Gay Patriot Header Image

Senate to Vote on DADT Repeal

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:57 am - September 14, 2010.
Filed under: 111th Congress,DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

Senate Democrats are finally getting their act together:

The Washington Blade has learned that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to schedule a vote next week on major defense budget legislation that contains “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language, regardless of any objection from members of the U.S. Senate.

A senior Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Reid met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday to inform the Republican leader that the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill will come to the Senate floor the week of Sept. 20.

It’s about time.

Share

16 Comments

  1. Out of curiosity, what’s your defense of Conservatives in their nearly total whining, kicking, screaming opposition to DADT reform/repeal throughout the process?

    Comment by Retcon — September 14, 2010 @ 6:16 am - September 14, 2010

  2. To be fair, it’s less ‘kicking and screaming’ more ‘*grumble*, nay’ these days. Still not voting yea, but not putting up a whole lot of a fight. The reasons should be obvious really.

    Public opinion is massively in favour of ending DADT, moral outrage is far more muted than previously, and the Republican base has moved on to their trifecta of anti-immigration, anti-Islam, and anti-tax rhetoric.

    I’ll be interested to see how the vote ends up. I’d bet all Democrats will vote in favour, and at least some Republicans. A filibuster is possible, but unlikely in my opinion, and there’s probably 60 votes for this anyway.

    Comment by Serenity — September 14, 2010 @ 9:52 am - September 14, 2010

  3. I think if you see it as “kicking and screaming” rhetoric, it’s really just posturing for the social conservative base prior to election. My guess is that most Republicans aren’t really invested too heavily in this issue. I think Reid will have the votes, and I imagine there will be Republican Senators who are not up for re-election who will vote to support it. I could be wrong. Guess we’ll see.

    Comment by Neptune — September 14, 2010 @ 10:25 am - September 14, 2010

  4. 3 things you didn’t know about repealing DADT:

    1. It’s all part of the gay agenda’s desire to turn the whole world gay.

    2. Gay soldiers will be eyeing straight soldiers in the showers and turning them gay.

    3. Gays will lie and deceive and say anything in order to get their agenda through. Using the military for their propoganda purposes is just their first step.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — September 14, 2010 @ 10:26 am - September 14, 2010

  5. I think this issue is in most ways all about political theater. It will force huge changes on the military, but the problem wasn’t widespread enough to warrant as much national attention as it has gotten, and most gays, frankly, don’t want to serve in the military.

    Having said that, I am surprisingly happy that it’s getting overturned. It feels like a huge burden lifted off my shoulders, which I didn’t even know bothered me as much as it did. So the bottom line is, great. Now the GLBT community had better send people to the recruiting offices, or the whole campaign will come across as a waste of people’s time.

    Comment by Coco Rico — September 14, 2010 @ 11:14 am - September 14, 2010

  6. Just in time for November. How convenient. However, I don’t see this going anywhere anytime soon. DADT is another controversial legislation, but just enough in a desperate attempt to get the gay Left to vote for Democrats…

    It won’t work.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — September 14, 2010 @ 11:32 am - September 14, 2010

  7. The gay left has lost a great deal of confidence in the DEMs because they believe the DEMs have betrayed their promises re DADT and DOMA. Therefore if the DEMs can get repeal through, and I hope they can, it’s possible to see more gay support for DEMs. Repeal of DADT and DOMA is important to many conservative gays such as myself, as well as gay lefties. I’m hoping repeal will happen regardless of who will get the credit.

    Comment by man — September 14, 2010 @ 2:02 pm - September 14, 2010

  8. Man, I think at this point repeal is almost not even relevant. The regulation is already rarely applied, except in cases where servicemembers want to get out and need the chapter to separate. With the unconstitutionality established by federal courts and a pending debate in the Senate and very little desire to undergo the bureaucratic hassles of enforcing DADT, the rule is all but dead.

    It is in the same category as the sections of the UCMJ that forbid oral sex and adultery. On the books, but out of mind.

    So Republicans have to make sure not to let democrats take credit for doing something about this, because it was really the Log Cabin Republicans who deserve credit — AS republicans.

    Comment by Coco — September 14, 2010 @ 3:02 pm - September 14, 2010

  9. Coco I take your point; however I’m waiting to see if Holden’s DOJ will appeal. As I understand it, the DOJ is the only party with standing who can appeal. If there is an appeal, then it’s up in the air. I see the recent rush to repeal in the Senate as being little more than a political ploy to play to the gays on the one hand and to embarrass Republicans on the other.

    Comment by man — September 14, 2010 @ 3:47 pm - September 14, 2010

  10. Coco, man,

    I’ve said before (here as an example) that I’d hope DADT’s time is past.

    That being said, the Justice department needs to challenge this all the way to the supremes, to maintain their seperation of powers. As with Brown in Ca and Prop 8, the Executive has the duty to enforce the laws, whether they like them or not.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 14, 2010 @ 4:01 pm - September 14, 2010

  11. Just in time for November. How convenient.

    I don’t think that makes a whole hell of a lot of difference. The self-loathing Gay Inc. votes for the libs no matter how badly they’re ass raped by them.

