BREAKING NEWS: House votes to repeal Don't ask Don't tell

About time.

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.

Also on Thursday the House rejected an amendment to the defense bill that would have cut $485 million from the bill designated for a second engine for the new F-35 fighter jet.

Gates strongly opposes the extra engine as wasteful and unneeded, and the White House issued a statement Thursday saying the president would be advised to veto the final bill if it includes funds for the engine. But supporters of the engine made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce PLC contended that the competition between engine makers would save money in the 30 to 40-year life cycle of the $100 billion project.

This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.

[link]

Why is everyone so against the competing GE/RR F136 engine? :(Dark__Link

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

I'm glad to see such irrational nonsense going away.

Good step forward but how will they handle shower situation during training and boot camp?

about time. It's not like it's going to change anything big, but gay people should have equal rights.

[QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.sboyer2

finally

[QUOTE="sboyer2"][QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.sboyer2

If they couldn't do the job, they wouldn't be in the military in the first place. It's not like they're walking around with their shirts tied over their belly buttons, and hand bags over their arms. The kind of homosexuals you'd find in the military are those who you probably wouldn't know were gay if they didn't tell you anyways.

Besides, you don't even have an argument. As don't ask don't tell doesn't prevent homosexuals from entering the military in the first place.

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

[QUOTE="sboyer2"][QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.II_Seraphim_II

and there were absolutely no gay people in the military before this. :roll:

[QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.sboyer2

You don't have to be a hetero to shoot straight. A bunch of "nancy's" really?

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

Elephant_Couple

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="sboyer2"] Nobody wants their lives and their country in the hands of a bunch of nancy's though. I didnt see problem with the lawRing_of_fire

and there were absolutely no gay people in the military before this. :roll:

After all it was "don't ask, don't tell," so I guess we'll never know.;)

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

weezyfb

Don't you know that gays are predatory by nature and purposely pursue and harass heterosexual men even at the risk of being ridiculed and violently assaulted?

[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

QuistisTrepe_

Don't you know that gays are predatory by nature and purposely pursue and harass heterosexual men even at the risk of being ridiculed and violently assaulted?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="weezyfb"] Why exactly were the hesitant? Jesus_on_fire

Don't you know that gays are predatory by nature and purposely pursue and harass heterosexual men even at the risk of being ridiculed and violently assaulted?

Hence the latter part of my post to make it clear.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

weezyfb

A. They see it as a distraction, because it adds a sexual element to an otherwise non-sexual environment. B. Like it or not, a considerable number of people in the military do not have a high opinion of gay people. Many of them will be prone to violence toward gays, whether the gay soldiers are flaunting their sexuality or not. This is not coming from me. This is coming from my brother-in-law, my cousin, and several of my friends who are in the army and the marines. Whether it should be that way or not, it is, and this needs to be done gradually.

[QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.sboyer2

.. Nancies? Many of these gays are fighting soldiers and officers that go into real combat.. What does that make you?

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

Espada12

So because discrimination happens instead of going after the people who discriminate we should go after the people that are being discriminated against? Isn't this kinda like the whole, "woman deserved to get raped because she dressed scantily," argument?

[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

Elephant_Couple

A. They see it as a distraction, because it adds a sexual element to an otherwise non-sexual environment. B. Like it or not, a considerable number of people in the military do not have a high opinion of gay people. Many of them will be prone to violence toward gays, whether the gay soldiers are flaunting their sexuality or not. This is not coming from me. This is coming from my brother-in-law, my cousin, and several of my friends who are in the army and the marines. Whether it should be that way or not, it is, and this needs to be done gradually.

I disagree completely.. The civil rights movements in the 50's and 60's didn't gradually attack the Jim Crowe laws.. Prejudice of any kind should not be accepted in the military what so ever.. There is entirely too much accepted prejudice as there is for military.. And your going to have to explain a sexual element, because the majority of gays in the military do not flaunt themselves. And to be fair there already is a sexual tone in military. They don't put you through a boot camp for fun, they do it to break down your individuality.. To gain a love for the man or woman next to you.. In a sense there is already something very similar to that..

Gays who choose to go into the military obviously have a chip on their shoulder and a point to prove. I think being open about it will only strengthen their fire and resolve, and make them better warriors.

They should have studied it more. I know many, many people who have been in the military. Every single one of them was hesitant about repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' There will likely be some backlash against this within the military itself.

Elephant_Couple

Good, it's only by facing our prejudices that we are able to overcome them. People were hesitant about allowing African-Americans into the same establishments as whites, that didn't justify segregation.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

theone86

So because discrimination happens instead of going after the people who discriminate we should go after the people that are being discriminated against? Isn't this kinda like the whole, "woman deserved to get raped because she dressed scantily," argument?

Not really, look at in terms of practicality. I think it would be easier to leave don't ask don't tell than prosecute every homophobic guy in the military.

