Snowe Vows Support For DADT Repeal, Improves Chances of Senate Passage

abc ^ | December 15, 2010 6:36 PM | Matthew Jaffe

[Red Steel]

Not only do supporters of the repeal have reason to celebrate today because of the House of Representatives’ vote in favor of a stand-alone bill to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, but also because the chances of the bill passing the Senate improved when Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine said she will support it.

“After careful analysis of the comprehensive report compiled by the Department of Defense and thorough consideration of the testimony provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs, I support repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law,” Snowe said in a statement. “However, as was stated in the letter I signed along with all of my Republican colleagues to the Majority Leader on Dec. 1, we must first fund the government beyond Dec. 18, and prevent the largest tax increase in our nation’s history from affecting all Americans on New Year’s Day before addressing other legislation.”

Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, who are leading the push in the Senate for the stand-alone bill repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, believe they have the 60 votes needed to overcome the Senate threshold.

At last week’s Senate vote when the repeal was attached to the annual defense authorization bill, the measure fell only three votes short.

56 Democrats voted for repeal at that time. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., missed the vote due to a dentist’s appointment, while Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, opposed repeal, arguing that the policy “probably should be repealed in the near future,” but not now because of “the effect implementation would have on our front line combat troops at this time.”

With Lincoln’s vote, that would mean 57 Democrats are in favor of repeal. Then come the Republicans. Collins brings the tally to 58 and Snowe brings it to 59.

Two other Republicans – Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Lisa Murkowski – have also voiced support for repeal, but both of them voted against repeal last week on procedural grounds. If the repeal is to pass – and to do so it must overcome a packed Senate lame-duck calendar – Democrats need to secure the support of Brown or Murkowski.

--UPDATE--

Murkowski will support the stand-alone bill, her spokesman says, so Democrats appear to have lined up the 60 votes they will need in the Senate to pass the repeal.

"Sen. Murkowski will support a stand-alone repeal of the DADT law," said Murkowski spokesman Michael Brumas. "With the tax package out of the way, and legislation to fund the government on a glide path to passage, Sen. Murkowski will vote to move to DADT when it is brought to the floor."

[central_va]

Short memories of November = See ya come 2012.

You can't save the ship of state once it is laying on the ocean floor.

[LibLieSlayer]

An article up page states that they already have.

LLS

[RnMomof7]

What does a military full of women and gays look like?? We have a government that hates this nation

[ladyvet]

Another problem I see here has to do with young soldiers and their language. Calling another soldier “gay” will now put them up on sexual harassment charges, sensitivity classes and all the other crap that will go with it. And just wait until the law suites against the military for not having a “safe” environment for the homo/lesbos start.

[ladyvet]

Wait until the law suites once this trash goes into effect. The fags will sue on everything from “sexual harassment” to not being provided a “safe working environment”. It’s going to be a nightmare.

[huldah1776]

How many male soldiers will press charges?????

[huldah1776]

We can big-itch here but we need to fight for our military while they fight for us.

http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Mention the sexual harassment or assault charges that will NOT be reported.

[silverleaf]

What does a military full of women and gays look like??

The Dutch army. And what terrorists with ambitions to use WMD wants to go up against...the Dutch army! (love those earrings darling, they go so well with your fatigues..)

[bacal]

They already made us (base housing residents) sign a sex offender letter about a month ago.

[newzjunkey]

How is the military going to deal with the AIDS problem when they get a lot of homosexuals bunking together and touring all the gay hot spots around the world?

How have they dealt with it already? Or venereal diseases among heterosexual members of the military?

[newzjunkey]

What does a military full of women and gays look like??

And what terrorists with ambitions to use WMD wants to go up against...the Dutch army!

The Israeli military? British? Russian? Australian? Canadian or any of over 30 others. All allow open service by homosexuals.

[rollo tomasi]

Herpes/syphilis etc... are tested if you develop symptoms, no reason not to deploy unless incapable medically, will get severely penalized though... However in the army for instance:

“Soldiers who are HIV-positive will not be deployed (PCS or TDY) OCONUS. Soldiers serving OCONUS who are confirmed as HIV positive will be expeditiously reassigned to CONUS.

