Senate PASSES repeal of DADT

[Drolefille]

NPR

The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday.

Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican rival in 2008, led the opposition. The Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill and he blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.

"They will do what is asked of them,'' McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost.''

In the end, six Republican senators broke with their party on the procedural vote to let the bill move ahead and swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.

Fuck you John McCain. Elite liberals as well as the majority of every branch of the military, right? Fuck you for flipflopping on this issue so much you're like a dying fish.

Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.

All I have to say is ABOUT DAMN TIME.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

NPR




Fuck you John McCain. Elite liberals as well as the majority of every branch of the military, right? Fuck you for flipflopping on this issue so much you're like a dying fish.



All I have to say is ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Amen! I have the worst Senators ever.

[KSUViolet06]

How would this cause "great cost" (as Senator McCain has said) to our military?

I'm not even asking to be funny, like I seriously want to know what some of this "great damage" would be?

Feel free to share. I am really curious.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

How would this cause "great cost" (as Senator McCain has said) to our military?

I'm not even asking to be funny, like I seriously want to know what some of this "great damage" would be?

Feel free to share. I am really curious.

Mr. McCain - I'm feeling petty enough not to give him the honorific - has moved the goalposts so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that soldiers will start stubbing their toes on the FABULOUS furniture that gays would obviously add to the barracks following the repeal.

[amanda6035]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

How would this cause "great cost" (as Senator McCain has said) to our military?

I'm not even asking to be funny, like I seriously want to know what some of this "great damage" would be?

Feel free to share. I am really curious.

The "great damage" I can see are the homophobes who would assault the gays. There were A LOT of these close-minded folks when I served. We knew who the gay people were but they weren't flamboyant or in our faces about it. And because of DADT, those folks never actually "confirmed" that they were.

I'm glad this got repealed, but I hope the military is ready to punish the close-minded jerks who may try attack the gays.


Also, to play devils advocate, another "great damage" would be the morale of being able to trust your fellow service members with your life. Though I personally don't see any difference if they are serving openly because they are the same people as before, but you do have to be able to trust your life in the hands of those you work with.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

The "great damage" I can see are the homophobes who would assault the gays. There were A LOT of these close-minded folks when I served. We knew who the gay people were but they weren't flamboyant or in our faces about it. And because of DADT, those folks never actually "confirmed" that they were.

I'm glad this got repealed, but I hope the military is ready to punish the close-minded jerks who may try attack the gays.


Also, to play devils advocate, another "great damage" would be the morale of being able to trust your fellow service members with your life. Though I personally don't see any difference if they are serving openly because they are the same people as before, but you do have to be able to trust your life in the hands of those you work with.

Sooo...you're saying gay service members can't trust the bigots in the military with their lives?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Sooo...you're saying gay service members can't trust the bigots in the military with their lives?

Sad isn't it?

In reality I do not think this will be a problem beyond a few isolated incidents. Hopefully those are handled appropriately by the command structure. But we have had a few isolated incidents over whether Obama's the legitimate Commander in Chief, so really, nothing would surprise me.

/the last asshat got sentenced.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

The "great damage" I can see are the homophobes who would assault the gays. There were A LOT of these close-minded folks when I served. We knew who the gay people were but they weren't flamboyant or in our faces about it. And because of DADT, those folks never actually "confirmed" that they were.

I'm glad this got repealed, but I hope the military is ready to punish the close-minded jerks who may try attack the gays.


Also, to play devils advocate, another "great damage" would be the morale of being able to trust your fellow service members with your life. Though I personally don't see any difference if they are serving openly because they are the same people as before, but you do have to be able to trust your life in the hands of those you work with.

@ the bold - I think a lot of people forget that homosexuals (like every other group) have people on each end of the spectrum. If someone is on the non-flamboyant side, DADT's repeal isn't going to automatically make him/her shift to the other end.

One thing I don't get -- people say having closeted service members keeps everything on the up-and-up. If (general) you are a bigot, how does not knowing make you feel better? Wouldn't you want to know who is and who isn't so you can stay clear of them?