And to be fair there already is a sexual tone in military. They don't put you through a boot camp for fun, they do it to break down your individuality.. To gain a love for the man or woman next to you..

sSubZerOo

I don't see it working with someone who has deep homophobic fears which sadly alot of people in the military do. There will be alot of people getting repremanded for gay bashing in the first few years I can see it but hopefully it will get better.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

Espada12

So because discrimination happens instead of going after the people who discriminate we should go after the people that are being discriminated against? Isn't this kinda like the whole, "woman deserved to get raped because she dressed scantily," argument?

Not really, look at in terms of practicality. I think it would be easier to leave don't ask don't tell than prosecute every homophobic guy in the military.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

Espada12

So because discrimination happens instead of going after the people who discriminate we should go after the people that are being discriminated against? Isn't this kinda like the whole, "woman deserved to get raped because she dressed scantily," argument?

Not really, look at in terms of practicality. I think it would be easier to leave don't ask don't tell than prosecute every homophobic guy in the military.

Yet your point is exaclty that.. You would rather the prejudice and biggotry remain due to how dififcult it would be to change.. Change is difficult, and the change for the better morally speaking is often times the hardest.. That doesn't some how make it something we should avoid as best as possible.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="weezyfb"] Why exactly were the hesitant? sSubZerOo

A. They see it as a distraction, because it adds a sexual element to an otherwise non-sexual environment. B. Like it or not, a considerable number of people in the military do not have a high opinion of gay people. Many of them will be prone to violence toward gays, whether the gay soldiers are flaunting their sexuality or not. This is not coming from me. This is coming from my brother-in-law, my cousin, and several of my friends who are in the army and the marines. Whether it should be that way or not, it is, and this needs to be done gradually.

I disagree completely.. The civil rights movements in the 50's and 60's didn't gradually attack the Jim Crowe laws.. Prejudice of any kind should not be accepted in the military what so ever.. There is entirely too much accepted prejudice as there is for military.. And your going to have to explain a sexual element, because the majority of gays in the military do not flaunt themselves, and the radical majority of times they are completely cluesless what goes on around them..

And to be fair there already is a sexual tone in military. They don't put you through a boot camp for fun, they do it to break down your individuality.. To gain a love for the man or woman next to you..

The civil rights movement didn't involve putting people in a potentially violent situation. It involved solving an already violent situation. It makes soldiers uncomfortable to know that certain people look at them in a sexual way they don't approve of. It prevents the trust and the cohesion required to be an effective fighting force.

[QUOTE="sboyer2"][QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.sSubZerOo

.. Nancies? Many of these gays are fighting soldiers and officers that go into real combat.. What does that make you?

Ohhh you got him good man.

I'm guessing that would make him a p****.

I have no problem with this legislation. And this is coming from a infantryman in the Army.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

Espada12

So because discrimination happens instead of going after the people who discriminate we should go after the people that are being discriminated against? Isn't this kinda like the whole, "woman deserved to get raped because she dressed scantily," argument?

Not really, look at in terms of practicality. I think it would be easier to leave don't ask don't tell than prosecute every homophobic guy in the military.

As long as we're just going on conjecture, I think you're wrong. Secondly, it only takes a few cases being prosecuted to send the message that intolerance will not be tolerated. Isn't the military supposed to be based on discipline and rule anyways? Soldiers are the best at following orders, if anyone could integrate it would be them. Lastly, that's still not a justification for prejudice, it's basically saying we're already prejudiced so you can't take steps to stop us from acting prejudiced, not sound logic.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

And to be fair there already is a sexual tone in military. They don't put you through a boot camp for fun, they do it to break down your individuality.. To gain a love for the man or woman next to you..

kidsmelly

I don't see it working with someone who has deep homophobic fears which sadly alot of people in the military do. There will be alot of people getting repremanded for gay bashing in the first few years I can see it but hopefully it will get better.

And this biggotry needs to end.. And avoiding it will not some how have it go away.. The only way it will get better is if its made into policy in reversing things like "don't ask, don't tell".. If people can't handle the biggotry of the possibility of their team members which would take a bullet for them being gay Then they do not belong in the military period.. I mean what if this were a guy that refused to serve next to blacks, or women.. Do you think that would be morally ok? Hell no it wouldn't.

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course. There is still alot of discrimination in the military, I wonder if this will add to it or if the mentality of people these days has changed enough that nothing will come about due to this.

Espada12

I somewhat agree. In a way, the don't ask don't tell might've protected those who serve and are Gay.

But I think it will usually lead to the military jokes..Nothing beyond that. I talked to a few Vietnam vets who said serving with people of different color/ethnicity really shows you how equal the world is and how you should always treat everyone the same. Maybe that'll show after this also.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

So because discrimination happens instead of going after the people who discriminate we should go after the people that are being discriminated against? Isn't this kinda like the whole, "woman deserved to get raped because she dressed scantily," argument?

sSubZerOo

Not really, look at in terms of practicality. I think it would be easier to leave don't ask don't tell than prosecute every homophobic guy in the military.

Yet your point is exaclty that.. You would rather the prejudice and biggotry remain due to how dififcult it would be to change.. Change is difficult, and the change for the better morally speaking is often times the hardest.. That doesn't some how make it something we should avoid as best as possible.

