View Full Version : DADT Vote
The Reaper
12-18-2010, 12:47
DADT repeal is coming up for a vote at 1500 today.
I urge you to contact your Senators and attempt to give them your thoughts on the matter.
I just discovered that my previously conservative Republican Senator is in favor of repealing this legislation, a fact that he previously denied.
Call your Senators and let them know how you feel.
TR
With exception of Sec. Gates, it appears Kansas is covering covering your 6 on DADT.
rubberneck
12-18-2010, 13:02
Looks like gays in the military will become law as soon as the President signs it. It passed 63-33 with four Senators not voting.
[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46576.html
According to Cardin & Mikulski, they know what's best for "me" and the people of Maryland.
I gotta move.
I agree that the repeal of DADT is coming but for some reason BOHICA just sounds wrong. :eek:
Done, allthough I fear it fell on deaf ears. :mad:
greenberetTFS
12-18-2010, 13:41
I don't know yet how our 2 Republican senators from Mississippi voted,but I'll buy the next round of beer if they didn't vote against it.............:mad::mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Arrrrgh....
Maybe they can segregate the Gays in their own brigade or something.
greenberetTFS
12-18-2010, 13:51
Arrrrgh....
Maybe they can segregate the Gays in their own brigade or something.
That's a great idea,and then give them a "pink" beret to wear.........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
BMT (RIP)
12-18-2010, 14:37
JUST PASSED!!
BMT
Just called both NC Sens, Hagan and Burr. They both voted in support and I informed them that although I am a lowly SSG making SSG pay, I will be putting my full financial support behind who ever opposes them. Sen Hagan's person seemed chipper about it but Sen Burr's phone girl seemed taken back and surprised. Hagan's people wanted my name...we will see were this leads :munchin
The Reaper
12-18-2010, 14:43
JUST PASSED!!
BMT
Well, I guess we should sit back and wait for the tens of thousands of gay people who wanted to join the military to sign right up today.
I am sure that this is for the betterment of the military and there will be no drama or adverse effects.:rolleyes:
After all, Congress already has Barney Frank, how bad can it be?
TR
Hmm...
“Democrats won support from six Republicans to advance the bill: Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois, George Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/#ixzz18UwLWseR
So co-gender living conditions or separation of the now three ?
This could get messy - as we all knew it would.
How is the Military going to "track" gays? How is the Military going to insure they are promoted like all the rest?
The Military will have to come up a block on your records were you can state your "gay" status - and it can't be the ratial block as we know gays come in all races.
Want a leg up on promotions? Just claim "gay".
BMT (RIP)
12-18-2010, 14:59
PX just put in for an emergency request for SOAP ON A ROPE!!
:D
BMT
aegisnavy
12-18-2010, 15:04
My wonderful Sen. Orrin Hatch didn't vote. :confused: Weasel. :mad:
The Reaper
12-18-2010, 15:59
Hmm.
"Male", "Female", "Other", "No Preference" blocks on all forms now?
TR
I really don't think much is going to change. I think people are making it a bigger deal then it really is. Obama had to keep at least one of his campaign promises. To bad he used the Military to do it.
I really don't think much is going to change. ......
The ARs will need to be rewritten to be gay friendly. If you accept to the gay you have to accept the gay lifestyle - the courts will see to that and the ARs will follow.
Eagle5US
12-18-2010, 17:19
More time wasted monthly sitting in an auditorium or behind a computer for mandatory sensitivity training.
"Gay Military Pride" month.
A whole new classification and training module for EO.
Billets / bathrooms / etc...
"Not fair that Jimmy and Bill are roommates and just "happen to be fucking" when Janie and I can't billet together and everyone KNOWS we are fucking.
Plus I wanna shower with Jamie, Michelle, Cathy, and that new chick, PFC Perfect Titties.
Simply one more major degradation of our Nation directed from a common office.
I no longer believe in it. Without significant change, I will not extend my enlistment past my current obligation. It is time for me to go.
Oh man, I can see it now. Down range some Iraqi or Afganie is rubbing their hands and can't wait to officially bag an American though the alternate breach point.
EX-Gold Falcon
12-18-2010, 18:19
It's not as though every Castro Street freak is suddenly going to be running into recruiting stations nationwide. Nor will the military start using the Village People in their recruitment campaigns.
We (my platoon) had two guys who were gay and no they were not a "pair". Few if any troopers outside the platoon and Co knew about them; and woe unto those who dared to F$ck with one of our own. They carried their weight, didn't b!tch beyond normal and pulled the trigger when required.
DADT was on life support from the get go and I believe our military will survive intact....
T.
I will not extend my enlistment past my current obligation. It is time for me to go.
This is what they want. They win!
Pat
Eagle5US
12-18-2010, 20:23
This is what they want. They win!
Pat
Yup...
