Don't Ask, Don't Tell fails Senate

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's too bad....the defense authorization bill seemed like such a great place to put a number of unrelated provisions....:rolleyes:
 
If I am correct this was a part of the Dream Bill, and Obama pledged to VETO it if it included the new engine for the 35.

I don't see this as a death blow. I see this as politics as usual.

I stated days ago, Reid attached this to the bill because of Lady Gaga. He knew it was going to fail. And he knew if it passed, Obama would veto. According to reports Reid stated he had 55 votes, not enough to override a veto.
 
DREAM and the repeal of DADT were part of the defense authorization bill...that little bill that keeps the military running.

In my opinion, it's an attempt to force it through by putting a gun to the head of the biggest consumer of U.S. tax dollars....the Defense Dept., and it doesn't look like it worked this time around.
 
This issue definitely has become all about politics. Including the lady Gag Gag issue. While I'm disappointed that the DADT issue isn't going to be addressed, I am really against pork. (I don't like bills where something the majority doesn't want, is passed because they NEED the rest of the bill).

I think the military should finish their study; see how the military will be affected; see how to handle the logistics of rescinding the policy; then address the DADT policy on it's own. That's the way this should be handled.

Unfortunately, Reed and others are making it about votes. I believe that half the congress and whitehouse will take whichever position they believe will benefit them. Not what they believe in. They mention how repealing the DADT policy was one of Obama's campaign promises. Well, he's been in office almost 2 years, and he hasn't really come through on any campaign promises. So why should this be any different.

Anyway; I'm glad that the military study will be done first. I believe that had to be done prior to any decision being shoved down the military's throat. I just hope that they can get the study done and completed soon. This way, this issue can be addressed properly, and adapted/rescinded/changed/etc... properly and the military can move on.
 
I agree with CC. It should be discussed on its merits and through a systematic process. If you are going to make a big change, you need to be able to articulate why and how.

Sticking it as an rider to a bill that is considered vital is the cheap and easy political solution, not the good solution.
 
Yes, it's all just Capitol Hill Politics 101. Same play different characters; too bad the American populous lost control of their elected officials long,long ago.
 
Exactly. If you want something passed, stick it on its own bill and let it be examined. If it's up and up, there's no reason to try to hide anything.
 
Christcorp said:
I think the military should finish their study; see how the military will be affected; see how to handle the logistics of rescinding the policy; then address the DADT policy on it's own. That's the way this should be handled.
Click to expand...

All of us involved in defense research at RAND were briefed twice (some three times) over the last two days on DADT. They explained the 1993 policy analysis performed by RAND at the request of Clinton. They were asked to update it this year by two senators via DoD. The update is in review, but is being held by Congress until next year (at this point) and its being kept tight. There is a reason. The 1993 study found "sexual orientation to be germane to military service." The teasers we can get (from the primary researchers on it) are that the update has overwhelming evidence now to support that same thing.

RAND also looked at the surveys sent out by DoD. Something like 430,000 sent, only about 120,000 responded. RAND was irritated by some active leading in the questions and the questionable nature of the language in the survey. They have still found that many of the common concerns did show up, but no where near the level expected.

Basically, they told us that the DoD survey is largely useless. About the only thing it did was add a psychological factor to military members. It isn't influencing the debate and won't add any relevant data that isn't already out there, unfortunately.

So RAND is being asked to hold the report as not to influence current debate or decision making. Funny, RAND is supposed to provide this stuff to help debate and decision making...

So, that's a little additional information I learned this week. Also learned about biomass use, police body armor, drug policy, health-care, terrorist attack insurance, oil taxes, the gulf oil spill, and systems integrators if you have any questions on those! lol
 
And as soon as the survey is release it will be held up and used by politicians to say "see the military sees a need for change too."
 
Does the President need the Congress to make a decision concerning military personnel policy?

As CIC, I can find no Constitutional requirement for the Senate or House to "advise or consent" on his orders concerning the Army or Navy other than a declaration of war.

It must be a funding/appropriations related issue, otherwise an "executive decision" should be all that's needed for the CIC to make a policy change in the military.
 
Luigi59 said:
Does the President need the Congress to make a decision concerning military personnel policy?

As CIC, I can find no Constitutional requirement for the Senate or House to "advise or consent" on his orders concerning the Army or Navy other than a declaration of war.

It must be a funding/appropriations related issue, otherwise an "executive decision" should be all that's needed for the CIC to make a policy change in the military.
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

DADT is mandated by 10 U.S.C. Sec 654
 
I read somewhere that even had the bill passed, it could not be signed into law until Obama signed off on it and he had promised to wait until the survey was completed.

Not saying he would go against that promise, but my assumption was it had to be both, not just one or the other.

I rarely watch Rachel Maddows, but man she went ballistic last night. Her entire show was dedicated to this failure.
 
Luigi59 said:
Does the President need the Congress to make a decision concerning military personnel policy?

As CIC, I can find no Constitutional requirement for the Senate or House to "advise or consent" on his orders concerning the Army or Navy other than a declaration of war.

