Posted on 12/22/2010 6:59:59 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
To provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. REID, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. COONS, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DODD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CASEY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. DORGAN) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
To provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
Calendar No. 688
To provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
OK... someone education me here on something... since DADT in 1993 replaced an existing policy that expressly forbade homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would the policy not revert back to the pre-DADT condition? I see no language in this bill that speaks to anything other than repeal.
OK... someone educate me here on something... since DADT in 1993 replaced an existing policy that expressly forbade homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would the policy not revert back to the pre-DADT condition? I see no language in this bill that speaks to anything other than repeal.
OK... someone educate me here on something... since DADT in 1993 replaced an existing policy that expressly forbade homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would the policy not revert back to the pre-DADT condition? I see no language in this bill that speaks to anything other than repeal.
I have seen threads where some have said the new law doesn’t REPEAL DADT, but merely gives the Department of Defense the OPTION of repealing it...I can’t really find that in the text, unless we loosely interpret some of the language.
Seems clear to me it has been completely repealed.
The “Defense of Marriage Act” clause of the law is interesting, and I bet will be struck down as unconstitutional by the 9th circuit in about a week.
Sorry for the three-time post. Getting slow response and errors on FR today.
I have seen threads where some have said the new law doesn’t REPEAL DADT, but merely gives the Department of Defense the OPTION of repealing it...I can’t really find that in the text, unless we loosely interpret some of the language.
Seems clear to me it has been completely repealed.
The “Defense of Marriage Act” clause of the law is interesting, and I bet will be struck down as unconstitutional by the 9th circuit in about a week.
I see nothing striking article 125 of the UCMJ.
Good.
I see nothing striking article 125 of the UCMJ.
Good.
(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Without changes, sodomy is a punishable offense in the UCMJ.
attention : Army recruits
watch out for your drill sergeant
don’t get drilled
I can think of few things more tedious & boring than the subject of these self absorbed people carrying on about their twisted personal habits.
Get on with it already, just don't come anywhere near me.
The problem with FR is that freepers have overly adopted Lazamataz's famous tag "Proudly posting without reading the article since 2002."
.
.
.
(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:
.
.
.
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies ...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.
So, YES. DADT is STILL IN PLACE for at least 60 days AFTER and until the Joint Chiefs present all of the policies to implement Gays in the Military, including showing how it will NOT affect cohesion, readiness, recruiting etc.
That's going to take a long, long time.
So EVEN IF the Joint Chiefs had rolled over today and had all of these reports in, DADT would not be repealed until 60 days form now, well after the Republicans are running the Armed Services committee doing hearings on this very subject! But let's go ahead and frag the GOP anyway, knee-jerk freepers! READY, FIRE, AIM!
The fight will continue...some may find interesting...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=242265
While what you say is true, the problem is that this “victory” for Obama contributes to his momentum; not to mention that it will be extremely disruptive to take the candy away from the babies. Not one in 1,000 people understand what you have read in the bill. They think it’s a done deal. And Obama is taking credit for the done deal.
Obama needs to be obstructed at EVERY juncture. He needs to be stymied and frustrated and broken. His administration needs to be dismantled and destroyed in detail. Handing him any kind of victory, real or imagined, only empowers him and his cronies.
If the “repeal” of DADT is stopped via the language of the bill before or after 60 days, it will only serve to strengthen and consolidate the Pro-Obama forces because those babies are gonna SCREAM. If the “repeal” stands, it will undermine our military and weaken America.
Is it just me, or has the DADT issue pretty much fallen off the media’s radar. Even a lot of the conservative sites don’t seem all that interested. Do Americans really think open homosexuality in the military is no big deal? Are conservatives no longer generally interested in social issues?
Well, DADT’s repeal is a major issue for the military. The military will follow orders of course, but this change is going to cause a lot of grief. The Senators who voted for this crap can sleep soundly at night, thinking they’ve righted some great wrong. Oh, how noble and righteous they are, but the military will have to deal with the problems.
Let me lay out some facts. There are many outstanding women serving in the military, but women weren’t added without creating problems that exist to this day. One of the most obvious ones is pregnancy. Women who get pregnant are typically removed from certain career fields for nearly a year. That has a negative affect on their training progression and job experience, at least in their core specialty. Plus, the military has to pick up the tab for the pregnancy as well as cover the workload with fewer people.
Another problem with women in the military: strength. There are many jobs that require a man’s upper body strength, and some women are simply too petite to do all of the tasks. Of course the military generally has equipment available to help with heavy lifting, but men can do the job faster using raw muscle and they don’t require a bunch of support equipment to help them.
Now I’m not demeaning women in the military in any way. Women can serve well in many jobs, and they do. My point is simply that there’s a price to be paid in military readiness for thinking women are no different than men, that they can do all of the same jobs, etc. That price IS paid right now, but it’s under the radar so that most people never know.
The same thing goes for gays in the military. Open homosexuality WILL affect military readiness and be a distraction, but you’ll never hear about it. Why? Because the military controls public relations. Even if the media was interested in something other than the perspective of the poor, downtrodden gays, who would tell them the truth? Even if senior leaders were aware of the disruptions in the lower ranks that don’t make the police blotter, would they speak openly knowing that their careers were on the line? No. Aside from leftist studies from time to time in the future showing how well gays have integrated into the active force, Americans will never know the grief their senators have served up for the military rank and file.
I read this saying that DADT is STILL in effect. I'm no lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer. I am missing some legalese here that I shouldn't be???
In fact, it says that 60 days from now, when the Republican House is in power, that DADT REMAINS IN EFFECT if the above provisions are not met to the satisfaction of the pro-homosexual president, secdef, and CJCS.
That's not much hope, but maybe the pubbies can throw a wrench in the works somehow.
does obama still maintain that gays can’t marry? Why aren’t the gays/libs pounding him (no pun intended) on this?
“Is it just me, or has the DADT issue pretty much fallen off the media’s radar. Even a lot of the conservative sites don’t seem all that interested. Do Americans really think open homosexuality in the military is no big deal? Are conservatives no longer generally interested in social issues?”
Great question.
Why didn’t the Republicans fight harder to stop this repeal?
Me thinks a deal was cut to get the tax cuts.
And, yes, you are right about other so-called conservative sites.
You can find posters on a well known conservative site who claim they are conservative and, yet, they do not believe in God or our Christian heritage.
No way...
The real question is this.. Will this finally make the gays happy? It remains to be seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.