by Julian E. Barnes
A proposal to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military passed two critical tests Thursday, with the House of Representatives and an important Senate committee endorsing a compromise to end the divisive "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
In a late-night vote in the House, lawmakers endorsed an amendment that would repeal the ban, 234 to 194. In the largely party-line vote, 26 Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition. Five Republicans supported the repeal.
Earlier, in a closed session, the Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed the plan, 16-12. The measure still faces a vote in the full Senate.
The compromise between White House and congressional negotiators would not formally lift the ban on openly gay service members until the Pentagon completes a review, due Dec. 1, and President Obama and top Defense leaders certify that ending the 1993 prohibition would not affect military readiness.
Activists have pressed for congressional action, fearful that if lawmakers wait until the next legislative session to tackle the repeal, potential Republican gains in Congress this fall would make changing the law more difficult.
By adding the compromise to a defense authorization measure, Democratic leaders hope to avoid an attempt by opponents to block the repeal. To stop it, Senate Republicans would have to take the extreme step of filibustering the entire authorization measure, which sets overall parameters for military spending.
In Thursday's Senate committee vote, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R- Maine) joined the panel's Democrats in approving the proposal.
Although the compromise has the blessing of the White House and top Pentagon officials, some military leaders remain skeptical. The uniformed heads of the Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps all oppose legislation to repeal the ban until the Pentagon finishes its review.
"I believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward," wrote Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he would prefer that Congress wait, but that he accepts the compromise.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he supports the compromise, noting a provision that prevents the repeal from taking effect until the president and Pentagon leaders consent.
"The language in there right now preserves my prerogative -- and, I believe, my responsibility -- to give the best military advice," Mullen said Wednesday, according to an American Forces Press Service report. "That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change, even if the law were to repeal it."
Obama, Gates and Mullen all support ending the ban on gays serving openly. But military leaders, particularly Gates, favor implementing the repeal slowly, which the compromise language allows.
Some prominent Democrats in the House, including Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, oppose the compromise, citing concerns in the military.
Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R- Santa Clarita), the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said the compromise would "breach the trust" of members of the military. He pledged to encourage colleagues to vote against final passage of the authorization bill.
"We owe our military personnel better," he said.
Advocates of lifting the ban praised the move to enact a repeal now.
"Lawmakers today stood on the right side of history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "This is a historic step to strengthen our armed forces and to restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly."
But critics lashed out at Congress, arguing that lawmakers were using the military to advance a social agenda.
"The administration and the majority in Congress have pushed aside the advice of all four military service chiefs and, for the first time in our nation's history, voted to force the military to embrace homosexuality," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
Originally, "don't ask, don't tell" was considered a reform when it replaced the military's practice of seeking out and ejecting gays and lesbians. Under the policy, as long as gays keep their sexual orientation secret, they are allowed to serve.
But more than 10,000 service members have been discharged for violating "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama lauded the House and Senate actions.
"I have long advocated that we repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' he said in a statement. "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."
Comments
How will gays feel about this if the mandatory draft is re-instated? Then they'll all be forced into military service, even those that don't want to go. Once again, a loud, vocal minority forcing their beliefs on the majority... tail wagging the dog.
Posted by: time2wakeup | May 28, 2010 8:49 AM
Sorry Secretary Gates, but this is one bad idea!. Forget the jerks in the Congress, talk to the Generals that are on the job. It would be better to re-instate the draft. The draft was in use for centuries. Why shouldn't all capable men and women give back a little service to our great nation?.
Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2010 9:29 AM
I am an old man and I have known homosexuals over the years. The homosexual paradigm that drives policy is outdated and distorted. DADT promotes the distortion. ........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/05/15/the-homosexual-paradigm-personal-experience/
Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | May 28, 2010 9:50 AM
"All men are created equal." Now, where in the world did I hear about that...
Posted by: Mr. Olympia Snowe | May 28, 2010 4:57 PM
Maybe we need four differnt barracks now.
Posted by: Terry | May 28, 2010 8:23 PM
Just one little problem - Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Opps, did someone forget about that? I doubt that Congress will repeal that Article. As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell - I thought it was unnecessary since it was already covered under Article 125.
Posted by: Darkwater | May 28, 2010 9:39 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Darkwater | May 28, 2010 9:39 PM
.
You have a point. Article 125 of the UCMJ does create an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one. It simply means that gays and lesbians entering military service will have to refrain from what they view as normal sexual activity while on active duty, and/or in any venue under military jurisdiction.
.
The repeal of DADT would merely do away with the military ban on service by those with a same-sex “sexual orientation.” A difference exists between one’s “sexual orientation” and one’s sexual activities. In theory, a person could have a same-sex attraction and practice celibacy. That would satisfy concerns regarding Article 125.
.
Mind you, Article 125 already poses certain obstacles to even heterosexuals who consider it normal to engage in some of the conduct prohibited by it. “[U]nnatural carnal copulation” under Article 125 includes even consensual oral sex between members of the opposite sex; and many people (including former Presidents) view that as normal sexual activity. So it’s not as though Article 125 doesn’t already create some friction (no pun intended).
Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2010 1:23 PM
Where are all these thousands of husky gym chisled gays being turned down to by Rangers, Marines, or Special Forces. If 100,000 gay men left the spas and Fire Island`s muscle section and headed for the recruitors all this crap would cease. The Army and Marines would say, come on in boys and join up under the buddy program. Most young gay men are as worthless as most straight men and wouldn`t join up this side of a draft, which this country needs more than a five cent cigar by the way.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee Florida
Posted by: Charles B. Tiffany | May 29, 2010 5:55 PM
daddy, daddy...did u plug the hole yet?
Say no more.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | May 30, 2010 1:11 AM
John W
You are the first and only person that did their research. Every post that I meantioned Article 125 people were way to lazy to look up what it was. Congrats, you get the 5 dollar cigar. And you are correct about 125. But as I said, Congress will not change it since it helps in proscuting (sp) child molestors. Of course, they could change it just for that purpose, but they are way to lazy to do so.
Posted by: Darkwater | June 1, 2010 7:16 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: Darkwater | June 1, 2010 7:16 AM
.
I agree with you, although I am not quite sure that Congress will retain Article 125 just to prosecute child molesters. They will retain it because it will continue to provide the armed forces with the means to weed out those they consider “undesirable” or a threat to military discipline. It will mean the military can still prosecute for same-sex sex acts despite admitting to their ranks those inclined to commit them. In other words, gays and lesbians will still have to operate in the shadows to comply with military law and practice same-sex sex. Under these circumstances, I don’t understand how the repeal of DADT, by itself, could represent a victory to pseudo-liberals, and the gay and lesbian communities in particular.
Posted by: John W. | June 2, 2010 6:08 PM
I will be so happy to see all the gays running for the recruiting station. I think that what we will end up with though are a bunch of lesbians signing up because they are a lot more manly in spirit than the gay men.
Good luck guys
Posted by: jacque | June 3, 2010 9:14 AM
How will gays feel about this if the mandatory draft is re-instated? Then they'll all be forced into military service, even those that don't want to go. Once again, a loud, vocal minority forcing their beliefs on the majority... tail wagging the dog.
Posted by: time2wakeup | May 28, 2010 8:49 AM
If mandatory draft is reinstated, then gays will be in the same boat as straights, no matter what either of them feels about it. That's the point, or at least part of it. Would it be fairer for straight people to serve in the military and risk their lives while gays don't?
Posted by: Op109 | June 3, 2010 4:23 PM
Further to previous comments, I would not want one of them in a foxhole with me wanting to grab a piece of my buttocks, Or making out with his lover while he should be fighting the enemy or while standing guard duty.If the only reason to repeal don't ask, don't tell is to increase the number of volunteers then maybe its time to reinstate the draft.
Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2010 5:28 PM
Some of you people are so ignorent. There are at least 1/3 of our soldiers that have had the opposite sexual activitie because of lonliness or lust. Why do you hear it all the time about the prisons. They don't care at the time but will never acknowledge it to anyone later. Don't ask don't tell hmmmm
If you like to think this is never ever going to happen you are wrong. The world is a changing.
However or whatever we decide, or even when we don’t, time will make new decisions without or without us.
Posted by: Lou | June 4, 2010 1:23 PM
I mispelled a few words. My apologies.
Some of you people are so ignorant. There are at least 1/3 of our soldiers that have had the opposite sexual activities because of loneliness or lust. Why do you hear it all the time about the prisons. They don't care at the time but will never acknowledge it to anyone later. Don't ask don't tell hmmmm
There are Dr's that are gay and have to leave the military after serving 5 years. WTH They need Dr;s there is such a shortage in the military. As long as they do there job what do you care?
If you like to think this is never ever going to happen you are wrong. The world is a changing.
However or whatever we decide, or even when we don’t, time will make new decisions without or without us.
Posted by: Lou | June 4, 2010 2:21 PM
Some of you people are so ignorant. There are at least 1/3 of our soldiers that have had the same sex, sexual activities because of loneliness or lust. Why do you hear it all the time about the prisons. They don't care at the time but will never acknowledge it to anyone later. Don't ask don't tell hmmmm
If you like to think this is never ever going to happen you are wrong. The world is a changing.
However or whatever we decide, or even when we don’t, time will make new decisions without or without us.
Posted by: lcesario@twcny.rr.com | June 4, 2010 2:39 PM
Gay Priests and the Church that Tolerates Them Part Two
In my own experience as an active Catholic, altar boy, and choir boy, I never experienced, witnessed, or heard of any untoward, sexual advances by any priest toward anyone, male or female, adult or child. That is not to say that it never happened but is mentioned only to emphasize that such occurrences had to have been rare or virtually non-existent.
The rarity seems to have ended coincidental with Vatican Council II in 1962 which not only re-introduced the vernacular to Church services and declared that marriage is of equal value to virginity. It opened the floodgates of greater secularization of the clergy–and of nuns–and eventually led to lax requisites for seminarians to fill the gaps created by a virtual collapse of religious vocations.
Today, according to The Changing Face of the Priesthood, estimates of gays in American seminaries range from 25 to 50%. As for active, gay priests, the numbers are probably similar.
All of the above is preface to the influx of homosexuals into the priesthood in the past 50 years and, specifically, to what happened recently in Rome when three gay priests were discovered, and videotaped, indulging in la dolce vita,homosexual-style, at night while acting as priests during the day. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1802)
Posted by: Berlet98 | July 25, 2010 11:13 AM