DADT repeal passes senate

[sys]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/18/ ... tml?hpt=T1

The military's prohibition of openly gay people serving within its ranks is one step closer to ending, after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal the armed forces' "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Eight Republicans and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined the chamber's Democrats to back the legislation, which passed around 3 p.m. by a 65-31 margin. The bill needed a simple majority -- meaning support from 51 of the Senate's 100 members -- to pass.

"I want to thank all of the gay men and women who are fighting for us today," said Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who pushed hard for the measure. "We honor your service, and now we can do so openly."

President Barack Obama will sign the bill into law next week, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a Twitter post moments after the Senate vote.

"Gay and lesbian service members -- brave Americans who enable our freedoms -- will no longer have to hide who they are," Obama said in an e-mailed statement to supporters. "The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one."

afaik this vote was the last major hurdle for the bill, only thing left is for obama to sign which he obviously is going to do

[ayeyah]

I'm kind of surprised that every Democrat voted for the repeal (except for Manchin, who abstained, but he's known to be against it anyways).

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
LeMieux (R-FL), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Not Voting
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

[Cc_Hairy]

Today on Fox News:

"They repealed DADT and my military husband got sodomized by a pack of Lesbians!"

[MrBlip]

link to torrent, please

[japanimater]

So it finally happened, maybe now the army will get enough troops that I won't have to go back overseas again before the end of my contract. Then again it may be awhile till homosexuals start enlisting since the military is obviously going to have to outline a system for them both in identifying them in paperwork and how to go about their training. I highly doubt they'll bunk homos with heteros due to obvious complications. Separation of latrines might still be reserved for males and females.

On the paperwork they may do one of two things, they might either require them to list their "sexual orientation" right beneath their gender as hetero/homo or it may be deemed "against the DADT repeal law" and not require that info. Another thing that might become a hot topic to follow soon after is whether or not homosexual servicemembers who are in same sex relations(married) if they are able to claim their spouse as a dependent. Claiming a adopted child as a dependent shouldn't be any different from the adopted of a hetero couple.

[Obi Juan]

I highly doubt they'll bunk homos with heteros due to obvious complications.

Why does everyone think that homosexuals just want to rape straight people? If thats not what you meant by "obvious complications" then please elaborate i would love to hear your reasoning.

[japanimater]

I highly doubt they'll bunk homos with heteros due to obvious complications.

Why does everyone think that homosexuals just want to rape straight people? If thats not what you meant by "obvious complications" then please elaborate i would love to hear your reasoning.

It's not about what I think, rules and regulations are placed with the entire military in mind. It's not a case by case thing, but is prone to change when incidents happen that would require rules to be added or changed. Higher-ups would see that a homosexual making non-aggressive advances on a heterosexual would get in the way of training. That's one of the reasons males and females aren't bunked together, to prevent distractions so they can focus on training. Another reason they put a certain chemical in some of the DFAC(mainly at basic training) food served to suppress certain sexual hormones.

[OfLoathing]

I highly doubt they'll bunk homos with heteros due to obvious complications.

Why does everyone think that homosexuals just want to rape straight people? If thats not what you meant by "obvious complications" then please elaborate i would love to hear your reasoning.

It's not about what I think, rules and regulations are placed with the entire military in mind. It's not a case by case thing, but is prone to change when incidents happen that would require rules to be added or changed. Higher-ups would see that a homosexual making non-aggressive advances on a heterosexual would get in the way of training. That's one of the reasons males and females aren't bunked together, to prevent distractions so they can focus on training. Another reason they put a certain chemical in some of the DFAC(mainly at basic training) food served to suppress certain sexual hormones.

Can you link me to some evidence that they do this at basic training. I just got out of basic recently and all of the guys were convinced there was chemicals in the food.. but I was just as horny to see my wife as ever. I am calling bullshit on that and I highly doubt that you will be able to find an ounce of evidence to support it. It's fine if you're convinced that it happens, just don't go around calling conjecture fact, because it certainly is not a fact.

