House Passes 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal Amendment, Senate Bill Advances

WASHINGTON — 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.

(Click here to view roll call of vote. Scroll down to see which lawmakers broke with their party.)

"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.

___

Associated Press writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed to this report.

___

The bill is H.R. 5136

___

Online:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

WATCH: Rep. Hoyer's DADT floor speech

WATCH: John Lewis: 'We must end discrimination in the military'

The five Republican congressmen who voted for the amendment included:
• Rep. Charles Djou (HI)
• Rep. Joseph Cao (LA)
• Rep. Judy Biggert (IL)
• Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Rep. Ron Paul (TX).

The 26 Democratic congressmen who opposed the amendment included:
• Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA)
• Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)
• Rep. Travis Childers (MS)
• Rep. Jerry Costello (IL)
• Rep. Mark Critz (PA)
• Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)
• Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)
• Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC)
• Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL)
• Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)
• Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
• Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (TX)
• Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)
• Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND)
• Rep. Nick Rahall (NC)
• Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)
• Rep. John Spratt (SC)
• Rep. John Tanner (TN)
• Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)

Comments

[JudgeCorrectly]

03:09 PM on 05/30/2010

If our government and liberal media were truly honest, they would have publicized the truth about how the AIDS epidemic started in the USA. If the American people knew the truth about how AIDS started, they would still be keeping laws against homosexuality and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would not have been implemented during the Clinton era in the first place. Men having sex with men causes disease. Just Google Hepatitis B and Gay sex. The cost of this lifestyle has been staggering upon the American people and now they want to openly infect our military. Every congressmen that supports the Gay lifestyle should be voted out of office, period!

[AnotherTry]

06:02 PM on 05/30/2010

If you're so concerned about it, don't have any more gay sex.

[JudgeCorrectly]

09:46 PM on 05/30/2010

Hi AnotherTry,

What I do has nothing to do with it. If we openly infect the military, I will be greatly concerned.

[AnotherTry]

07:01 AM on 05/30/2010

Anyone who supports this 'study' but wouldn't support a study on white soldiers impact on troop readiness would be a GD hypocrite.

[jbarelli]

11:41 AM on 05/30/2010

Having read through a bunch of your old posts, it's become obvious that you already know that your arguments don't hold water. They've been refuted many times, and this one is particularly silly.

What is also obvious is that you work very hard to discourage Democrats from voting. "They're all the same" is the theme. Vote third party or stay home seems to be the main argument.

An old Republican trick. Been done before, and this is just "Another Try".

[AnotherTry]

06:05 PM on 05/30/2010

And why would you feel the need to read through a bunch of my old posts?

My point is, white soldiers don't harm readiness, obviously. And neither do gay soldiers. But DADT, that's another story. BUt let's keep it around to make the bigots feel vindicated, right? Good plan, guys.

[AnotherTry]

05:07 AM on 05/30/2010

Under DADT: "Hey, sarge. I'm gay."

"Well, soldier, we will have to implement an inquiry and start the very expensive procedure to drum you out of the military, even though you possess skills that are pertinent to the success of our mission and kicking you out will cost us in ways I can't yet foresee."

Without DADT: "Hey, sarge. I'm gay."

"Good for you soldier. Now get back to work."

So why do we need this 'study' again?

[Randy Shepherd]

02:59 PM on 05/29/2010

i understand in the world of politics if obama had to comprimise to get this law passed, but i do not forgive him for his inability to sign an executive order that tells the military to stop the enforcement (that could have been done on day 1, if he really believed in equal rights).

[jbarelli]

03:46 PM on 05/29/2010

No, he really couldn't. Or, more properly, he could sign whatever he wanted to, but the order would have been in violation of federal law, and hence, illegal on it's face. We've had Presidents that didn't feel bound by law. Some might disagree, I don't think they worked out that well.

He could order a review of DADT. He could change how DADT discharges are done, ensuring that local commands cannot abuse the rules. He could tell Congress that he supported the repeal of DADT. All done.

It's still a law, and there are limits to his authority, even as Commander in Chief. It may seem strange that he can order people to their deaths, but cannot simply order that a bad law be ignored, but that's the way it is.

Congress needs cover on this. The right wing smear machine is already in overdrive, so having the military certify, after a thorough review, that this won't degrade military readiness is a good idea.

The military has never liked DADT. Military personnel are highly trained professionals. Losing them over something that doesn't have anything to do with their ability to do the job is not popular.

I've been posting on this for some time, not because I have a personal stake, but because I've seen the cost and I care about my shipmates. (Click my name to read earlier posts.)

