Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the 110th Congress.

[JeremyWestenn]

I posted this in the politics discussion forum but can't seem to get any real responses. Thought I'd repost it here.



The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is probably the bill that I am looking the most forward to in the 110th Congress. The lady that managed to overturn our incumbenent Republican did not necessarily announce her support for it but said that she would repeal the policy that this bill was made to do itself.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is the Congressional repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The Republicans have essentially killed it everytime it was submitted, drowning it in subcommitte and whatnot. Last session it wasn't even brought to the floor. I'm curious as to what the rest of the DU'ers here think will come of this bill. We've never had a chance to overturn it before but now I think we can get some real progress on it. Barney Frank I believe even said that would finally be able to hold hearings on this again and subsequently that would get some massive traction going.

My question to you people is if you think the Democratically controlled Congress will and can pass this bill? I should also mention that polls show that about 70% of the nation, I can't think of them now but if you go to sldn.org you should be able to find sources, disagree with banning gays in the military. Essentially, most people think you should be able to serve in the armed forces and still be able to have a love life.

As a gay person this clearly means a lot to me, as a young man who is more then likely going to enlist in the Navy it means a lot more to me. I want a normal life. I'm 19 years old, I've never really been kissed (I've been kissed twice, once when I was 10 and the other two times it was absolutely the most mortifying sexual experiences of my life), I've never been in love, and if this policy still stands it is probably most likely that I will not do any of those things for a very long time. Which I can deal with, it's apart of the package. I'm just hoping and praying the package get's changed.

Look forward to your responses.

[MsUnderstood]

1. Wow. . .I didn't even know this was an opportunity

I didn't even know the don't ask don't tell policy was up for review/reppeal.

My opinion: allowing a branch of our government to discriminate against a group in society based on fears and stereotypes is wrong, and the law needs to be eliminated, allowing gays to serve and removing the ability to punish a segment of our society.

If you haven't yet read it find a copy of Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military which examines the history of gays in the military (I think up until just before or just after DADT).

[adamblast]

2. I eagerly await the repeal of DADT, and would have proudly served...

...had it been possible when I was young.

Best of luck if you are truly planning on enlisting anyway--just remember that however proudly you serve, you can be thrown out on a moment's notice with no justification. There is no safety net for you; and any one of your straight friends can fuck you over and ruin your life with little or no effort. You're asking to be mistreated, so I hope the pride you take in serving a country that has no respect for you is worth it.

[JeremyWestenn]

3. I hope so.

And the pride to serve will be worth it. Staying silent doesn't change anything.

[adamblast]

4. But staying silent is just what you'll *have* to do...

...unless this Congress repeals DADT, which I sure wouldn't count on. Kudos and good luck nonetheless!

You asked if I/we/anyone thought Congress would do it? Naw, I think they're afraid it would help the Repubs keep the White House. I don't expect much improvement in the Democrat's overall approach to gay rights. We're still a hot potato they're afraid to touch. (It should go without saying that I'd love to be wrong, and realize the fight must go on.)

[racaulk]

5. It would be great if DADT were repealed!

I think I would have joined the military if it were not for DADT. When I first started college, I was considering becoming an officer after graduation. But DADT was enacted while I was in college, so I decided against it. Now at the age of 31, if DADT were repealed today I don't think I would reconsider joining the military. I feel a little too established in my career and in my life to make that big of a change, and I'm also getting a little too old... ;)

I hope for your sake that DADT is repealed soon so that you can enjoy the military experience that you desire.

A few questions though:

If DADT were to be repealed, would it have to pass both houses of the Legislature? Could it be repealed by a simple majority vote, or would the repeal have to be approved by a supermajority (this could present a problem in the Senate)? And assuming the repeal did get passed in Congress, what's to stop * from vetoing it?

Unfortunately, I think that we're still going to be stuck with DADT for a while, but I hope that I am wrong. Thanks for a thoughtful post, and best of luck if you decide military enlistment is right for you.

And welcome to DU! :pals:

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. A repeal of an existing law is the same as any change in the law

Simple majority in the House, simple majority in the Senate, stroke of a pen by the President.

But I'm definitely not holding my breath. Homophobia runs very deep in both of the major parties: witness who signed DADT into law.

[kiahzero]

7. DADT was a compromise and a step forward.

Clinton wanted full and open service, Republicans blocked him.

[adamblast]

8. To be more precise, DADT was the status quo, dressed up. to look

...to look like an improvement. The military still reserves the right to investigate anyone they suspect may be gay, and throw them out if the person *is*, whether they admit to it or not. In fact, treatment of gays in the military has been just as bad or worse under DADT than before.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Clinton signed the bill anyway

He could have vetoed it. He did not.

Then again, he could have just ordered the change as Commander In Chief, just as Truman did when he integrated the US military. But that would have taken backbone and strength of character.

[adamblast]

10. An unconscienable betrayal...

...Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an unconscienable betrayal, as was signing the DoMA.

The fact that I'd still consider voting for a Clinton shows how bad the *rest* of the politicians are.

[justin899]

12. Yeah nearly 13000 discharges later along with an ongoing witchhunt is a real "step forward"

On what delusional planet do people come up with spin like this?

DADT has been a disaster. It most certainly was no "step forward" and even Clinton now admits this.

Democrats controlled both Houses and the WH back when this was passed. It was due to complaints from Clinton's own party which led to this "compromise." In fact, Democrats didn't pass a single gay rights bill at the federal level when they controlled both houses and the WH. They only managed to pass anti-gay "compromises" like this.

Nearly 40 years after Stonewall with blind allegiance from the GLBT community for Democrats and STILL NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.

NOT ONE gay rights piece of legislation have they ever passed at the federal level. Not one.

Gays are the ONLY minority NOT covered by any federal anti-discrimination laws, and it's not solely the fault of the Republicans.

Unless and until gays wake the fuck up and DEMAND something in return for our support from the Dems they will forever take us wholly for granted!

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. We do demand. And get b-ch slapped for daring to mouth off.

Go back through the arcives, and see how often a gay person has pointed out the Democratic Party's atrocious record of civil rights for gay people, only to be told to shut up and vote as ordered. Why? "We aren't as bad as the Republicans." :eyes:

I have heard plenty of reasons to vote against the GOP because of their treatment of gay people. I have yet to hear word one on why to vote for the Democratic Party because of their treatment of gay people.

Oops. I'm not allowed to ask for change; that will get my posts yanked and me banned. Silly me!

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Well, it seems reasonable to me (and to many others too) that . . .

.

Well, it seems reasonable to me (and to many others too) that . . . if the military requires more voluntary enlistments over time, then how can it not allow DADT to lapse or be rescinded? Tis the only sensible way to go. But then again am I granting rationality to some of the yoyos who put this (and keep this) idiot policy into place?



.