House repeals military gay ban

**DSM4Life** · 05-27-2010, 09:19 PM

In Historic Vote, House Repeals Military Gay Ban
Associated Press
Thursday May 27, 2010

The House on Thursday delivered a victory to President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation.

The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.

"I know that our military draws its strength on the integrity of our unified force, and current law challenges this integrity by creating two realities within the ranks," Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., said.

Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

The House vote came just hours after the Senate Armed Services Committee took the same course and voted 16-12 in favor of repealing the 1993 law. In both cases the measure was offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Obama and leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had actively supported the repeal so that gays could serve in the military without fear of being exposed and discharged.

"This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security," Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights organization, said after the Senate panel's vote.

During an all-day House debate on the bill approving more than $700 billion in spending for defense programs, Republicans repeated statements by military service chiefs that Congress should not act before the Pentagon completes a study on the impact of a repeal.

Congress going first "is the equivalent to turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, 'Your opinion, your view, do not count,'" said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Democratic supporters stressed that the amendment was written so that the repeal would not go into effect until after the Pentagon publishes in December the results of a survey on how service members and their families view the change, and until the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military's ability to fight.

The chief sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., who served in the Iraq War, said that when he was in Baghdad "my teams did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay if they could fire their assault rifle or run a convoy down ambush alley and do their job so everyone would come home safely."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that of the 13,500 members of the military who have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell," more than 1,000 filled critical occupations, such as engineers and interpreters.

He compared the arguments of the opposition to 1948 speeches in Congress when lawmakers warned that integrating the troops would undermine morale in the military.

The drive to repeal the ban still faces a tough road ahead in the full Senate, where Republicans are likely to filibuster it.

"I think it's really going to be very harmful to the morale and effectiveness of our military," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a leading opponent of the repeal.

The Senate probably will take up the bill next month.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait for the December report.

Under "don't ask, don't tell," military leaders don't investigate a service member's sexual orientation as long as the person does not disclose that he or she is gay or has a same-sex relationship, which are grounds for dismissal.

Also on Thursday the House rejected an amendment to the defense bill that would have cut $485 million from the bill designated for a second engine for the new F-35 fighter jet.

Gates strongly opposes the extra engine as wasteful and unneeded, and the White House issued a statement Thursday saying the president would be advised to veto the final bill if it includes funds for the engine. But supporters of the engine made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce PLC contended that the competition between engine makers would save money in the 30 to 40-year life cycle of the $100 billion project.

**Mr.Rose** · 05-27-2010, 10:18 PM

You think they would need every man they can get a hold on to defend their country.

Homophob's annoy me... unless its two gay really really fat ugly lesbians. Then i give permission to kill them.

**gixxerboy1** · 05-27-2010, 10:41 PM

bout time

**Ernst** · 05-28-2010, 07:27 AM

If you are so damn homophobic you can't stand the idea of working with a gay person perhaps you should be fighting for the Taliban?

And while we're at it, we should throw on an addendum to let members of the Armed Forces drink, even if they aren't 21.

**Nooomoto** · 05-28-2010, 11:22 AM

It wasn't a ban on gay people in the military. The military never said if you're gay you can't join. What they say is if you're gay, hetero...whatever...we don't care and don't need to know. Reason being it could become distracting in certain situations where lives are at stake. This is one of the reasons women are not allowed in combat units. A soldier is less likely to be distracted by some chick he's into if she's not actually present during a combat situation. Same thing.

There's no reason to bring your personal life to work with you, especially if your work involves firearms and live ammunition. Emotions lead to distractions, distractions lead to accidents and mistakes. By keeping personal business out of the professional environment it helps to ensure soldiers are as safe as possible.

**BgMc31** · 05-28-2010, 11:37 AM

It was a thinly veiled continuation on the ban on gays, because if you were found out (through your fault or someone else's), you were still kicked out of the armed forces. Don't ask, don't tell prevented officials from asking the question of sexual orientation. This lifting of Don't ask, don't tell allows equal rights to all soldiers. If a hetero can serve openly, the same can be said about with gays. Gays have served in the military since the dawn of time. Its never been a real disactration before and it won't be in the future.

**gixxerboy1** · 05-28-2010, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

It wasn't a ban on gay people in the military. The military never said if you're gay you can't join. What they say is if you're gay, hetero...whatever...we don't care and don't need to know. Reason being it could become distracting in certain situations where lives are at stake. This is one of the reasons women are not allowed in combat units. A soldier is less likely to be distracted by some chick he's into if she's not actually present during a combat situation. Same thing.

There's no reason to bring your personal life to work with you, especially if your work involves firearms and live ammunition. Emotions lead to distractions, distractions lead to accidents and mistakes. By keeping personal business out of the professional environment it helps to ensure soldiers are as safe as possible.

you dont think staright guys talked about the girls they had at home or their relationships out in the open? If a gay guy did it he was kicked out. Big difference.