I may not be gay, but I'm ecstatic about this law going away. Be happy. It's finally happening.

[AnotherTry]

04:41 PM on 05/29/2010

And who would be sent in to enforce that federal law and by whom? You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

[AnotherTry]

04:42 PM on 05/29/2010

So he could sign an executive order the same day he signs the repeal amendment into law. But we all know he won't.

[1murillo]

11:21 PM on 05/29/2010

Executive orders can be law as long as the existing president is in office. Yet many are overturned by the ensuing president. Creating a legislative law is more difficult to enact and also more difficult to overturn.

[AnotherTry]

03:47 AM on 05/30/2010

Doesn't explain why Obama isn't doing both.

[AnotherTry]

05:09 AM on 05/29/2010

Good read:

Conduct Unbecoming - The Politicos Sell Out the Soldiers

By Tanya L. Domi, former U.S. Army Captain

This week feels like déjà vu circa 1993.

I hope I am wrong. But I do not take President Obama, or the leadership of the Pentagon at their word to end DADT. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical-recent letters from the service chiefs to Senator John McCain, a leader of the Republican opposition, flagrantly flouted the political agreement transacted by the Obama Administration this past week. The president's cautious leadership on DADT, like President Bill Clinton in 1993, is now on the receiving end of strikingly similar insubordination by his service chiefs-a cautionary tale for all those who believe the Pentagon is ready to obey their commander-in-chief's directive.

[1murillo]

11:49 PM on 05/29/2010

President Obama is not facing insubordination from his lieutenants. Both Gates and Mullen have said more than once that they are in favor of repealing DADT and that they'll affirm a positive recommendation in the Dec 1 study.
If you speak of the other Chiefs, they will not be asked to sign the upcoming study. Petreas, McChrystal, Odierno, etc, certainly aren't being asked to enter this political world.
This is different from '93 because the bill (soon law) is not taking the decisions from the armed forces and putting them into federal civilian law.
Merely because you don't like our current president's leadership style does not mean he hasn't been effective.

[AnotherTry]

03:48 AM on 05/30/2010

And where in the amendment does it hold Gates and Mullen to their 'word?' Nowhere.

[AnotherTry]

05:09 AM on 05/29/2010

What is different now from 1993 is that a new generation of gay military veterans has asserted themselves, not content to sit back and wait for permission from the gay groups to politically engage, along with thousands of young LGBT people, who have steadfastly supported these war-tested service members. By testifying, lobbying, rallying and engaging in civil disobedience all across the country, these young heroes shamed the Human Rights Campaign into belated action. And by taking President Obama at his word, the vets and their supporters had the audacity to relentlessly demand and expect Obama to fulfill his promise to repeal DADT.

The diligent work of Servicemembers United added another military voice into the mix, along with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, who has labored mightily in the pasture for years. Another weapon added to the gay arsenal emerged earlier this year with the formation of Get Equal and Queer Rising, two civil disobedience organizations, long needed, since the demise of ACT UP in the early 1990s.

[AnotherTry]

05:09 AM on 05/29/2010

One of the most transformative changes since 1993 has been the emergence of social media and LGBT blogs like this one, who have faithfully kept politicians and the gay groups accountable. Their support of veterans has been impressive and powerful.

And yet, despite a new generation of veterans and young activists, a significantly more seasoned and politically savvy gay American community, the addition of vibrant gay blogs and growing support by our fellow citizens, all combined together, could not generate enough power and influence to obtain a clean revocation from this president because the same old politics that existed in 1993 still rules political decision-making inside the beltway today, 17 years later.

[AnotherTry]

05:08 AM on 05/29/2010

Once again, another Democratic administration is kicking the ball down the field to some unknown date when lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers might be able to serve openly, without fear of investigation and discharge for their sexual orientation.

[AnotherTry]

05:06 AM on 05/29/2010

And the really annoying thing about Obama's 'compromise' is that the right will STILL act like rabid dogs about an amendment that doesn't end DADT but they will scream and holler like it does anyway. Just like everything else Obama has done to try and appease the biggest racists, bigots and ignoramuses in our country and he gets nothing in return for selling out gay American yet again. So who really wins here? Not gays and not democrats.

[AnotherTry]

04:54 AM on 05/29/2010

Everyone should understand what is really happening here. Obama and the military agree. They don't want to repeal DADT and they don't want to allow gays to join or serve openly. If they did, they'd make it happen.

