Senate Repeals ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

New York Times ^ | DEcenber 18, 2010 | Carl Hulse

[lbryce]

The Senate on Saturday voted to strike down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay, lesbian and bisexual troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban, and said it was “time to close this chapter in our history.”

“As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best-led and best-trained fighting force the world has ever known,” he said in a statement after the Senate, on a preliminary 63-to-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block final action on the repeal bill.

The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military.

It followed an exhaustive Pentagon review that determined the policy could be changed with only isolated disruptions to unit cohesion and retention, though members of combat units and the Marine Corps expressed greater reservations about the shift. Congressional action was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.

Supporters of the repeal said it was long past time to abolish what they saw as an ill-advised practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country.

[Cobra64]

So which is it? Did they end the ban or did they repeal DADT?

...there seems to be some confusion on what was actually done here.

In the wwords of Nanct Pelosi, "pass the bill so you know what's in it."

[Texas Fossil]

As Posted on Thomas

HR 2965 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

December 15, 2010.

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2965) entitled `An Act to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.', with the following

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the Senate, insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654-

(1) IN GENERAL- On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 (section 654 of title 10, United States Code).

(2) OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REVIEW- The Terms of Reference accompanying the Secretary's memorandum established the following objectives and scope of the ordered review:

(A) Determine any impacts to military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts.

(B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new policies.

(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations, and benefits.

(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(E) Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to repeal 10 U.S.C. 654 and proposals that may be introduced in the Congress during the period of the review.

(F) Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness that support successful follow-through on implementation.

(G) Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving 10 U.S.C. 654.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of the following occurs:

(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).

(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:

(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report's proposed plan of action.

(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy- Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.

(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

(e) No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-

(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking section 654; and

(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

Attest:

Clerk.

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H.R. 2965

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT

[Enterprise]

I agree. DADT was a compromise, but liberals always get their foot in the door until the time they can get what they want. I would prefer an outright ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

[Antoninus]

If the Republicans don’t make undoing this injustice a priority, there will be hell to pay for them.

[Bronzy]

“gays who do enter the service will spend all their time creating incidents”

I can imagine a gay group marching in a guy military parade. Will they wear leather and carry whips?

[Antoninus]

Well, then we can throw the “Hell no, we won’t go” thing right back at them.

Like that will stop them. They will come for your kids and they won't take no for an answer

[luv2ndamend]

So, we no longer need separate barracks for males and females, if I am following their logic. Women should be allowed to train and sleep with males. If you think about it, sexual situations no longer can be used as a way of housing. They just opened a big can of sh_t.

[xtinct]

"In addition to Ms. Collins, Republicans backing the repeal were Senators Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and George V. Voinovich of Ohio."

All of the above maggots need to be expelled in 2012 if they're up for election. Or, the next time they're up for election. They're obviously RINOS....

[SamuraiScot]

Why isn’t anyone talking about the possibility/probability of overturning it in the House when our new folks get in there in January?

Even if the House passed the law, the Senate would vote it down. If the Senate were to pass the law, Obtuse would veto it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the House has the testosterone, it can refuse to appropriate, or de-appropriate, anything it wants, at any time, since only the House can spend the government's money.

It takes appropriated money to hire homo-sensitivity counselors; money to schedule the meetings and hire the hotel meeting rooms where recruiting officers will be told how to approach their new, um, assignment; money to print new recruiting and disciplinary manuals. And so on.

And I'm not so sure the Senate would have the moxie to "go homo" again in their new, more conservative configuration, with so many up for re-election in 2012; and I'm not sure Obummer will have the nerve to veto an overturning of this Lavender Militia Act himself, for the same reason.

[central_va]

Have we hit bottom yet?

[IrishPennant]

I see many upcoming instances of the the true meaning of my fellow Marine’s “Blanket Party” in the future.

[Tucker39]

I predict that in the near future, to reject or rebuff the “advances” of a queer same-sex “comrade in arms,” whether male or female, will be prosecuted as a hate crime!

[Tucker39]

The government, and the military heirarchy, have now declared OPEN SEASON on “straights.”

[CitizenUSA]

CRR: “Why isn’t anyone talking about the possibility/probability of overturning it in the House when our new folks get in there in January?”

Because it cannot be overturned in January. President Obama will veto any attempt in the unlikely chance we get a new DADT through the sodomite sympathizers in the senate.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Today, you have done an injustice.

Indeed. My personal prediction is that this will result in quite an increase in violence against gays in the military. There will be those in the service who will see this as something distasteful being forced upon them. There are gays who will take the 'in your face' stance and there will be reactions.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

“To the Rear March” will be replaced with “OK, Fellas, Turn Around;”

[MplsSteve]

Of the eight Republicans who voted for the repeal, the only two that really surprise me are Richard Burr (NC)John Ensign (NV).

The rest don’t surprise me at all.

[woofie]

was this gay thing rammed through?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

They want to be able to broadcast to the whole world about their perversions.

Well now Congress says that's ok. I suggest they try it and see where it gets them.

[Nowhere Man]

“Prepare for a reactivation of the Selective Service System.The Only way the military is going to meet its manpower needs is with a Draft.That was Probably the plan all along.”

Well, then we can throw the “Hell no, we won’t go” thing right back at them.

My father is so upset at the direction we are heading, it is not just this but in general, he said that if he were drafted, he "would not defend the country" and either just go to jail or Canada. This is really sad to see it come to this. B-( At least he's 73 now. He did his time in the Army, served in Korea in the mid 1950's. I am 44, I wish I was 20 years younger, but with this, I think I'll stay at 44. B-P Some might think I'm wrong but if the Pentagon allows this, some say it is still at their discretion, I would not advise anyone to go into the military at all, at best, join an unorganized militia instead.