**zimmy** · 05-28-2010, 11:43 AM

that issue is finally over...now can we stop worrying about stupid sh*t and get back to real national issues. For the record, I'm refering to "stupid sh*t" as this dont' ask don't tell nonsense wasting our leaders time to decide it and then realize it was stupid.

**gixxerboy1** · 05-28-2010, 11:47 AM

zimmy check your pm's

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-28-2010, 11:55 AM

the games of grab ass would be weirder when I know the gay man is getting homosexual enjoyment out of it v.s. the psuedo-heterosexual enjoyment i get out of it.

seriously though it's not a big deal, most of the guys in the army know who the gay guys are anyway, no one ever gave them shit. maybe make fun of them behind their back, but everyone does that to everyone in the army. there's already a number of rapes/sexual assualts on FOBs/COPs across iraq/afghanistan I don't think just cause a few guys/girls are OPENLY gay it's going to effect much. the fact that it's an issue at all is fvcking dumb. gays were allowed in the military before, this doesn't mean theres gonna be like an all gay infantry brigade or anything. I don't see a gay guy joining combat arms just to be around a bunch of guys. You might think joining a company of women would be fvcking hot, but guess what theyre lesbians and bottom line want to have nothing to do with your penis. its pretty much the same deal if u can get an analogy out of that. I think the most people that are gonna have a problem with this are actually not in the military, thus theyre opinion shouldnt matter much.

**Nooomoto** · 05-28-2010, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

you dont think staright guys talked about the girls they had at home or their relationships out in the open? If a gay guy did it he was kicked out. Big difference.

Of course they TALKED about it. My point was that if there were openly gay men in combat arms units together, there's a chance they would become emotionally/intimately involved with eachother. Such a situation could lead to problems in the professional environment that could otherwise be avoided.

Just like if there were women in combat arms units. Theres a chance that they'd become involved with one of the men in the same unit, also creating a situation that could lead to problems.

I don't believe the policy was created to keep homosexuals out of the military. I mean...just look at the Air Force. I believe the policy was created to help keep personal and professional lives separate.

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-28-2010, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

Of course they TALKED about it. My point was that if there were openly gay men in combat arms units together, there's a chance they would become emotionally/intimately involved with eachother. Such a situation could lead to problems in the professional environment that could otherwise be avoided.

Just like if there were women in combat arms units. Theres a chance that they'd become involved with one of the men in the same unit, also creating a situation that could lead to problems.

I don't believe the policy was created to keep homosexuals out of the military. I mean...just look at the Air Force. I believe the policy was created to help keep personal and professional lives separate.

Women are still in the military though. Maybe drama on the FOB isn't a big deal, but I had females living on the COPs with us. They were either MPs or PsyOps and there were 0 problems. I think people take the deployment a little more seriously when they're out in the sh*t, that's why there's always more incidents on the FOB.

**Nooomoto** · 05-28-2010, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by LatissimusaurousRex

Women are still in the military though. Maybe drama on the FOB isn't a big deal, but I had females living on the COPs with us. They were either MPs or PsyOps and there were 0 problems. I think people take the deployment a little more seriously when they're out in the sh*t, that's why there's always more incidents on the FOB.

Gay guys are also still in the military. Only difference is that now they can tell everyone they are gay. What this accomplishes? I have no idea. I'm not even sure why this was such an issue. I doubt you're going to see gay military enrollment spike as a result of this policy being repealed.

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-28-2010, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

Gay guys are also still in the military. Only difference is that now they can tell everyone they are gay. What this accomplishes? I have no idea. I'm not even sure why this was such an issue. I doubt you're going to see gay military enrollment spike as a result of this policy being repealed.

Yes I agree, it shouldn't be such an issue and I don't see it spiking the no. of gays enlisting either.

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-28-2010, 02:03 PM

but they have to wear pink dog tags

**quarry206** · 05-28-2010, 02:03 PM

well lifting don't ask don't tell really doesn't totally make it open for gay men to serve.

don't ask don't tell just made it legal for gay men and women to serve as long as they didn't openly say their sexual preference. Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)still states its against military rules to be gay.

I have been in the U.S. Army for just shy of 9 years, and have worked and served along side many gay men and women. somebodies sexual preference has nothing to do how they work or get along with others in combat.

**quarry206** · 05-28-2010, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

Gay guys are also still in the military. Only difference is that now they can tell everyone they are gay. What this accomplishes? I have no idea. I'm not even sure why this was such an issue. I doubt you're going to see gay military enrollment spike as a result of this policy being repealed.

it all depends, "don't ask don't tell" only made it so they couldn't ask you.. it still is against the rules. . the uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has to change or they can still be kicked out just like before the "don't ask don't tell" rule

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-28-2010, 02:07 PM

i think this is where the dead horse starts to get beat

**l2elapse** · 05-28-2010, 02:19 PM

about time

**Nooomoto** · 05-28-2010, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by quarry206

well lifting don't ask don't tell really doesn't totally make it open for gay men to serve.

don't ask don't tell just made it legal for gay men and women to serve as long as they didn't openly say their sexual preference. Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)still states its against military rules to be gay.

