Repealing DADT Struck Down by the Senate

[Darias]

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

_____
SOURCE

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
_______

1.) What do y'all think of this?

a.) Is this a good thing? How so?

b.) Is this a bad thing? Why?


2.) What damages morale more? Repealing DADT, or the Senate's decision today to keep it in place?


3.) What do you believe are the chances of repealing DADT in the future?

[TheLibertarian]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

[micatala]

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

_____
SOURCE

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
_______

1.) What do y'all think of this?

Disappointed. The policy needs to go.

Infuriated that Republicans continue to act as though 60 votes is the new standard for passing any and every thing that comes before them.

Particularly infuriated at McCain who said he would be for repeal if military leaders came out for it. They have. Now he has flip-flopped.

By comparison, there have been the same amount of cloture motions between January of 2009 and today as there were between World War I and the moon landing. The GOP has shut down the Senate altogether.

It is just scandalous. They are even filibustering routine appointments.

If this was just one of a few filibusters on a small set of items of principle, that would be one thing.

I almost hope Republicans do get a majority, just so the Dems can feed their own medicine to them for a while. It is just ridiculous.

a.) Is this a good thing? How so?

b.) Is this a bad thing? Why?

I view it as a bad thing. I would say Reid once again handled this poorly, but this policy needs to go no matter how badly the machinations of the senate are working. It is discriminatory.

2.) What damages morale more? Repealing DADT, or the Senate's decision today to keep it in place?

I really don't know. I am not persuaded there would be that much damage to morale by repealing it, but accept some in the military would be quite upset and that there could be some morale effect. The damage of keeping it is probably much worse, clearly so at least for those who are gay.

3.) What do you believe are the chances of repealing DADT in the future?

I think it will eventually be repealed. Unfortunately, I could see where it will take some number of years now. In the long run, more Republicans will come over for repeal as opinion, especially generationally, shifts.

[Board]

1. Mixed feelings... explained below.

a. It is a good thing that the bill failed. This was a bill for defense spending. This was not a DADT repeal bill. Let a DADT repeal be its own issue of its own merits outside of defense spending.

b. It is also a bad thing that DADT was not repealed. But again, let it stand on its own. Earmarks are not good for any bill and we need to work to curb this practice by our government.

2. I have no personal experience with the military or the current state of morale as it pertains to DADT. One could probably argue both sides. The right decision for our country may not be the right decision for our people who are not ready to accept the repeal. I side with caution on this point.

3. I think it has a good chance if we let it stand on its own. This is a civil liberties case and should not be earmarked into an expense bill during an election year.

[East of Eden]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

Since when do Republicans claim to be the fringe group known as libertarians?

[TheLibertarian]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

Since when do Republicans claim to be the fringe group known as libertarians?

They certainly like to rape our rhetoric when it serves their purposes, and never seem to like following through on it.

[East of Eden]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

Since when do Republicans claim to be the fringe group known as libertarians?

They certainly like to rape our rhetoric when it serves their purposes, and never seem to like following through on it.

You don't own the desire for smaller government and less taxes.

[TheLibertarian]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

Since when do Republicans claim to be the fringe group known as libertarians?

They certainly like to rape our rhetoric when it serves their purposes, and never seem to like following through on it.

You don't own the desire for smaller government and less taxes.

Except the Republican concept of "smaller government" is only ever about less taxes. They take what they like and discard the rest.

[WinePusher]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

Since when do Republicans claim to be the fringe group known as libertarians?

They certainly like to rape our rhetoric when it serves their purposes, and never seem to like following through on it.

Who says it's your rhetoric? What's contradictory about your position is that you claim to promote liberty, yet you seem perfectly fine allowing people of other nations to live under tyranny.

[East of Eden]

Of course they did. Their kowtowing to the religious authoritarians puts to the lie any claim they have to libertarianism.

Since when do Republicans claim to be the fringe group known as libertarians?

They certainly like to rape our rhetoric when it serves their purposes, and never seem to like following through on it.

Who says it's your rhetoric? What's contradictory about your position is that you claim to promote liberty, yet you seem perfectly fine allowing people of other nations to live under tyranny.

I believe in voting for the rightward most viable candidate, who in most cases is a Republican.