Senate Votes to Repeal DADT 65-31!!!
Liza Jane
2010/12/18 22:12:35
That's it! All that's left is president Obama's signature and this policy of discrimination is OVER!
I bet Clinton even speaks out in support of it's repeal.
I'm so excited!!! I literally screamed and did a happy dance around my living room just now. Wow... wow.
I'm so glad that I'm alive and paying attention during this very important day in American civil rights!
I bet Clinton even speaks out in support of it's repeal.
I'm so excited!!! I literally screamed and did a happy dance around my living room just now. Wow... wow.
I'm so glad that I'm alive and paying attention during this very important day in American civil rights!
![Fox News Invents Article/Section of the Constitution [WTF?]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002289897/logo_print_large.png "Fox News Invents Article/Section of the Constitution [WTF?]"){kind=logo}
![November 12 SNL Opening - No. [Video]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002280705/15408745_snl_large.jpeg "November 12 SNL Opening - No. [Video]")
Plus, gays are already dying in illegal wars. :-/
ok -- now it's legal for gays to kill in the name of our country.
next, can we please allow them to marry the people they love?
while I'm happy this sanctioned discrimination is over, it seems strange to me that this one came first. skewed priorities? or is it just me?
We can't be free unless we are all free.
If we have repealed DADT that does not necessarily allow gays to be in the military. As far as I know, DADT did not change the original law. So if it is repealed then it returns to the former state does it not? I am asking because I cannot find anything on it, perhaps you know.
The previous policy completely banned gays; they were asked if they were gay from day one and if they said "yes" they weren't allowed in. DADT was supposed to be a "compromise" which ended up being the exact same thing just more sneaky.
It's now, "Ask, tell, whatever." :-)
DADT was a compromise between a repeal of the ban and keeping the ban in place. So if this is indeed the case, Repealing this actually would put gays in a worse scenario than before.
First, there was a law passed by Congress prohibiting gays from serving in the military. The second part was Bill Clinton's Presidential Directive that said gays could serve -- but they couldn't tell anyone they were gay, and the military was prohibited from asking about sexuality of new recruits. If, however, it became known that a soldier is gay, then he or she could be discharged.
The law that was passed and is on its way to a signing ceremony on Wednesday repeals the law. Thus, gays will no longer be prohibited from serving in the military -- and will be able to do so openly. The original law, and Clinton's directive, will be rendered null and void and should probably have a special place in our country's Hall of Shame.
"(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."
I see what you're saying though.
That's why it should be taken out; it doesn't make sense. In essence it means that anyone, anyone at all, that has sex in any other way than inserting a penis into a vagina (including fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex, etc), can be tried by court martial.
It's dumb.
I guess it is a roundabout way to keep gays out, because if they do have intimate relations this is an inescapable situation..
If it is not removed wouldn't it ban gays still? If they were overheard talking about their sex-life?
The repeal just passed will render that part of the UMCJ null and void.
DADT was nothing more than ugly bigotry.
It was not good.
Indeed, it ended ROTC recruitment on the campuses of our best colleges. Now that DADT has been repealed, recruiting on those campuses -- Harvard, Yale, etc. -- will resume.
No doubt the average IQ and educational standards of our military will go up.
I hope there are not unintended consequences in the long run, this may prove to be more detrimental than beneficial.. I am not in disagreement of gays in the military, I wonder what the best approach to the situation really is.
I do not think it necessarily beneficial to raise the average IQ or education standard. This would not be good for many individuals.
I do not think that so many people from these schools would be joining the military anyway.. some yes, but not many.
Still, a discriminatory law like the one passed in 1993 should never have happened -- not in this country.
I'm not worried about unintended consequences in the long run. We can look at what happened in other countries when they implemented their version of DADT repeal. Israel had some adjustments to work through, but they did -- but they were very short term. In the long run, Israel has had a highly positive experience with their change in policy to allow gays to serve openly -- and today reports that the change has made its military stronger and better.
Likewise the experience in Canada. There were many negative comments and concerns before they allowed gays to serve openly. That was only 5 years ago, and already they're asking themselves what all the fuss was about -- the change went so well, and none of the catastrophes predicted by their anti-gay Bigot Brigade came to be.
I think recruiting again from our best schools can lead to bette...
Still, a discriminatory law like the one passed in 1993 should never have happened -- not in this country.
I'm not worried about unintended consequences in the long run. We can look at what happened in other countries when they implemented their version of DADT repeal. Israel had some adjustments to work through, but they did -- but they were very short term. In the long run, Israel has had a highly positive experience with their change in policy to allow gays to serve openly -- and today reports that the change has made its military stronger and better.
Likewise the experience in Canada. There were many negative comments and concerns before they allowed gays to serve openly. That was only 5 years ago, and already they're asking themselves what all the fuss was about -- the change went so well, and none of the catastrophes predicted by their anti-gay Bigot Brigade came to be.
I think recruiting again from our best schools can lead to better and brighter officers to lead our military in the future. Put another way, if you need serious surgery, would you choose a surgeon educated at a low-ranked school or would you want a surgeon trained at Harvard Medical School?
I don't care where soldiers are educated.. They can either fight or not..
As far as unintended consequences goes.. I think they are very important.. They half-a***** this. It does not provide for partners, and right now they can still get in trouble for being gay. They were so busy trying to placate their base they didn't do a proper job fixing the problem.