Gay Patriot Header Image

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) Favors DADT Repeal

Over at Politico, Josh Gerstein reports:

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has announced his support for legislation that would permit the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning openly gay service members, making him the second Republican to go on record in favor of conditional repeal language attached to a pending defense budget bill.

“I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. … When a soldier answers the call to serve and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor,” Brown said after two days of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on “don’t ask” and a Defense Department study of how repeal could be implemented.

Looks like Senate Majority Leader now has the votes to overcome a filibuster on DADT repeal.  Now, he just needs to stop his foot-dragging on tax cuts so he can move forward on repeal.  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said “she would vote with Democrats to end the military’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, “, but not “until a debate over tax cuts has been resolved“:

“Once the tax issue is resolved, I have made it clear that if the Majority Leader brings the Defense Authorization bill to the floor with sufficient time allowed for debate and amendments, I would vote to proceed to the bill,” she said in a statement.

Harry, the ball’s in your court.

Share

185 Comments

  1. NDT> I was thrown by TLW’s phrase “another officer’s wife,” which wasn’t the case. But, under DADT repeal, she couldn’t play the gay card. She could try, but she wouldn’t be successful, because the military would no longer we conducting a policy that could expel someone for being gay.

    Geez. If I’m in a club and the rules are you can’t urinate on the waiter or wear red shirts and I show in a suit concealing a red shirt and pee on the waiter, they can throw me out for peeing on the water. I can claim it was because I had a red shirt on. And I may be successful.

    But, if the rules change and red shirts are now permitted and I show up in one and pee on the waiter again (fool me once … haha), they’re going to throw me out again. I can’t claim it was because I was wearing a red shirt, because IT’S NO LONGER A RULE.

    I feel like I’ve made this point three times already.

    *taps mic*

    Is this thing on?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 8, 2010 @ 5:02 am - December 8, 2010

  2. And please refer to my response in the context of post #129.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 8, 2010 @ 5:32 am - December 8, 2010

  3. I warned you I was going off of memory, Vince. I forgot that it was a civilian. Still breaks the UCMJ.

    As to the idea that she couldn’t hide behind her sexuality if DADT was repealed, I’d point to the arguments used in civilian courts that laws ‘disproportionately target’ minorities. It’s not that the people aren’t guilty of the crime, it’s that they’re arguing they were singled out because of the colour of their skin. I’m betting, based on the mentality that we see from liberals, a similar argument would be waged. “Yes, the person was guilty, but you only went after them because they’re gay.” Starting with ‘how do you prove that’ and ending with ‘found innocent in the court of public opinion, it becomes a no win situation for the military.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 8, 2010 @ 7:48 am - December 8, 2010

  4. Thanks for the reply TLW.

    Please refer to my posts 137, 138, 140, 141 (as they already address most of your post).

    Also, please explain how Major Margaret Witt got back into the military because of “the court of public opinion” and not because she was misusing the existence of DADT. Additionally, explain how Lt. Dan Choi, and everyone else who wanted back in, enjoyed using the “court of public opinion” to get re-instated into the military.

    Again, this is about the removal of a policy, not instilling a policy that affords a minority special privileges. It’s like if I were to say that if a school ends a policy that bans wearing shorts, the school is going to start letting those who wear shorts go to the front of the lunch line everyday. There is no logic to back it up.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 8, 2010 @ 11:30 am - December 8, 2010

  5. While you’re at it, answer Post #146 too.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 8, 2010 @ 12:38 pm - December 8, 2010

  6. She could try, but she wouldn’t be successful, because the military would no longer we conducting a policy that could expel someone for being gay.

    Sure she could, Vince. It’s what the professional victims on the gay left do. Even without DADT, you wouldn’t want to be tied with the epithet “Homophobe!“.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2010 @ 5:10 pm - December 8, 2010

  7. And I should add that it doesn’t have to make sense. Rarely are the cases by professional victims that do.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2010 @ 5:11 pm - December 8, 2010

  8. I’m not understanding what seems to be the argument that we should give up even trying to make society more just and fair simply because some people will continue to be unjust and unfair. That doesn’t make any sense.