Soldiers confirmed as HIV-positive in CONUS will be indefinitely stabilized at their current duty station. They will be awarded an AEA code of “B” without a termination date. These soldiers remain eligible for other CONUS assignments in accordance with the needs of the Army and PCS policies.

The fact that HIV-positive soldiers are nondeployable does not preclude their assignment to a TOE or MTOE deployable unit in CONUS, except for the closed units listed below. Commanders may not impose additional assignment restrictions on HIV-positive soldiers without first obtaining DCSPER approval. Soldiers may be assigned to units for a normal tour (a normal tour for these purposes is three years from reporting date to the unit).

The U.S. Army Special Operations Command and Ranger organizations are totally closed to HIV-positive soldiers.

Soldiers who are HIV-positive will not be assigned to the following organizations, if the soldier's medical condition requires frequent medical follow-up and the duty location would be geographically isolated from an Army medical treatment facility capable of providing that follow-up:

o TOE or MTOE units if previously diagnosed as HIV positive.

o U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command

o U.S. Army Cadet Command

o U.S. Army Recruiting Command"

I would advise you to not promote faggotry during this time, the mods are on heightened alert due to the fact the Free Republic DOES NOT promote disingenuous arguments (Israeli government basically segregates homosexuals and everyone is a conscript for instance) in supporting faggotry.

[silverleaf]

oh now there's a fate worse than death- to be openly gay in the Russian army. Do you really believe the Russians accept open homos in their military? Life is hellish enough for the normal recruits. Russia is NOT a tolerant society.

ygbsm. Do not believe the gay propaganda about how well it works to have open swishers in other militaries. There is NO military with the demands on it, and conditions of service, of the US military. Do you really want to see our military units forced to accept guys (and butch gals) acting out their identities like fairy queens in San Fran?

Thank You First Sgt- may I have another?

NO military can function if it is sexualized- and that is what this is about. SEXUALIZING the US military.
Why not just have men and women bunking together- gay men have innate desires for other men. And gay women develop desires for other women. So other than plumbing, what's the difference and why separate any troops by sex anymore?

And the Israeli military? They also have universal service and an enemy that lives in their midst. Many of them live at home and hitchhike to their posts - not like Adam and Steve sharing a bunkbed and shower and deploying to foreign field conditions every other year. I don't think the Israeli view of swishers is quite as copacetic as it is played to be by the gays.

[dfwgator]

What does a military full of women and gays look like?? We have a government that hates this nation

Such a nation would not be worth fighting for.

[dfwgator]

The gay agenda loves to talk about how all of the European armies allow gays.

Easy for them, since they know the US has their back.

[Lucky Dog]

The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predates the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War:

If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The act of sodomy has been condemned in legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

Sodomy is morally offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is militarily stupid, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

According to the FDA: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

[Lucky Dog]

The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predates the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War:

If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The act of sodomy has been condemned in legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

Sodomy is morally offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is militarily stupid, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

According to the FDA: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

[silverleaf]

If sodomy is arguably part of an effective military like the Brits, can we also bring back rum and the lash? :-)

[CharlesWayneCT]

The gay lobby has been working hard to temper the revulsion most people feel about anal penetration. Hence, they hooked up with the porn industry to develop an entire anal pentration genre. Once men are used to the idea of anal pentration of women, they have won.

And what we find today is that young women feel pressured into anal sex. The supreme court took away a great protection for women when it ruled you couldn’t make sodomy a crime. All we heard about was how it wasn’t “fair” to stop two willing participants from doing what they want — but nobody talked about how criminality was a great protection for women, who could point out the illegality and use it to help fight off the pressure.

Smae with abortion. A lot of women are forced into abortions because it is legal.

[jonrick46]

"How many male soldiers will press charges?????"

If bringing sexual harassment charges against a homo's sexual advances meant their ejection from the military, I am sure many will make sure it happens.