The reason they are playing this procedural games is because they don't want to offer gays and their families the same privileges that come with federal jobs like medical benefits, housing benefits, education benefits.

Anyone who thinks differently simply wants to see it differently. But the gays who are impacted by DADT everyday understand what is happening here. And we don't have ANY choice since Obama's compromise. Congress heard the 78% of Americans who want this repealed, but the President and the military have other ideas. 18 years and counting.

[1murillo]

05:40 AM on 05/29/2010

Anot,
According to you, if anyone sees the current legislative discussion differently than do you, that person "Simply wants to see it differently."
I see it differently than you do. Every point that you make, is absolutely incorrect. If you ask me to elaborate, I'll say in advance that I've elaborated in many other comments. Read your previous 100 comments and my previous 25 and you'll see where I disagree with you and how I understand the present bill developing toward a final bill as it reaches President Obama's desk.
Claim victory over me - if you want, that seems to be your only goal in this thread (perhaps your life?) - yet you're still incorrect.
I'll take no pleasure in seeing that you're wrong as this bill moves forward toward law. This law will create a path toward equality for gay servicemembers (as opposed to your many claims).
Nothing is perfect or 100% completed, there will still be more work to be done. In many ways, the degree of your participation will be your choice.

[AnotherTry]

06:35 AM on 05/29/2010

The opponents of equality thank you for your support of their delay tactics.

[AnotherTry]

06:38 AM on 05/29/2010

This law will create a path toward equality, eh? That is EXACTLY what they said about DADT way back in 1994. How many paths does it take to treat people equally under the law? This is not a path to equality. This is a detour. Gosh, why are you so obstinate?

[jbarelli]

12:19 PM on 05/29/2010

Wrong again. The military does not like losing expensively trained personnel. It hurts the mission. Perhaps people would prefer that the reason for the military to want this change is out of some sense of fairness, and I believe that there is some of that involved too.

But the real reasons are much more pragmatic.

1. This rule is unclear, which leads to abuse by some, uneven enforcement throughout the military and uncertainty among the troops.

2. The rule lends itself to abuse by people desiring to avoid unpleasant assignments.

3. The rule lends itself to abuse by people with personal issues.

4. Most importantly, the rule results in valuable, highly trained service personnel being removed from the military, just when we need them the most.

What military purpose is served by keeping DADT? Why are you of the impression that the military, as a whole, wants to keep it? Yes, there are some individuals that want to keep this absurd rule, but the military is a big outfit, and in any organization that large, there will be differences of opinion and belief.

Contrary to the opinion of some, the military does not turn people into some sort of mindless robots.

[AnotherTry]

03:34 PM on 05/29/2010

Because the people attracted to the military are not enlightened people.

[JayJonson]

01:53 PM on 06/01/2010

If the military is so interested in getting rid of DADT, they sure are behaving in a curious way, exhorting Republican politicians to oppose the "compromise," saying it is disrespectful of troops if a decision is made before they are "polled" on the issue (like they are polled before they are deployed to Afghanistan!)

[AnotherTry]

04:45 AM on 05/29/2010

Let’s look at the compromise: The deal postpones the repeal of DADT until after a study concerning the effect of troop integration of military readiness. But that’s not all the deal requires. The deal also, according to the New York Times states that, “Mr. Obama, his defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff would also be required to certify that repeal would not harm readiness.”

There is the crux of the matter. We would need approval, after a repeal, of Obama, the defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs before the already legislatively achieved repeal could be implemented. If that is not anti-democratic and a huge move shifting power to the executive office, then I don’t know what it.

This deal is suspect and undemocratic. We need to fight for a real repeal.

[Rainbow Law]

08:04 AM on 05/30/2010

AnotherTry, As I remember it, Obama did not "promised to repeal" DADT. In a July 2008 interview with The Military Times, Obama said he thinks repeal is a good idea but, as president, would not force it on the military. And, around the same time, Obama was interviewed by The Advocate Magazine and told them he can "reasonably see" repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I think he has done more than any of his predecessors. His efforts may not go far enough but to say he is not leading is, in my humble opinion, incorrect.

[AnotherTry]

08:19 AM on 05/30/2010

I guess you didn't watch the State of the Union speech. If you want to have faith in Chicago politicians, you go right ahead. Some of us are not nearly that naive.

[jbarelli]

11:51 AM on 05/30/2010

You should be aware that "Another Try" seems to refer to trying to keep Democrats from voting, or to get them to vote for token candidates. All of these arguments have been refuted many times. Read over the responses to his posts dating back as far as you wish. You'll see the pattern

Republicans work hard to discourage Democrats from voting. This is just "Another Try".