    Sure, some people will still play the victim card no matter what. If the rest of us have succumbed to a mentality that makes what these people do more important than anything or anyone else, then they have already won.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 8, 2010 @ 6:05 pm - December 8, 2010

  9. Imagine if you had stfu when nobody was paying you the attention you demanded.

    Actually, Heather, my comment was #17, and you and the other heather responded to it immediately(#19). And have been scratching and hissing ever since.

    Damn, it must suck being so totally incapable of scoring even the most minor point! And on top of that being totally unable to man up and admit to it!

    You know, smacking you around was fun for a while, but it’s so damn easy that it just feels dirty and gratuitous now — taking candy from an actual baby.

    Better go gang up on Ash or Levi or one of your other regulars to puff up that itsy bitsy litte ego of yours. I’m sure the other heather will be there to kiss your bruises, and whatever else you’ll let her.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 9, 2010 @ 12:45 am - December 9, 2010

  10. And on top of that being totally unable to man up and admit to it!

    What? I admitted you are an asshole long before you did.

    Damn, it must suck being such a miserable attention whore throwing the longest temper tantrum ever. Enjoy basting in your juices. Hopefully you’ll think twice before lying again.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2010 @ 4:10 am - December 9, 2010

  11. Therapy. I highly recommend it. Lest you devolve any further into another Levi.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2010 @ 4:12 am - December 9, 2010

  12. #159

    Lori,
    Short answer: “Life isn’t fair, get a helmet.”

    Long answer: We accept valid reasons to disbar people from military service. Those reasons gain or lose validity over time. I’ve believed being gay has lost its validity, the report and the numbers have made me question that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 9, 2010 @ 7:01 am - December 9, 2010

  13. (stretch, yawn)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2010 @ 11:56 am - December 9, 2010

  14. Okay, Livewire, I used the word “fair” fully knowing it would bring about that sort of salivary reaction in somebody. Use of this word always turns people into eight-year-olds fighting over whose pee-pee is longer.

    I don’t even have a pee-bee, and I don’t need a helmet. If I tackle you you’ll be lying there long after I get up.

    Instead of “fair,” how about “rational?”

    I’m beginning to wonder if that’s possible here either.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 9, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - December 9, 2010

  15. If I tackle you you’ll be lying there long after I get up.

    Now that, I *do not* want to see, *ever*. 🙂 (Lori and TL both being good people… and TL, by his account, having some heft to throw around in his own figure.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2010 @ 1:41 pm - December 9, 2010

  16. I am getting a very “America’s Funniest Home Videos” feel about the imagery in my last comment, ILC.

    TL knows I’m not the tackling kind (who…me?!!).

    It may just be that I’m experiencing some confusion over all these people named Heather. Who ARE they, anyway — and why are they all named Heather?

    There has to have been a vaudeville skit about that at some time. Only instead of Heather, they probably would have used Myrtle…

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 9, 2010 @ 4:49 pm - December 9, 2010

  17. TLW>> Please answer #155, #156. You keep ignoring valid points while your original argument grows stale.

    TGC offered something that “doesn’t have to make sense.” I just have to presume you’re in like company.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 9, 2010 @ 9:28 pm - December 9, 2010

  18. Wow!!
    I’m bringing popcorn next time.

    Comment by Bobbie — December 9, 2010 @ 9:29 pm - December 9, 2010

  19. Lori,

    My point is that my concern with the military isn’t ‘fairness’ it’s effectiveness. To use other analogies. would it be ‘fair’ to put women in front line roles (ignoring for the moment that there’s no more ‘front line’ in asymetrical warfare)? Yes. Would it hamper effectiveness? ‘signs point to yes.’

    Likewise, if the military (absurd example, I’ll admit) decided to segregate the ranks based on rank or religion, my primary objection would be the disruption and decrease of efficiency. (secondary, it’s a stupid idea.)