One thing thou. What happens in the states where same sex marriage is legal. Will the Military have to recognize this. I think they would only if same sex marriage is legal by federal law, not state laws. Just me thinking out loud...discuss:D
.
DADT was on life support from the get go T.
See how the destruction of the moral fabric of the Country progresses?
Clinton got it started with DADT; the spineless bastards put the final nail in the coffin with this repeal.
Next thing will be sharia law replacing the UCMJ.
The camel's got everything but his ass in the tent, now, boys and girls.
blue02hd
12-19-2010, 08:41
DADT was on life support from the get go and I believe our military will survive intact....
T.
Hmm,
Two questions. 1. Are you still serving?
2. Whats a "Greenie-Beanie" that you refer to in your profile?
"About EX-Gold Falcon:
Biography
Enough Self Confidence To Say I Was Just A Paratrooper & NOT A Greenie-Beanie! "
If you want your posts to be considered with any due respect you should probably present yourself in a respectable manner.
See how the destruction of the moral fabric of the Country progresses?
Clinton got it started with DADT; the spineless bastards put the final nail in the coffin with this repeal.
Next thing will be sharia law replacing the UCMJ.
The camel's got everything but his ass in the tent, now, boys and girls.
Astounding.
Richard :munchin
One thing thou. What happens in the states where same sex marriage is legal. Will the Military have to recognize this. I think they would only if same sex marriage is legal by federal law, not state laws. Just me thinking out loud...discuss:D
Yes. But that would be easy. If I had a dollar for every person I've seen get a marriage certificate solely for benefits I'd be able to buy myself 5-6 large sized Chick Fil A meals. They would in theory, be able to get married on post if they wanted to.
See how the destruction of the moral fabric of the Country progresses?
Next thing will be sharia law replacing the UCMJ.
I don't see how our voters asking for liberal change will lead to us adopting an ultra conservative/orthodox form of UCMJ.
Yes. But that would be easy. If I had a dollar for every person I've seen get a marriage certificate solely for benefits I'd be able to buy myself 5-6 large sized Chick Fil A meals. They would in theory, be able to get married on post if they wanted to.
I don't see how our voters asking for liberal change will lead to us adopting an ultra conservative/orthodox form of UCMJ.
My point is that "liberal change" in itself is eroding the structure of principle in the Country, e.g. "liberals", "progressives" (now "no labelers") are destroying the moral fabric in stages.
Liberals are either blind to it or proponents of it; the former being ignorant and the latter marxist.
Hmm,
Two questions. 1. Are you still serving?
2. Whats a "Greenie-Beanie" that you refer to in your profile?
"About EX-Gold Falcon:
Biography
Enough Self Confidence To Say I Was Just A Paratrooper & NOT A Greenie-Beanie! "
If you want your posts to be considered with any due respect you should probably present yourself in a respectable manner.
lol Talk aboutcher dirty underwear...
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
-- Ansel Adams
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Masochist
12-19-2010, 13:10
One thing thou. What happens in the states where same sex marriage is legal. Will the Military have to recognize this. I think they would only if same sex marriage is legal by federal law, not state laws. Just me thinking out loud...discuss:D
Yes, but what about National Guardsmen in states allowing same-sex marriages that are called to federal service? While on Title 10, will they be given equal benefits as their straight married counterparts? What type of stress/discrimination suits will this bring about from couples from other states not receiving the same benefits? If not given benefits while in federal service (but given them on Title 32), will we see discrimination suits due to the loss of income when called up?
A lot of what ifs, and the more this is hashed about, even more what ifs come up.
Masochist
12-19-2010, 13:31
It's not as though every Castro Street freak is suddenly going to be running into recruiting stations nationwide. Nor will the military start using the Village People in their recruitment campaigns.
We (my platoon) had two guys who were gay and no they were not a "pair". Few if any troopers outside the platoon and Co knew about them; and woe unto those who dared to F$ck with one of our own. They carried their weight, didn't b!tch beyond normal and pulled the trigger when required.
DADT was on life support from the get go and I believe our military will survive intact....
T.
DADT and its repeal are not about (or should not be about) if gays are good soldiers or not. The military has methods to weed out those not fit for service. There are exceptional gay soldiers and there are shitbags. There are exceptional straight soldiers and there are shitbags. Short/tall, skinny/fat, black/white, gay/straight ... you will have portions of the population who go above and beyond, many who are the status quo, and those that fall below the Mendoza line. It is about the immediate effect it will have on the fighting force. Homosexuals have been allowed to serve in the past and most have done so exceptionally and without a need for a pat on the back or a banner, so it's not a matter of denying employment.
* to be politically correct and not to offend anyone reading this post: the duality listed in my descriptions was meant to express a point and not to exclude those of average height/weight, Asians (or other nationalities) or bisexuals. (I think that CMA :D)
Eagle5US
12-19-2010, 13:38
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
-- Ansel Adams
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
WTF are these little quotes adding to this thread? Or the other thread?