[arlandbaee]

12:53 AM on 05/29/2010

All military personnel should feel insulted and betrayed at the suggestion that they are not capable of handling this. I know I would. I also know that my six years in the military proved to me that those I served alongside are bigger and better than what some politicians suggest.

[jbarelli]

03:11 AM on 05/29/2010

The military can handle this. Yes, they need a bit of time to get the instructions changed and to get leaders trained to deal with a change in issues. Not more issues, as getting rid of DADT will solve a lot more problems than it causes, but there will be some problems.

And Congress needs a bit of cover as well. The right wing smear machine is already cranking out messages of fear and hatred, and it will only get worse.

But we're losing trained personnel at a time when we have none to spare, and over an issue that has nothing to do with military discipline or readiness. We have rules in place about sexual harassment and fraternization.

Today's military is comprised of trained, disciplined professionals. Anyone that simply cannot work with someone of a different sexual orientation isn't a professional, and that is someone that the military can do without.

Of course, there will be a few bigots. Most have left the military already over eliminating discrimination based on race, or over bringing women into more roles, but there are still a few. But even most of them can be disciplined and professional enough to follow orders, and they'll come around in time.

I know. I spent most of my adult life in uniform. We're better than the bigots think we are.

John Barelli, NCC(AW), USN (Ret)

[AnotherTry]

04:56 AM on 05/29/2010

Please. You are not representative of the military on the whole. You would be a unique exception to the rule.

[Rainbow Law]

08:08 AM on 05/30/2010

There are already gay and lesbians serving in the military. Do those members get a say as well, or do we leave it up to the majority? The US Constitution guarantees that minorities will be protected from mob rule. It is not as though the military is full of heterosexual people who will suddenly be inundated with gays joining up. They are already there. This policy forces them to either NOT serve when they want to, or, to serve while lying to everyone about their true nature.

[JayJonson]

01:58 PM on 06/01/2010

Boy, you are naive. You seem to actually think that the US Constitution means something. As long as we have the kind of Supreme Court we have and the kind of uneducated populace we have, the Constitution is as meaningless as the words we saw when we pledge allegiance to a republic in which there is "liberty and justice for all."

[Chief22]

12:27 AM on 05/29/2010

obama is in a huge delima...he has vowed to veto this bill, since it has a provision supporting additional spending on the JointStrike Fighter, what is more important to him saaving tax payer money or screwing up the Military?

[jbarelli]

03:22 AM on 05/29/2010

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Chief, but that would be "President Obama". Civilians get to treat the President of the United States with disrespect. Sailors do not, even when we're retired.

You may not like him, but assuming that you, like me are still part of the Retired Reserve, and still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he is your Commander in Chief, and should be spoken of and to with respect for the office that he holds, regardless of your feelings for him personally.

[AnotherTry]

04:57 AM on 05/29/2010

And that right there is why we shouldn't listen to military people to decide how to do the right thing. You follow orders, but in this case the military is giving Obama orders and he's following them. What's to respect there?

[1murillo]

05:26 AM on 05/29/2010

Funding for the Fighter engine is included in this bill (agreed). Many billions of dollars in expenditure are the focus of this bill. (That's why we see many different topics included)
However, we haven't seen the final bill from the Congress. At the same time, there are many routes the US can take to not fund this fighter. Gates has already strongly come out against the need to fund this engine, it'll be used as a political football by conservative Senators ... that's how legislation is completed .
And that's why though the House and the Senate committee has passed the bill (and Amendment 79) there are still several tasks ahead before this bill is completed and sent to President Obama.

[AnotherTry]

06:37 AM on 05/29/2010

And no matter what the outcome, open gays can not join or serve in the armed forces.

[arlandbaee]

12:08 AM on 05/29/2010

There are too many people who underestimate the value of doing what's right. I write to our president weekly on the value of standing up for what's right over what's popular. No one can lose ground with "It's the right thing to do".

[Chief22]

12:28 AM on 05/29/2010

it is not right to screw with solders while they are at war

[arlandbaee]

12:48 AM on 05/29/2010

Well chief, there aren't many marines I know that wouldn't be able to handle this change either with or without a war. If I may ask, which soldiers are you suggesting couldn't handle this? I was military for six years and I know those I served alongside wouldn't even blink if DADT was repealed. Maybe I served with a better caliber of enlisted.

[sharonh]

12:08 AM on 05/29/2010

Village People--In The Navy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw