with the upper body strength of a 10 year old girl joining the navy seals. The same goes for the flamboyant flaming homosexual. THey don't tend to do the whole male chauvinism thing, while you have enough other homosexuals who do, I mean in the end of the day, they are still men. :p
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Not true at all. A very small percentage of soldiers/Marines are actually grunts. The rest are logistics/intel/motor T/other civilian-type jobs. This is attractive to just about everyone, as you get trained for free, and you'll have that experience and time with the military on your resume, which will get you bumped up on most lists. While these white nerdy guys with the strength of a 10 year old won't be joining the Seals, they'll be enlisting for just about every other job description available, especially considering the Navy doesn't see much in the way of frontline action save for their corpsman and the one or two times an idiot tries to fire an rpg at a ship. Flamers are no exception, and I've met far more than I expected to meet during my short stay with the Corps, so I can only imagine how many homosexuals are in the other branches, which are far less physically demanding.

But again, it's really a non-issue. So long as the person is capable of doing their job well, I don't care and neither should anyone else.
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
I'm a nerdy, flamboyant flaming homosexual with the upper body strength of a 10 year old. I'm going to join the Marines.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
You're a lover, 109. Not a fighter.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
I really really can not find a plausible excuse to not allow people to be openly gay in the military. I seriously think these old men think gay soldiers are going to run around grabbing the asses of other soldiers. Gay=/=feminine. The fact that this seems like to be a "tough road ahead" says a lot about the archaic mentality of Congress, mainly the Republicans in this case.

But now gay hecklers can stop complaining about Obama "moving too slow"(as long as he pulls through). I was actually surprised he'd start off this early.
 
Last edited:
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I seriously think these old men think gay soldiers are going to run around grabbing the ass of other soldiers.
That's exactly it. I'm constantly reminding people that there are already gay soldiers and marines; nothing is going to change other than them no longer having to pretend to be otherwise. I try to draw parallels between this and racial integration, and allowing women to serve, and they still don't get it. It's mildly irritating, to say the least. I can only imagine what it must be like for someone who's actually gay in the military.
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
🌠 Staff
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
There never was any logic behind the law. If someone honestly believes someone's gonna focus on getting laid instead of making sure they and their buddies don't get shot, then you're an idiot. Would a straight guy be distracted by a female soldier in the field/heat of battle/triage center? If so, GTFO the military now please or do your job.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
There never was any logic behind the law. If someone honestly believes someone's gonna focus on getting laid instead of making sure they and their buddies don't get shot, then you're an idiot. Would a straight guy be distracted by a female soldier in the field/heat of battle/triage center? If so, GTFO the military now please or do your job.
Rape among POGs (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124212708AAJRxb6) is rampant, both male on female and male on male, though less frequently. The male on male occurrences are more closely related to prison style rapes than "HOMOSEXUAL ON THE PROWL!"...style. For whatever reason, fixing a vehicle is so demanding, that when they see a woman or a man alone they can't restrain themselves. Me and mine ever only see women once in a blue moon, and we're still not raping each other and the one or two women we see when we're on liberty or leave, though, so I don't know what their deal is.

But, you know, homosexuals are the problem.
 
Last edited:
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
🌠 Staff
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
That's not about sex or attraction though, Zeo. Rape is almost always about power, control, intimidation, fearing, etc. Watch the Senate screw this all up though and not pass it through x.x
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
Of course there was a point to the law, it was to make gay people feel unwelcome. Its not that hard to work out.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
That's not about sex or attraction though, Zeo. Rape is almost always about power, control, intimidation, fearing, etc. Watch the Senate screw this all up though and not pass it through x.x
If rape is rampant, one can imagine how often consensual sex occurs between men and women in the FOB, which will undoubtedly affect their relationship and unit cohesion elsewhere. Female grunts are still a no-no in our military, and so they're generally relegated to jobs in the FOB (translators, flight crew and medevacs being exceptions to the rule). While a guy probably won't be distracted by a woman while under fire, or while trying to apply pressure to a wound inside of a chopper, once they return to the FOB, it most definitely does become an issue. Why? Lack of discipline. They're held to lower standards, and so they react to stimuli differently because of it. In this type of environment, if a man rapes a woman, it becomes less about a show of force and more about release. It's about sheer lust, and the aggressiveness that comes with not getting laid for what seems like forever. If it were simply about power, control and intimidation, all he'd need to do was leave the FOB with a squad and engage in the madness that would eventually ensue.

What applies in the civilian world doesn't necessarily apply on the battlefield.
 
King of the Hello Kitty Fanclub
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,675
Best answers
0
The wording of this confuses the hell out of me.

Basically, there's a law against homosexuals serving in the military, but there's a "rule" that says if you don't tell anyone, nobody will check up on you?

And now there's a bill to remove that law so that the rule doesn't have any application? Sounds like a total head-****.

Anyway, I don't see if they're let females soldiers serve, why they wouldn't let homosexual soldiers serve as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top