I have been in the U.S. Army for just shy of 9 years, and have worked and served along side many gay men and women. somebodies sexual preference has nothing to do how they work or get along with others in combat.

The UCMJ has language concerning homosexual conduct, not "being gay". This refers to sexual acts between two people of the same sex.

A statement of homosexuality does not violate the UCMJ nor do all homosexual acts (holding hands, touching, caressing, etc.)

It is also stated that the Commander has the sole responsibility to initiate discharge or not.

For reference purposes...the UCMJ also has articles against adultery and sodomy, both heterosexual and homosexual.

It helps to read things, sometimes.

**quarry206** · 05-28-2010, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

The UCMJ has language concerning homosexual conduct, not "being gay". This refers to sexual acts between two people of the same sex.

It is also stated that the Commander has the sole responsibility to initiate discharge or not.

For reference purposes...the UCMJ also has articles against adultery and sodomy, both heterosexual and homosexual.

It helps to read things, sometimes.

I know what Article 125 says. I was being general, please don't imply i'm stupid.My point is they went after homosexuals before and not heterosexuals. so do we really think that the attacks of Homosexual will stop now just because of dropping "don't ask don't tell" . . . According to rules no man in the military can ever receive head, but no man has ever been in trouble for getting head. 10,000 have been kicked out for being Gay. .

The very basic fact is that if people want to admit it or not, the military is EXTREMELY sexist and homophobic. And that is not something that will change because the current commander-in-chief want it to. I would say as high as 80% personal of the military will still not allow open gay men to be treated the same. some probably not even allow in the unit.

**Hoggage_54** · 05-28-2010, 04:02 PM

This is what the US military is going to be like now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVPn1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCieA...eature=related

**Nooomoto** · 05-28-2010, 04:23 PM

the military is EXTREMELY sexist and homophobic.

I have to disagree. You have been around USAF personnel, right?

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-28-2010, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hoggage_54

This is what the US military is going to be like now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVPn1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCieA...eature=related

the army is already way gayer than this

**quarry206** · 05-28-2010, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

I have to disagree. You have been around USAF personnel, right?

Army...

USAF is a little different, they have always been the highest educated and most progressive.

....
So I will change my comment to not Say all military, but I do think it holds true to the other branches.

**Nooomoto** · 05-28-2010, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by quarry206

Army...

USAF is a little different, they have always been the highest educated and most progressive.

....
So I will change my comment to not Say all military, but I do think it holds true to the other branches.

That was a joke, but nevermind.

**jbm** · 05-28-2010, 06:03 PM

**FranciscoG** · 05-28-2010, 08:34 PM

I bet the republicans will try to kill it in the Senate.

**DSM4Life** · 05-29-2010, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

It wasn't a ban on gay people in the military. The military never said if you're gay you can't join. What they say is if you're gay, hetero...whatever...we don't care and don't need to know. Reason being it could become distracting in certain situations where lives are at stake. This is one of the reasons women are not allowed in combat units. A soldier is less likely to be distracted by some chick he's into if she's not actually present during a combat situation. Same thing.

There's no reason to bring your personal life to work with you, especially if your work involves firearms and live ammunition. Emotions lead to distractions, distractions lead to accidents and mistakes. By keeping personal business out of the professional environment it helps to ensure soldiers are as safe as possible.

If you are discovered as gay you are discharged. If you think that's fair then it should as apply to heterosexuals as well.

If a heterosexual talks about his wife/girlfriend/past sexual experiences he should be discharged as well.

**LatissimusaurousRex** · 05-29-2010, 09:32 AM

Whoever said the militray is extremely is sexist and homophobic wrong. Well half wrong, extremely sexist atleast in the combat arms, but not homophobic. The army itself is pretty gay, there would be people with blatant homosexual tendencies but no one would hold any real prejudice against them. Gay jokes are going around the clock, no one really cares. It's like the physical standards, very rarely are they actually used to kick people out, but if your a trouble maker or just a douchebag and no one likes you the Army will use with regs they have to kick you out. It's not like a witch hunt where people suspect others of being gay and investigations happen. Most know who they homosexuals are but no one cares. That's why this shouldn't be an issue at all.

**lovbyts** · 05-30-2010, 03:06 AM

It's not the military as I see it but it is/was the people in the military. To many homophobic people who would either leave their fellow comrade in harms way or harm them themselves if they knew or found out they are gay.

I think it may have been really set up to protect someone, get them out of harms way if it was found out they are gay but they did not go about it in a nice way.

Hopefully now instead of punishing someone for them being gay they will teach others that no everyone is the same and if you persecute someone for their differences then it's you who will be punished.