It must be a funding/appropriations related issue, otherwise an "executive decision" should be all that's needed for the CIC to make a policy change in the military.
Click to expand...



When it's part of a U.S. Code, yes.
 
Personally, I support repealing it, but recent actions have "Ready, Fire, Aim!" written all over them.
 
I support the repeal too. However, I really feel we need to address civil unions first.

Many military bennies are tied to dependents. Look at BAH with Dependents and without. Look at PCSing...your per diem is tied to if you have dependents.
Look at tours overseas, accompanied or unaccompanied. If your HOR doesn't recognize your union, as a gay member you are still boffed!

You can't get on base housing.
You can't get medical bennies
They can't shop on base without the AD member
They can't get job preference as a spouse

Yes, it would be great to repeal DADT, but there are many other issues besides openly serving when it comes to morale.

Someone needs to explain to me how the homosexual in a committed relationship, but can't marry because the law of the HOR, which is tied to their AD bennies, will be so excited when they are posted overseas and their spouse has no medical coverage, that their BAH is without dependents, and they had to pay out of their own pocket for the airline ticket compared to the homosexual who has an HOR that recognizes civil unions, thus the military gives that member all of the benefits of a heterosexual couple.

If they do not address this issue, I believe the repeal of DADT will face the same legal issues that DADT has faced from a civil liberties issue.
 
Pima; you're talking into the wind. Many of us have mentioned these very issues that need to be addressed, prior to the DADT policy being changed or rescinded. And you just touched on the civil union issues. There's also the single person, dormitories, room mates, and many other issues.

Unfortunately, there is a core of individuals that don't want to hear or discuss these issues. They think a stroke of the pen, rescind DADT, and any issues that happen, they can work out as they go. And of course, if we try and discuss, debate, or even argue the issues, we are bigots and homophobes and don't really want to change the DADT policy. I have decided that these people are just wrong. I won't debate or discuss with them. Their ignorance and prejudice won't cover up the truth, so I just won't respond.

Hopefully, the military can finish their studies, then choose a course of action. If they are going to tie their decision into our country's "Social Norms", then they are definitely going to have to address the "Civil Union" issues. Either way, this isn't going to be as simple as rescinding the DADT policy, and making the military open/pro gay the next day.
 
Christcorp said:
There's also the single person, dormitories, room mates, and many other issues.
Click to expand...

I'll reiterate the RAND findings -- the social issues are largely irrelevant. For example, the public showering example often given: for females, no issue; for males, minor. I can't quantify minor, don't have the data available. The RAND report found that the social qualities (quarters, showers, foxhole, you name it) are a non-issue based on their findings. The only real problem is what Pima is talking about. They need to deal with benefits. The social issue is not the problem now, its the larger implications fiscally for repealing DADT which need solving.
 
I understand what you're saying, but this is the military. Which means, they cover all situations. However minor it may be. In no way do I believe that ANY of these issues are obstacles to the eventual rescinding of the DADT policy. I don't believe they are. My point is/was/will always be;

"You can't just rescind this policy TODAY; consider everybody equal and pro-gay tomorrow; and say: OK, that's over with, what's next on the agenda?"

It didn't work that way with racism/segregation and the military or females, and it won't work with gays in the military. It doesn't have to take 5+ years, but it's not going to be passed, let's say today, and proclaim that this Monday everything is perfect. Not counting the legal issues which Pima brings up with civil unions and such, (Which can take time; especially if common state laws and social norms aren't in line with it); but it will take some time for social acceptance. Internally and externally. Probably within a year to eighteen months. Now some people may believe that you can just tell the rest of the military: "Too bad, that's the way it is, shut up and live with it"; but the military can't operate like that. The whole concept of the military is team work. That means ensuring everyone is part of the same team. There are still issues with racism, but you can't honestly believe that TODAY's attitude is exactly the way it was the day after military segregation ended.

Anyway; these are not obstacles in stopping rescinding the DADT policy. But the way some of the "activists" speak, they actually expect that if they're loud enough, the policy can be rescinded in 1 day and the next day the military will be a totally happy place. That's not practical or realistic.
 
I wonder what the fiscal cost will be, because if you assume that 10-20% of military members are homosexual, and if 50% of them are in a committed relationship, the benefits side will implode from a fiscal stance.

Housing alone could be insane. If the avg is 800 a month in BAH, or 10K a yr for each of these members, that could be millions within the 1st yr.

That does not include health benefits, especially now when many military dependents are being forced off base for their health care.

Then finally add in PCS pay and you add another strain on the DoD budget that is already overburdened.

I do see social issues hit the fan minute one the ink dries on the repeal. Either way there will be lawsuits filed because of the civil union issue not being resolved from a federal standpoint.

If the military acknowledges the civil unions, than those members from states that do not will sue from a civil rights issue. If they do not acknowledge the civil unions, than it would be a discrimination case. Either way it is not a path that I think will be good for morale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top