Huh? I never said I would rather it remain, I said now may not be the best time, and I did say I could be wrong...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

A. They see it as a distraction, because it adds a sexual element to an otherwise non-sexual environment. B. Like it or not, a considerable number of people in the military do not have a high opinion of gay people. Many of them will be prone to violence toward gays, whether the gay soldiers are flaunting their sexuality or not. This is not coming from me. This is coming from my brother-in-law, my cousin, and several of my friends who are in the army and the marines. Whether it should be that way or not, it is, and this needs to be done gradually.

Elephant_Couple

I disagree completely.. The civil rights movements in the 50's and 60's didn't gradually attack the Jim Crowe laws.. Prejudice of any kind should not be accepted in the military what so ever.. There is entirely too much accepted prejudice as there is for military.. And your going to have to explain a sexual element, because the majority of gays in the military do not flaunt themselves, and the radical majority of times they are completely cluesless what goes on around them..

And to be fair there already is a sexual tone in military. They don't put you through a boot camp for fun, they do it to break down your individuality.. To gain a love for the man or woman next to you..

The civil rights movement didn't involve putting people in a potentially violent situation. It involved solving an already violent situation. It makes soldiers uncomfortable to know that certain people look at them in a sexual way they don't approve of. It prevents the trust and the cohesion required to be an effective fighting force.

Last time I checked there were women serving in the army, how would this be any different? It's not like every gay man is crippled by uncontrollable sexual urges, they're simply attracted to other men.

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course.

Espada12

70% of Americans support this.That includes 53% of conservatives and 60% of Republicans. I would call that ready.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

A. They see it as a distraction, because it adds a sexual element to an otherwise non-sexual environment. B. Like it or not, a considerable number of people in the military do not have a high opinion of gay people. Many of them will be prone to violence toward gays, whether the gay soldiers are flaunting their sexuality or not. This is not coming from me. This is coming from my brother-in-law, my cousin, and several of my friends who are in the army and the marines. Whether it should be that way or not, it is, and this needs to be done gradually.

Elephant_Couple

I disagree completely.. The civil rights movements in the 50's and 60's didn't gradually attack the Jim Crowe laws.. Prejudice of any kind should not be accepted in the military what so ever.. There is entirely too much accepted prejudice as there is for military.. And your going to have to explain a sexual element, because the majority of gays in the military do not flaunt themselves, and the radical majority of times they are completely cluesless what goes on around them..

And to be fair there already is a sexual tone in military. They don't put you through a boot camp for fun, they do it to break down your individuality.. To gain a love for the man or woman next to you..

The civil rights movement didn't involve putting people in a potentially violent situation. It involved solving an already violent situation. It makes soldiers uncomfortable to know that certain people look at them in a sexual way they don't approve of. It prevents the trust and the cohesion required to be an effective fighting force.

.. Uhh sure it did? The Cold War ring a bell? People like Martin Luther King Jr. or American Indian Movement were put under FBI watch for being supposed communist threats.. We could argue that they were adding a instability to one of the most dangerous times in history to which a nuclear holocaust was the most likely to happen.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course.

GabuEx

70% of Americans support this. I would call that ready.

I'm for this but that is America. The military is still very macho with the majority wanting nothing to do anything with gays. This is going to have to go trough some growing pains those who mistreat gays should get punished quick and severely to get the message across.

[QUOTE="zeorshadow19"]This law was idiotic to begin with. Who you love shouldn't determine weather or not you can choose to put your life on the line for this country.sboyer2

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course.

kidsmelly

70% of Americans support this. I would call that ready.

I'm for this but that is America. The military is still very macho with the majority wanting nothing to do anything with gays. This is going to have to go trough some growing pains those who mistreat gays should get punished quick and severely to get the message across.

Well yes, but he said America, so I responded with America. :P

On one hand I agree that there could be problems... but on the other hand I feel that this might be a case of, "If not now, when?" Nothing dissipates prejudice like exposure.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course.

GabuEx

70% of Americans support this. I would call that ready.

That's the public not the army itself, I should really word my statement better. Didn't that guy who went on a rampage the other day claim there was still a ton of racism in the military? Hasan or whatever?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course.

Espada12

70% of Americans support this. I would call that ready.

That's the public not the army itself, I should really word my statement better. Didn't that guy who went on a rampage the other day claim there was still a ton of racism in the military? Hasan or whatever?

It was more prejudice towards religious belief, namely Islam.. If anything this stuff needs to be stomped down immediately.. Its childish and immature biggotry, and really goes against everything the military represents as a disciplinedand competent fighting force in my opinion..

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't think America is ready for this, I could be wrong of course.

Espada12

70% of Americans support this. I would call that ready.

That's the public not the army itself, I should really word my statement better. Didn't that guy who went on a rampage the other day claim there was still a ton of racism in the military? Hasan or whatever?

So you think it would be a good idea to only allow white people to serve in the military because someone went on a shooting spree? Don't you find this a little ironic seeing as how we are fighting a war on terrorism right now?