Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Passes in the House
AP
Updated at 6:25 p.m. ET
After impassioned debate both for and against the measure, the House of Representatives today passed a standalone bill to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The measure passed by a vote of 250 to 175, and the House broke into applause at the announcement of the final vote.
The measure was introduced Tuesday, in the final days of the Democratic-led 111th Congress, after the Senate last week failed to pass a defense authorization bill that included a repeal of the policy. "Don't ask," which has been in effect since 1993, prohibits gays from serving openly in the military.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that repealing the law would fix a "fundamental unfairness in our nation" and "honor the service and sacrifice of all who dedicated their lives to protecting the American people."
While the initial repeal measure failed in the Senate, Democrats are now confident they can find 60 votes there to pass this standalone bill. The party is working against time, however. Before they take up the "don't ask" repeal, Senate Democrats are committed to taking up other significant issues, like the ratification of a nuclear treaty with Russia and a government-funding bill.
The Senate is attempting to take up all of these matters before breaking for Christmas recess. This effort represents the "don't ask" repeal's best chance for passage, since Republicans would be unlikely to put the issue up for a vote again once they take control of the House next year.
Both Democrats and Republicans took to the House floor today to appeal to their colleagues' highest ideals.
"Today we have a chance to do what is right," said Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.), a sponsor of the bill and an Iraq War veteran. "Not just for gay and lesbian troops serving in our military, but what is right for national security."
He cited an extensive Pentagon study recently released, Pentagon study, which concluded that allowing gays to serve openly would not have long-lasting negative consequences on the military. Murphy pointed out the study showed that a majority of military troops approve of the policy's repeal.
"Our troops are the best of the best, and they deserve a Congress that puts their safety and our collective national security over rigid partisan interests and close-minded ideology."
Republican Rep. Mike Pence (Indiana) insisted his opposition to the repeal is not based on morals but on what is best for the military.
"As a conservative, I have a particular world view about certain moral questions, [but] they do not bear upon this issue," he said. "This business is not taking palce in a vacuum. We are a nation at war."
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) also cited his concern for military cohesiveness and called the repeal a "bomb of social experimentation." He discounted the Pentagon study, calling it "flawed from the get go." Fleming argued it focused more on how to implement a repeal, instead of whether to implement it.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) expressed more vehement concern about unit cohesiveness in the face of a repeal. He said that countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military are "toward the end of their existences as a great nation."
Some Democrats urged their colleagues to vote for the repeal in the name of civil rights. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), recalling his experiences from the 1960's civil rights movement, said, "I don't need a survey to tell me what's right when it comes to human rights. I will not ask people who are willing to die for my country to live a lie for my country."
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 197 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 360 Comments
The only issues that I have with it (being that I am in the military) is that sleeping quarters/restrooms are seperated by sex (men don't sleep/shower in the same areas with women) based on the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. Anyone who has been through boot camp along with other schools will know that the only option for a shower is community showers with several other members of the same sex. So I am more curious as to how the government is going to rectify this issue. One solution is that they can room gay males with hetersexual females and vice versa. But the problem with this is that many heterosexual males might pretend they are gay in order to sleep and shower in the same areas with females which would create a problem. It seems like a logistical/organizational nightmare. This is not to say that the policy should not have been repealed, just bringing to light real world (military) issues need to be addressed. Also there is the issue that there are many closed minded people in the military, probably more so on the male side than the female side. I feel that gay or lesbian members may be putting themselves and some level of risk if they are open about their sexual orientation. And as much as people like to talk about how ignorant or closed minded people are, they still have to accept the fact that people have the right to conclude their own opinions and feelings about things. The good thing about the miliary is that harrassing or hazing people can get get a person into tremendous amounts of trouble if not discharged all together. I just know that it is going to be a huge adjustment across all services. Not just because gay or lesbians are allowed to openly serve but now the military has to accept the fact that they serve in our ranks. This means figuring out sleeping quarter/shower room issues, developing training on different sexual orientations/homosexual awareness (this will teach the lesser educated that they will indeed not be raped by gays or lesbians and they might not even be attractive to them), completely getting rid of community showers (not because I am scared of gay people but for the same reason women don't want men showering with them), and probably many other things that I have not really thought about right now.
In the end I am honored and proud to serve with anyone willing to uphold the honor and integrity of their service, country and flag.
by countrycuz1 December 16, 2010 8:50 AM EST
We need to see studies as to how repealing DADT affects combat effectiveness.
voir l'?tude, pourquoi faire??
prend le prochain vol vers l'afghanistan
tu constateras par toi meme, il para?t que les USA et leurs alli?s ont presque gagn? la guerre.
***********************************
see the paper, why?
takes the next flight to afghanistan
you'll see the result, it appears that the U.S. and its allies have almost won the war.au revoir
On December 3, the Los Angeles Times ran an article about a Baptist Army Chaplain, Dale Goetz, killed in Afghanistan by a road-side bomb - the very sort of bomb that a skilled bomb technician like Brian Muller, could have disabled.
On a gut level, I feel a sense that justice has been served. Undoubtedly Dale Goetz spread a lot of the homophobia that resulted in Brian Muller's discharge. I also can't help wondering - if Muller had remained in the service, perhaps Goetz would still be alive.
Beyond the irony of 2 days of news reports, I can't help thinking about the valuable people that the military loses because of its homophobia, men like Brian Muller. I can't help wondering how many servicemen are going to die because of the homophobia of Muller's commanding officer.
By opposing DADT, John McCain and the GOP are endangering the lives of servicemen. They need to accept responsibility for the deaths that occur. But they won't. Once again the GOP is the party of NO responsibility.
In Madison WI a prison gaurd used his authority to force several inmates to engauge in sex with him. Dont people think that this same thing could happen in the military if a higher ranked person used their authority to have sex with another person.
Does it happen now with senior officers of the opposite sex forcing themselves on subordinates?
If and when it happens with heterosexual sex, isn't it considered a "punishable offense"?
Why would that suddenly be a problem in a "mixed orientation" military, and differently than from a "straight only" military?
We need to see studies as to how repealing DADT affects combat effectiveness. That poll last month was one step, but we need further studies. I have no problem with repeal as long as the military can determine it will not hinder combat effectiveness. That's the bottom line.
Funny - no one needed ANY "studies" before implementing DADT, but "studies" are somehow mandatory before repealing it.
That's like McCain saying that he wouldn't consider repeal because he thought that MOST service people were against it. When the polls came out showing that 70% of the service people were in favor of repeal, he demonized the polling process.
I see ... another politician who knows more than the experts. Reminds us
Frist in the Schiavo story.