    The guts of the report, while they could be presented with less, enthusiasm, by AE, do make me worry. If the 30% number is even semi accurate, there’s more to lose than to gain. My little brother supports repeal of DADT. I respect him on it, but don’t want him to die because he’s short handed and only has 70% of the guys supporting him.

    My definition of military ‘fairness’ usually involved overwhelming firepower. Fair is my boys come home, the op for doesn’t.

    I’ve wondered of late if some ‘limited openess’ would be an option. Letting openly gay personell serve in non-combat positions where the concerns could be mitigated (though REMF might take on a new meaning). I’ve no idea how it could work, or what the repercussions would be. Just an idle thought.

    And yeah, if you’d tackle me, it would be kind of like the Man in Black vs. Fezzik, or Wolverine vs the Blob. 🙂

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2010 @ 8:42 am - December 10, 2010

  20. Vince,

    I’m still confused on how sexuality is like changing clothes to you.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2010 @ 8:44 am - December 10, 2010

  21. My definition of military ‘fairness’ usually involved overwhelming firepower. Fair is my boys come home, the op for doesn’t.

    I have to agree. (Not to say, though, that we shouldn’t keep looking at the question from time to time.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 10, 2010 @ 12:03 pm - December 10, 2010

  22. TLW >> I’m still confused by your unwillingness to just address my valid and logical points. And, if they’re not valid and logical, then, they shouldn’t be to hard to disprove/refudiate.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 10, 2010 @ 12:45 pm - December 10, 2010

  23. Please address posts #134, 135/138, 140, 155. Thanks!

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 10, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - December 10, 2010

  24. Agin, since I’ve hit on your points, it appears that ignoring them is the corner you’ve backed yourself into.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2010 @ 1:01 pm - December 10, 2010

  25. All of your “hitting on my points,” was conjecture that I called you out on and every time I called you on it, you ignored the point or threw out more conjecture.

    Let’s start with just one point (for now) …

    -You never addressed providing data backing up your theory that gays would use “the court of public opinion” to unfairly use their sexuality against the military.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 10, 2010 @ 1:24 pm - December 10, 2010

  26. *Hush, TLW, the crickets are chirping*

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 11, 2010 @ 3:18 am - December 11, 2010

  27. With all due respect, TL, I think we’re getting hung up on buzzwords. When somebody comes over from the Left to the Right — or who has been on the Left for a while begins to consider a change of mind — that person is going to have at his or her command the lingo most commonly heard. This should not result in being tossed out of the clubhouse.

    It would be a shame if “fair” had to be completely gutted from the dictionary because liberals have abused it. I knew the instant I posted the dastardly comment in question that I’d used a common liberal buzzword and that this would be the end of rational discourse on the issue — insofar as I would be permitted to participate in it.

    Again, instead of “fair,” I should have used “rational.” Mea culpa.

    I have questioned not the fairness of DADT so much as its rationality. I’m well aware that fairness wins no points with anybody. Perhaps rationality no longer does, either.

    DADT is a concession to irrationality, and it has been all along. People who think gays are icky have made an issue of it, the way a spoiled child makes an issue of the birthday gift he didn’t get by throwing himself to the floor, kicking and screaming, and turning blue. We cannot end the ban because — in essence — too many overgrown children will throw tantrums. And then we’ll really be sorry. Or something.

    We have, in fact, made a childish tantrum the most important fact in the argument. This is indeed irrational, and I stand by the word. Nor is there any evidence that dealing ineffectively with the matter of sexual malfeasance in the military — as opposed to dealing with the real issue, by punishing the actual conduct itself WHEN IT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED — will solve the problem of it.

    That having been said, I’m not really going to tackle anybody. I’m too much of an old fart for that.