I doubt they will be separating or segregating gays in any way, because that would too obviously out them in front of a bunch of guys that would likely harass them for it anyways. If there does actually end up being any increased problems at the basic training sites, I'm sure that they will try an enact some changes then. However, I have a feeling that most gays will choose to stay closeted during basic and basic training will continue to have the same level of secret homosexual activity it always has (which is to say a fair amount if you're paying attention).

There will still be the same punishment for two people getting caught having intercourse in basic training there always was (which is an Article 15 or an automatic chapter and removal from the military - depending on the Commander's recommendation) regardless of whether the intercourse is heterosexual or not.

So, really, when you start getting involved in specific punishments and what NCO's on the ground will actually have to deal with, you realize that the homosexuality was ALREADY THERE - people just don't have to lie about it anymore, unless they want to.

[japanimater]

I don't have any proof of the chemical, though myself and everyone else in our platoon didn't have "random erections" that men sometimes get. I'm not saying it completely eliminates sexual desires, it just suppresses them. So of course you'd feel aroused when with your wife, but because that is a much greater stimulus than what you would have at BCT. And the other things I stated, i'm not saying they will happen but what could happen. I'm not a General, a officer, or even a NCO(yet), so i'm not claiming I know everything, just claiming possibilities.

One more thing, about the chemical. It was said it was in the eggs, at breakfast i've seen that there was a yellow liquid packaged mixture used by the staff to make the eggs. When the drill sergents would come through the staff made their's with actual eggs.

[Jason]

THis is awesome. A good friend of mine's old roommate is a lesbian and she's in the army and it was a pain in the ass for her. And dudes would hit on her and she couldn't be like uh I am gay, because she'd straight up be kicked out. Fucking ridiculous. It's about time.

[sys]

THis is awesome. A good friend of mine's old roommate is a lesbian and she's in the army and it was a pain in the ass for her. And dudes would hit on her and she couldn't be like uh I am gay, because she'd straight up be kicked out. Fucking ridiculous. It's about time.

yeah this is what i don't get. if people are worried about gay guys hitting on straight guys, why aren't they also concerned about straight guys hiting on women? it's the exact same issue.

you can't be against gays in the military but for women in the military. i don't see any way that can not be contradictory

[japanimater]

THis is awesome. A good friend of mine's old roommate is a lesbian and she's in the army and it was a pain in the ass for her. And dudes would hit on her and she couldn't be like uh I am gay, because she'd straight up be kicked out. Fucking ridiculous. It's about time.

yeah this is what i don't get. if people are worried about gay guys hitting on straight guys, why aren't they also concerned about straight guys hiting on women? it's the exact same issue.

you can't be against gays in the military but for women in the military. I don't see any way that can not be contradictory

To them, homosexuals who bunk with other homosexuals or heterosexuals of the same gender would be the same as men and women bunking up.

[stabbyclaus]

from the military:
-no "seperate but equal" stances which include seperate housing & bath houses
-no marriage benefits because of our dumb "marriage protecrion act"
-if you opposed to the repeal, you cannot leave the military because of it

[Mad_Dugan]

"The Saltpeter Principle" - Saltpeter is secreted in the food or drink of enlisted men.

http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp

[OfLoathing]

"The Saltpeter Principle" - Saltpeter is secreted in the food or drink of enlisted men.

http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp

Thank you.

from the military:
-no "seperate but equal" stances which include seperate housing & bath houses
-no marriage benefits because of our dumb "marriage protecrion act"
-if you opposed to the repeal, you cannot leave the military because of it

Do you have a source for that? I'm curious about how said it.

When you say 'no separate but equal' stances I'm not sure whether you mean they haven't taken a stance on whether or not they'll be enacting separate but equal measures, or that they have taken a stance on not enacting any separate but equal measures.

I'm not surprised at the marriage benefits - but hopefully they'll now allow homosexual spouses and loved ones to be recognized when it comes to notifications about death and hospitalization visits. Plus, you can name anyone on your life insurance forms for full benefits, so people won't have to hide their association with the homosexual spouse on the DD 93 life insurance forms anymore. I wonder how long it's going to take to fix the marriage protection act. My guess is 2030, or whenever the current generation of senators finally passes away from old age.