Seriously...
WTF are these little quotes adding to this thread? Or the other thread?
Seriously...
Maybe a bit of 'focus' and something to seriously think about vice the:
"Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away."
-- Hughes Mearns
The general gist and tone of all of these arguments have been made before in one form or another in regards to this and a number of issues - none of which have, thus far, held back the onward march of the lethal effeciency of our armed forces and their abilities to project power and the force of our national will when called upon by this nation.
IMO, it might be of worth to see what the Brits think about the matter after their more recent experiences with it all - although, admittedly, we are not Britain and they are not us.
As for me, my glass remains half full with what is an important constitutional issue and, based upon precedent, I think we'll see the same levels of resourceful determination in developing the eventual solutions to and outcome of this matter (whether it is anywhere near what anybody's current 'concept' of it all may be) as we have with so many others in the past.
This nation is pragmatically resourceful, our military is pragmatically resourceful, and, at this point, I am willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Green Light
12-19-2010, 15:44
I don't see how our voters asking for liberal change will lead to us adopting an ultra conservative/orthodox form of UCMJ.
Please explain how Sharia Law is either conservative or orthodox. Feel free to use big words. Most of us speak two or three languages.
Please explain how Sharia Law is either conservative or orthodox. Feel free to use big words. Most of us speak two or three languages.
I'm not sure what you mean by using big words.
Conservative: In the American context, Sharia outlaws things that most liberals in this country want allowed. Homosexuality for one. Separation of church and state for two.
Orthodox: Sharia places heavy emphasis on the Muslim faith and teachings over anything else. To have "the right opinion," ones opinion must agree with Mohammad, and generally the other 'saints' of Islam. Homosexuality is 'haraam' so it could not be allowed.
I haven't studied enough in my own time, or taken enough classes to consider myself an expert on Islamic law but I believe my thought process is logical.
The basic premise of my post was I don't see how any of the voters that wanted DADT overturned would want UCMJ influenced by Sharia.
I'm not sure what you mean by using big words.
Conservative: In the American context, Sharia outlaws things that most liberals in this country want allowed. Homosexuality for one. Separation of church and state for two.
Orthodox: Sharia places heavy emphasis on the Muslim faith and teachings over anything else. To have "the right opinion," ones opinion must agree with Mohammad, and generally the other 'saints' of Islam. Homosexuality is 'haraam' so it could not be allowed.
I haven't studied enough in my own time, or taken enough classes to consider myself an expert on Islamic law but I believe my thought process is logical.
The basic premise of my post was I don't see how any of the voters that wanted DADT overturned would want UCMJ influenced by Sharia.
It's my fault in that I assumed you would catch the sarcasm in the "sharia" comparison without pink font or a smily.
The focus is on the forcing of the liberal perspective onto the individual combat soldier.
It's my fault in that I assumed you would catch the sarcasm in the "sharia" comparison without pink font or a smily.
The focus is on the forcing of the liberal perspective onto the individual combat soldier.
It appears my SA was lacking.
In my defense, I have heard the "liberals are so soft, they'll let Sharia take over in America" argument quite a few times.
Green Light
12-19-2010, 16:54
I'm not sure what you mean by using big words.
Conservative: In the American context, Sharia outlaws things that most liberals in this country want allowed. Homosexuality for one. Separation of church and state for two.
Orthodox: Sharia places heavy emphasis on the Muslim faith and teachings over anything else. To have "the right opinion," ones opinion must agree with Mohammad, and generally the other 'saints' of Islam. Homosexuality is 'haraam' so it could not be allowed.
I haven't studied enough in my own time, or taken enough classes to consider myself an expert on Islamic law but I believe my thought process is logical.
The basic premise of my post was I don't see how any of the voters that wanted DADT overturned would want UCMJ influenced by Sharia.
Do pushups while I explain this.
Conservatism means less government. True, most conservatives are pretty well repulsed by homosexuality, but if you find comfort in your neighbor Bob, go ahead. Just don't do it in public. As TR's daughter said homosexuals are no problem as long as they don't scare the horses.
Sharia, along with the other leftist ideologies such as Fascism (National Socialism, both original and extra crispy), (International) Socialism, and Communism, runs your life by making decisions for you. They take away your decisions by making them for you.
Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)video from 1964 and then tell me how conservative equals sharia.
Conservatism means less government.
Sharia, along with the other leftist ideologies such as Fascism (National Socialism, both original and extra crispy), (International) Socialism, and Communism, runs your life by making decisions for you.
Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)video from 1964 and then tell me how conservative equals sharia.