    But when somebody new comes here, sometimes this person is not a troll, but merely clueless — or in the process of learning or changing opinion. Let’s ease up on flogging people for buzzwords. I’m sure I’ve probably done that to people myself.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 11, 2010 @ 10:44 am - December 11, 2010

  28. I’m sorry, did Vince have a point? I’m sure he did, it was just lost in reality. After all, cases where people have been fired for actions then defended those actions by saying they were persecuted for being *blank* never happens does it Vince?

    Given your inability to have a debate w/o moving the goal posts, I’m not surprised your half hearted attempts to have a discussion result in accusing me of being silent.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 13, 2010 @ 7:35 am - December 13, 2010

  29. Lori,

    I’ve said the rational reason for disallowing gays in the military (i.e. that they were a blackmail/security risk) is long since past.* That said, the rational reason now seems to be that it could result in a massive turn over and troop reduction. If the numbers are accurate, as referenced in the report, a 30% reduction of active military personel in a time of war would be devestating. Like I said above, my little brother doesn’t have an issue, but I have an issue if he ends up wounded or dead because he, or his unit, are overworked, overstressed, over taxed because they’re doing a third more work.

    A thought just occured to me though, and I’d like your input. What if state national guards were the ones to ‘repeal’ DADT? Is such a thing possible? Since (in theory) they’re not supposed to be as front line as the ‘real’ military** maybe that’s where to ‘experiment’.

    *Bradley Manning should be taken out and shot, regardless of his sexual orientation. Attempts to justify his treason by his sexuality (something Vince says would never happen, mind you) should at most have the effect of the firing squad maybe taking longer, because laughing is throwung off their aim.

    **No, I’m not belittling the national guard. Just that’s the theory, they’re not supposed to be as front line as the Federal military.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 13, 2010 @ 7:45 am - December 13, 2010

  30. TL, perhaps the state national guards are the place to try the experiment of repealing DADT first. I definitely believe that the states were intended to be the labororatories in which many social changes are tried before anything is done on the federal level.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 13, 2010 @ 7:15 pm - December 13, 2010

  31. 179 >> I never said that such things never happened. Never even suggested. So, you’re putting words in my mouth. If I said such things, then cite examples. I only ask you, because they’re not there.

    You were suggesting that such things would be happening left, right and center, 24/7. And that’s all the repeal would lead to.

    And, I say, you’re wrong because you provide no evidence of any pro-gay policies leading to an onslaught of gays taking advantage of the system.

    So, you did nothing by responding.

    Concerns of mass exodus of troops were also forecast in the Canadian army before the 1992 policy change allowing gays to serve openly. Guess what? Whatever exodus occurred was a thimble full. Your gloom and doom is all that: gloom and doom.

    If the legislative appeal doesn’t go through (currently, Sen. Lieberman’s stand-alone amendment), it may be turned over judicially, due to several suits being filed, the military would have no time to prepare. At least with a legislative appeal, a plan can be hatched and implemented to provide a transition.

    Now, hush, Live Wire and listen for the crickets to start chirping.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 12:23 am - December 14, 2010

  32. Poor Vince, tries putting words in my mouth while arguing that I’d put words in his. Though I will confess to being flattered that he thinks so highly of me that he tries to emulate the phrase I use when I shred our resident bigot. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to understand that it fits when talking to a child, not when one can’t defend an argument. The concept of “Ignore the report! Do it anyway!” stinks of someone who has made up his mind, and little things like facts won’t change it for him

    Then again, backpedaling is nothing new for him.

    You make me laugh, but only because you’re so pathetic.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 14, 2010 @ 1:08 pm - December 14, 2010

  33. TLW >> You said “Attempts to justify his treason by his sexuality (something Vince says would never happen)”

    Okay, TLW. You said I said that would never happen. Now, point out where I said that.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 14, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - December 14, 2010

  34. TLW >> Cut the personal attacks (“pathetic”) and answer post #184.

    You lobbed an accusation. Now, back it up.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - December 15, 2010

  35. Gee, thanks for playing TLW

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 15, 2010 @ 3:00 pm - December 15, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.