    My question reamains: Why is it tucked into a defense budget bill? Further, how much is Chairman Obama proposing to slash military spending?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - September 14, 2010

  12. Livewire, it’s not necessarily a separation of powers issue. DADT is a creation of the legislative branch, therefore Congress has the right to repeal it. On the other hand, it was ruled unconstitutional by the district court which is within the constitutional power given to our federal courts, thus a separation of powers vis a vis congress and courts. If Holder doesn’t appeal, the ruling stands. If he appeals it will go to the supremes, and they may or may not decide to accept the case. Obama will decide which way his Attorney General will go. A matter needn’t go all the way to the supreme court to be decided. What is most interesting to me is the judge enjoined the entire US Department of Defense throughout the nation from enforcing DADT. Will be interesting to watch.

    Comment by man — September 14, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - September 14, 2010

  13. Obviously it’s in the defense bill to force the GOP to either vote for it or risk defense being the first department that goes without funding when the money runs out at the end of the month. I think that’s a crappy way to advance controversial bills, but that’s the way it’s done. I also think it’s the best chance to repeal DADT.

    Comment by Hunter — September 14, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - September 14, 2010

  14. Livewire,

    I think man is on the mark re: this one. The separation of powers, at least since Marbury v Madison, necessitates that the judicial branch intervene as a check on executive overreach. This is a case where the judicial branch did what it’s supposed to do.

    I think in any case the policy’s out the window. What I’m worried about now is what will happen to GLBTs in the military, who get outed now, whereas under DADT they had guaranteed privacy. I hope if they find themselves in danger they can still find a way to get out of it. And I hope they can get help. So much of the discussion so far has revolved around officers. When you’re in the E ranks, though, it’s not the same; you have a lot less power and your safety depends on your comrades accepting you. Nobody can really mandate that you’re accepted. So I want to see how the culture of the military adapts to these changes. Let’s see.

    Comment by Coco — September 14, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - September 14, 2010

  15. That being said, the Justice department needs to challenge this all the way to the supremes, to maintain their seperation of powers. As with Brown in Ca and Prop 8, the Executive has the duty to enforce the laws, whether they like them or not.

    If DADT is repealed, the case becomes moot.

    Of course, it is the prerogative of Congress to pass a bill repealing a law, even if the law is being challenged in courts. President Obama has no prerogative to repeal DADT on his own authority (unlike, say, pardoning someone convicted of a crime an appellate court found unconstitutional).

    Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended the Texas marriage amendment when it was declared unconstitutional by a Texas family court..and won in the Texas 5th Circuit.

    What is most interesting to me is the judge enjoined the entire US Department of Defense throughout the nation from enforcing DADT. Will be interesting to watch.

    Would a court have the power to issue injunctions against enforcing a law beyond the named plaintiffs?

    The separation of powers, at least since Marbury v Madison, necessitates that the judicial branch intervene as a check on executive overreach. This is a case where the judicial branch did what it’s supposed to do.

    But if the executive branch refuses to appeal a ruling declaring a law unconstitutional, that is an effective executive repeal,without the Supreme Court even having the chance to deny cert.

    Any person who has a share in the legislative process should have standing to defend and appeal in constitutional challenges. (In this case, it would be the members of Congress as well as the President.) This ensures that as long as one person with a share of the legislative power stands up for the law, it will not be made void unless the Supreme Court makes it so, or denies cert to an appeal of circuit court decision making it so.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — September 15, 2010 @ 1:12 am - September 15, 2010

  16. “Now the GLBT community had better send people to the recruiting offices,”

    That’s been happening for generations now. In fact that’s why this is even an issue.

    “I don’t think that makes a whole hell of a lot of difference. The self-loathing Gay Inc. votes for the libs no matter how badly they’re ass raped by them.”

    This too true in general, but there are signs that the ship is slowly, slowly turning. Anecdote: I got a call for a donation in that Massachusstts Senate race that Scott Brown won. (I live enear Seattle) The guy said the Democrat, a woman, was strong on women’s rights. I blew up. I happened to know that she let a man rot for years in jail on a trumped up rape charge she knew was bogus. “You’re telling me I should donate to this venal bigot because she’s strong on WOMEN’S rights? F8ck that C8nt!!!” “Oh, I see you are really engaged, mumble,mumble, mumble…. And I vote and donate Demcratic.

    ” The regulation is already rarely applied, except in cases where servicemembers want to get out and need the chapter to separate.”

    Except where it isn’t. Right this minute we have a case being tried in tacoma on an 18-year AF nurse who most certainly does not want out. There was a highly decorated AF pilot, O-5, forget his name, justrecently who was forced out. The same goes for a captain, two tours in Iraq, Infantry, head of his West Point class, who is in the process of being forced out.

    Comment by Jim — September 15, 2010 @ 3:00 pm - September 15, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.