I watched the video. Great speech but it has nothing to do with this context. UCMJ has nothing to do with America's monetary policies. Conservatism in America is about more than just "less government. Just as liberalism is about more than just "more government."
A lot of those evil empire's (Fascists of Germany/Italy, Communist Russia) views: compulsory military/federal service, extremely stiff penalties for crimes, very strict immigration/citizenship could be seen as conservative style views in America today.
Conservative: In the American context, Sharia outlaws things that most liberals in this country want allowed. Homosexuality for one. Separation of church and state for two.
If Sharia had ultra liberal views on how we should live our daily lives I would have said ultra liberal/orthodox. Maybe in 40 years the meaning of conservative and liberal will change again, but for now I think I have a firm view on the two.
Conservatism means less government. True, most conservatives are pretty well repulsed by homosexuality, but if you find comfort in your neighbor Bob, go ahead. Just don't do it in public. As TR's daughter said homosexuals are no problem as long as they don't scare the horses.
Sharia, along with the other leftist ideologies such as Fascism (National Socialism, both original and extra crispy), (International) Socialism, and Communism, runs your life by making decisions for you. They take away your decisions by making them for you.
Sir, respectfully while I'm not qualified to opine on the primary topic of this thread, Facism and fundamentalist ideologies such as the Sharia of Islamists are extreme right wing ideologies. Some folks make the observation the political spectrum is shaped more like a horseshoe than a line, with the extreme ends as you mentioned ironically similar in that they both stifle liberty and freedom. Fundamentalists want to turn the clock back to the "good old days", which is antithesis of progressive liberalism. I have heard folks argue Obama is actually a facist, since while he increases government control and meddling, he is not unilaterally nationalizing corporations. Historically as in the example of Nazi Germany conservatism does not mean less government, it can be quite the opposite.
IMHO, issues such as the topic in this thread confirm Democracy is a double edged sword and as Churchill opined far from perfect.
This nation is pragmatically resourceful, our military is pragmatically resourceful, and, at this point, I am willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Agreed.
I'm not referring to the majority of the people of our Nation, nor the average combat soldier, when I say the repeal is bad governance; I'm referring to the current Congress, which has approval of less than 2 out of 10 of the people and troops.
Incidentally, the majority of troops don't want open homos, either, from what I can discern.
It appears my SA was lacking.
In my defense, I have heard the "liberals are so soft, they'll let Sharia take over in America" argument quite a few times.
A tenet with which I agree.
The ARs will need to be rewritten to be gay friendly. If you accept to the gay you have to accept the gay lifestyle - the courts will see to that and the ARs will follow.
What I suspect will happen is the AR 600-20 will be rewritten to include a new "protected class" of people. Just as we have distinctions for gender, race, color, religion, national origin. We'll now have a separate class of people called sexual orientation. Therefore, the range fan for what defines a hostile work environment will become smaller and smaller as definitions of exclusionary or disparate treatment against gays expand through the courts, and eventually within our commands. I suspect there will be many problems....
Also, if you thought the POSH training requirements were a bit overdone, I don't think we've seen anything like what we'll soon have regarding sexual orientation training and of course our upcoming mandatory Gay Pride Observances.
Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps I'm just a sexist paranoid homophobe......jd
ZonieDiver
12-19-2010, 18:27
I believe our military will survive intact....
This is what I believe. I was in the Army during the early '70's, when it looked like the Army would collapse, and the first 'VOLAR' troops seemed lower than low. The Army survived. Our military will adapt, adjust, survive, and thrive - despite all the crapola that is sure to happen.
This I believe.
Also, if you thought the POSH training requirements were a bit overdone, I don't think we've seen anything like what we'll soon have regarding sexual orientation training and of course our upcoming mandatory Gay Pride Observances.
At the current rate of decay, the issue will be "Straight Pride" parades soon.
Yes, but what about National Guardsmen in states allowing same-sex marriages that are called to federal service? While on Title 10, will they be given equal benefits as their straight married counterparts? What type of stress/discrimination suits will this bring about from couples from other states not receiving the same benefits? If not given benefits while in federal service (but given them on Title 32), will we see discrimination suits due to the loss of income when called up?
A lot of what ifs, and the more this is hashed about, even more what ifs come up.
The Military will just have to give them the same benefits as Male Female couples. But like I said. I don't see any of this effecting combat readiness or moral in any way
One thing to consider here is the issue of who 'controls' such a situation.
This thing was heading to the federal courts as a constitutional issue and, if that had occurred, would have come under the purview of whatever the courts decided.
By keeping it in Congress as just occurred, both the changes and the methods/pace of their implementation will be directly under the control of the DOD and the service chiefs with Congressional oversight.
This whole thing might have been a whole lot more difficult than whatever we'll see happen with it.
Richard :munchin
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=243213
THE GAYING OF AMERICA
Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."
"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions. These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.
"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment.
"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.