Congress approves repeal of DADT

[213th]

WASHINGTON -- In a landmark vote, the Senate on Saturday ended the Clinton-era ban on gays serving openly in the military, marking a major triumph for President Obama, liberals and the gay community.
The final vote to end the Pentagon's 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy was 65-31, drawing support from eight Republicans.
The bill now goes to the White House for Obama's signature. He is expected to sign the bill into law next week, a senior White House aide told Fox News.


Congress Overturns Military Ban of Gays Serving Openly, Sends Bill to Obama's Desk - FoxNews.com


I'm in favor of the repeal. I don't see how it's going to affect operational readiness.

[MacLean]

Overdue, and a copout.

As President he could have done it by order.

[Jks9199]

Yeah -- but then he might have lost some votes. Realize that everything he does from this point on will be aimed at getting reelected. Sure, more than a half of what he's done to date had the same goal -- but from now on? No secret.

Overall -- I've got mixed feelings. I've worked with gay cops, male and female. No issues with them due to their sexuality. But I know lots of service members and vets oppose removing it -- but, at the time, lots opposed racial integration, too. Like I said -- mixed feelings.

[IndianaFuzz]

Even though I have no intentions of joining the military any time soon, I'm so very happy at this development. Its good to know that if I chose to, I now can without having to hide or compromise my integrity. If only my state (or my country) had laws to protect me at work. But every victory along the way is one more step closer to being equal.

I agree that I'm not going to be patting Obama on the back for this, because quite frankly I think it happened in spite of him, not because of him. But I'll just be happy that it happened. And its better that it happened this way than just by a judge's order.

[Pudge]

Long overdue.

[Buttercup]

It is long overdue.

[luckyme]

I gotta agree with all the above. In a fire fight, I would have to think that would be the last thing on anyone's mind. I never understood the reason for this law anyway.

[Bob Loblaw]

We're getting ever-so-closer to having equal civil rights for ALL Americans.

[MacLean]

Eh, keep in mind serving in the military is not a civil right.

At issue is the fact that being gay does not impact your ability to serve, and thus should not be considered.

If you act like a jackass about *whoever* you sleep with, you're on your way out on a rail.

[Jks9199]

Overdue, and a copout.

As President he could have done it by order.

I heard something on the radio the other day explaining that the military actually wanted and preferred the legislative approach rather than an executive order or judicial mandate. I don't remember exactly why, but it had something to do with some issues of authority and blocking some other issues and avenues of fighting it.

As I said -- I still have mixed feelings. It really strikes me that most of the justifications for the old policy were almost the same as the justifications to avoid racial integration. I did hear one semi-legitimate concern: restroom and shower facilities. I can see why someone might be rather uncomfortable with the idea of sharing restroom or showers (especially gang showers!) with someone who might be sexually aroused by them... but, let's be real. It's going on anyway. I don't know who at the gym is straight or gay. I don't know who in the past may have been straight or gay. And, outside of the perverts who get busted for soliciting sodomy in shower stalls and public restrooms... who wants to take a date or even just hook up in the head, anyway?

[MacLean]

Dude, if some gay guy was checking out my package in the shower in basic, I never had time to notice it.

[Five-0]

Dude, if some gay guy was checking out my package in the shower in basic, I never had time to notice it.

When you see it you will LOL!!!!

[Jks9199]

Dude, if some gay guy was checking out my package in the shower in basic, I never had time to notice it.

That's another part of the point I was aiming at and missed entirely. (I blame my 2 year old who decided to "help" daddy type...)

[MacLean]

LOL, I gotcha. I was just generating quote worthy material for Five-0.

[bayern]

Now the fun starts (no pun intended). Lets see:

Shower/bathing and toilets. Which one will the guy/gal or the gal/guy use?

Will the Military pay for sex change operations?

Over the many years, homosexuals were discharged for various reasons (usually misconduct/unsuitability, etc. Will these discharges be overturned? Will benefits be awarded retroactively? VA benefits. Usually when an individual get a Bad Conduct Discharge (which most homosexuals got), they are denied most VA benefits. Will these discharges be overturned to Honorable, thus granting full VA benefits?

The Military usually follows State Laws for certain conduct on Post. What about gay marriages in those states that allow it?

There are thousands of questions being asked and the Anointed One stated that he expects the military (Dept of Defense Gates and the Charmian of the JCS) to have answers and policies in place within the next few weeks.

When Officers and Enlisted start comming out, there are going to be suprises and shock within the ranks and there will be reprocussions.

I see a social upheaval in the Military that will effect how the military operates and will effect National Security for at least a decade.

Back in the fifty's, when the military was desecrated there were problems, sure, but the military had started desecration well before it was made an order. (the Officers Corps were the ones that dragged their feet; the enlisted had few problems).

[IndianaFuzz]

Shower/bathing and toilets. Which one will the guy/gal or the gal/guy use?

I've heard that it will still be all men using the same facilities, and all women using the same facilities. I've said it elsewhere on here but in our locker room, the straight officers don't seem to have the slightest problem being in there with me, and don't seem to do anything differently than they normally would. I'm guessing that part of that is simply not caring, and part of it is that I have given them absolutely no reason to think I'm trying to get off over them. I'm the only one, it seems, actually who is more concerned. I very much make sure that I'm keeping covered up as much as possible, just because I don't want them thinking that I'm trying to show them my junk. The other guys don't seem to care if they are naked around me, but honestly I really don't even want to see them be naked. I try to intentionally look away if I notice someone is not covered up.

What's with the "guy/gal" and "gal/guy"? I'm hoping that isn't a signal that you are ignorant enough to think that a gay man has to be girly, and that a gay woman has to be manly... I know that some people are examples of the stereotypes. But I think that would be generalizing WAY too much here. I'm a police officer. I could just as easily be a soldier/sailor/marine. Ask any of the O/R members that have met me at Police Week if they thought I came off as a "guy/gal"...

Will the Military pay for sex change operations?

What? The T(transgender) of GLBT is a VERY small fraction of the GLBT population. But I don't think that anyone with sense would try to argue that if someone that was an active member of the military wanted to go through a sex change, that the military should pay for it. They would simply argue that the person should not be kicked out or treated different just for that they want the change.

Over the many years, homosexuals were discharged for various reasons (usually misconduct/unsuitability, etc. Will these discharges be overturned? Will benefits be awarded retroactively? VA benefits. Usually when an individual get a Bad Conduct Discharge (which most homosexuals got), they are denied most VA benefits. Will these discharges be overturned to Honorable, thus granting full VA benefits?

This is a simple answer, I think. All members of the military have to follow the UCMJ. If ANYONE is kicked out for misconduct, it's dishonorable. A gay soldier getting in trouble for doing another gay soldier in the barracks gets treated/punished the same as a str8 male soldier doing a str8 female soldier.

As for overturning anything, I would think only honorable discharges that were discharges for simply BEING gay, and not for misconduct would possibly be eligible for being overturned. Or maybe they won't be overturned at all, but the person would simply be eligible to re-enlist if they were discharged for being gay, and not for anything now viewed as misconduct. I'm guessing the latter would probably be how it goes.

The Military usually follows State Laws for certain conduct on Post. What about gay marriages in those states that allow it?

I think this is a simple answer as well. If for a given policy, the military has to follow the state law on it, then for anything that takes place in a state where marriage is legal, then anything that is based on marriage would follow the law there, but not when operations moved out of said state. That would make sense to me. The stickier point would be benefits for family. In essence the military could then transfer a GLBT member to a location in a state where marriage is not legal in order to avoid having to dish out any benefits to their family. That would have to be an issue resolved (by making marriage a national thing) later by either courts or (preferably so) by legislation.

There are thousands of questions being asked and the Anointed One stated that he expects the military (Dept of Defense Gates and the Charmian of the JCS) to have answers and policies in place within the next few weeks.

I agree here that it might be too much to ask....at least to come to agreement quickly. I think getting it done right is more important than getting it done right now. I also think that with people now trying to praise Obama for this, their praise is misplaced. I think the repeal passed in spite of Obama, not because of him. Really I think some credit should go to the republicans (who many would expect to be against it or once actually stood against it) that voted for the repeal.

When Officers and Enlisted start comming out, there are going to be suprises and shock within the ranks and there will be reprocussions.

No doubt that some will have a problem when someone comes out. But I think the amount of people who would give a damn is at least smaller than you might think. The younger the military gets and the more time that passes, less and less military personnel actually care about it. Then the other thing to consider is that after a while, since people will be allowed to be themselves from the start when first enlisting, this will become mostly a moot point as it will be less likely for there to be a big moment when a secret is revealed. I suppose it is possible that someone might not figure out they are gay until they've already been in the military for a while, but that will become quite rare most likely. But again, if someone who has problems steps over the line and violates the UMCJ, then there are policies in place to handle that. It will most likely end up being very much like when blacks were finally allowed to serve.

I see a social upheaval in the Military that will effect how the military operates and will effect National Security for at least a decade.

Again I don't think it will be anywhere near as big of an issue as you think. Not saying there won't be issues, but I think it will not come anywhere near being a "social upheaval".

Back in the fifty's, when the military was desecrated there were problems, sure, but the military had started desecration well before it was made an order. (the Officers Corps were the ones that dragged their feet; the enlisted had few problems).

I think you meant desegregated, not desecrated. Or at least I hope so.

But again I think it is a wiser move to take whatever time is realistically needed to implement the new policies. The important thing is the end goal. And at least the witch hunts can stop. I wonder how much time and effort that will save.

[Jks9199]

Regarding bathrooms and shower/bathing facilities...

Let's be real. A month ago, you had gay service members using the same facilities, right? They just couldn't be open about their sexuality. Were some of them turned on -- or at least seeing something they liked? Probably. But, maybe I'm weird... I don't find the bathroom or shower very romantic, as a general rule. The guys I've caught hooking up in bathrooms? Most of them were at least a little screwy to begin with...

[MacLean]

This won't even be an issue in ten years.

The people who can't hack it will be out of the service, and those that are doing their jobs won't even be thinking about it.