I also wonder how having closeted homosexuals around you at all times doesn't make you gay (since there have been arguments that being around gays/lesbians somehow makes it "rub off" on you), but gay marriage would. I really wish people would think before coming up with ridiculous ideas. That's neither here nor there.

Again, good job to the Senate for getting something right.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

Also, to play devils advocate, another "great damage" would be the morale of being able to trust your fellow service members with your life. Though I personally don't see any difference if they are serving openly because they are the same people as before, but you do have to be able to trust your life in the hands of those you work with.

Sooo you're saying that people would stop trusting someone because of their sexual orientation? Really? What does that have to do with anything? (serious question, i'm not trying to be snarky).

I guess it's like the discussion I had with my kids (which I kinda got in trouble for ) and one of my kids brought up the idea of gay soldiers not shooting @ the enemy b/c of the attractiveness of the enemy....thus risking the lives of everyone in their company.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by epchick

Sooo you're saying that people would stop trusting someone because of their sexual orientation? Really? What does that have to do with anything? (serious question, i'm not trying to be snarky).

I guess it's like the discussion I had with my kids (which I kinda got in trouble for ) and one of my kids brought up the idea of gay soldiers not shooting @ the enemy b/c of the attractiveness of the enemy....thus risking the lives of everyone in their company.

You kind of answered your own question with that example. I don't know the age of your student, but I'm willing to bet there are current armed service members who share that same belief.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

You kind of answered your own question with that example. I don't know the age of your student, but I'm willing to bet there are current armed service members who share that same belief.

If people really believe that, it doesn't say much for our military in general that soldiers would defy their training and mission for something so outrageously ridiculous.

[amanda6035]

I have nothing but the highest respect for our military, but some of the individuals who serve are complete nut jobs. Yes, I can think of at least a handful of folks that I worked with personally, completely immature, closed-minded wackos, who are probably pitching a hissy fit about this repeal right now. "Oh my god - that guy likes other guys, and i have to sleep in a berthing with him?" nevermind the fact that he's already been doing that for months and months already and nothing has happened. Just because they are allowed to serve openly doesn't mean he's going to hit on you!

Another thing is that as a female in the military - my modesty went out the window....after having a wide open shower area in boot camp, you kind of lose all sense of modesty. In fact, when I got to college and went to the gym on campus, I would be in the gym just changing like it was no big deal, and as I looked around I realized other ladies were going into the bathroom stalls to change, rather than by the lockers, which I thought was weird.

Again, I dont know why, they've already been serving with gay personnel for however many years now, but somehow, the knowledge of it changes the dynamics....I mean, if it didn't, there would have never been a DADT, right? It's the knowledge of knowing they are there - not the fact that they actually are. Because if that were the case, DADT would have never been enacted - anybody who was gay would just not be allowed to serve at all.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

It's the knowledge of knowing they are there - not the fact that they actually are. Because if that were the case, DADT would have never been enacted - anybody who was gay would just not be allowed to serve at all.

That's exactly why DADT was pointless from the moment it was enacted.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

Again, I dont know why, they've already been serving with gay personnel for however many years now, but somehow, the knowledge of it changes the dynamics....I mean, if it didn't, there would have never been a DADT, right? It's the knowledge of knowing they are there - not the fact that they actually are. Because if that were the case, DADT would have never been enacted - anybody who was gay would just not be allowed to serve at all.

That assumes a lot about the reasons DADT was passed. It was seen as a compromise but in reality it was just another lie. Gays served in every war this nation has fought in both before, during, and soon to be after DADT, and there are stories of soldiers who fought along side who knew that their comrade was gay and didn't care before DADT. DADT served primarily the bigots in the legislature and the command structure. The number of soldiers who have been unwillingly outed by DADT makes it clear that someone else was telling.

The people who don't belong are the bigots who are so freaked out by the presence of a gay or lesbian or bisexual person that they lose all ability to hold a gun or follow orders. And if DADT's repeal (and the amending of the UCMJ that will have to follow) causes us to lose those people from service. Good. They're the ones who can't be trusted to watch their fellows' backs.

In essence, the knowledge doesn't make a difference to someone who isn't a bigoted moron. And even bigoted morons can learn better. So, stubborn bigoted morons are the only ones DADT protected, and we can do without them.

[agzg]