DADT Repeal Fails in Senate

December 9th, 2010 at 4:29 pm | 14 Comments |

| Print

The Hill reports:

The Senate on Thursday dealt a severe blow to the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law, dimming the chances for the Clinton-era ban to be scrapped this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) failed to garner the necessary 60 votes for a procedural motion to start considering the 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains a provision to repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. The final vote was 57-40.

Most Republicans stuck to their pledge to block any bills until a deal is reached on the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and government spending for 2011 is resolved. Republican Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who have expressed support for repealing the law, both voted no.

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia also voted against cloture.

Several Republicans indicated they would support scrapping the ban, but they wanted to see an open debate process on the defense authorization bill, including the ability to offer a series of amendments. Those Republicans included Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who voted in favor of cloture on Thursday, as well as Brown and Murkowski, who on Thursday voted against proceeding to the bill.

Murkowski’s statement of support for repealing the Clinton-era law Wednesday had given repeal advocates the necessary certainty that they would have the 60 votes necessary to make repeal happen.

Click here to read more.

Recent Posts by FrumForum News



14 Comments so far ↓

  • Houndentenor

    Newly elected closet case Mark Kirk voted against cloture. I guess that makes him the new Larry Craig.

  • balconesfault

    Most Republicans stuck to their pledge to block any bills until a deal is reached on the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and government spending for 2011 is resolved.

    So now the Republicans are holding gay rights hostage too!

    What was the statistic … about 30% of the gays who voted in 2010 voted Republican? I hope they enjoy knowing that they supported the idea that their constitutional protections are a bargaining chip for the people they helped elect.

  • mlindroo

    Polls indicate a majority of Americans support the DADT repeal… In fact, they have done so for at least the past ten years.

    Polls indicate a majority of military personnel the DADT repeal as well, as does SecDef and most senior military officials…

    The House would easily vote in favor, and a solid 57-40 majority in the Senate also voted in favor of ending the practice of discriminating against gays…

    Now, I have question for John Guardiano.
    Do you think it is fair that your side can continue to block this despite being outnumbered and outvoted at every level?! I mean, this is RIDICULOUS! The only ones opposing this are ignorant homophobes.

    MARCU$

  • rubbernecker

    What a day for the Republicans. Blocked aid to 911 responders and denied gay people their civil rights.

    You stink, GOP!

  • Nanotek

    Sad day when blind bigotry wins out over civil rights, equality and military prowess

  • Diomedes

    And more proof that Obama sold out with this tax deal compromise. What did the Dems get in return? Nada. They have a watered down health care bill, regulatory reform was dismal at best, they folded faster than Superman on laundry day when it comes to the Bush tax cuts. And now, even DADT repeal fails.

    GOP: you would sell out your soul and your country if it meant you could garner a few extra votes and line your pockets with money.
    Dems: I haven’t seen so many pussies since I spent a weekend in the Red Light district in Amsterdam.

    Sad day to feel patriotic.

  • jjv

    The military men who oppose this bill far outnumber the homosexuals who support it. If there is a special interest to be catered too, choose the Marines over the GLBT crowd. Most Americans are so divorced from military service that their views are simply reflexive of current mores, not what actually works in combat. Moreover, all this talk of majorities is nowhere mentioned when the public is against some gay pet project (see Same Sex Marriage). Republicans are guardians of the miltiary. Democrats are not. Republicans should hold the line as the most marginal impact on our fighting forces is more important than the GLBT agenda to feel good about themselves. When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

  • balconesfault

    The military men who oppose this bill far outnumber the homosexuals who support it.

    Here’s one vote that jjv has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about, or any interest in fact-checking before he makes such a blatantly stupid comment.

  • lessadoabouteverything

    balcone, beyond that, I am in an inter racial marriage, if I had to depend on the majority to get married I never could have (at least in America). And before Truman set about integrating the Armed Forces far more Americans were opposed to that than opposed to this. Remember gay people can serve, they just have to keep quiet about being gay. It would be like allowing blacks to put on whiteface in 1940 and telling them they can never be seen as being black, but they can be black on the inside. It is retarded.

  • politicalfan

    “Republicans are guardians of the miltiary. Democrats are not.”

    jjv- are you saying that the moral and or religious are guardians of the military are R’s? So, if a person is gay, they don’t need a guardian?

    That is nonsense. People think and believe the way they believe regardless if they are R’s or D’s. Do you honestly think that everyone that wants DADT to pass is a Democrat? Are you further suggesting that there are no gay soldiers that are Republican? The cookie cutter idea of party purists is more limited than people think. Why is the Independent party growing?

    “My party”- DADT should be over and done with!!!

  • larry

    jjv — in the korean- war era army in which i happened to serve, there were both draftees and enlisted soldiers. Gays were surely among our numbers. no one thought their presence a threat to good order, discipline, or unit cohesion. you have identified a false problem. i was very fond of that truly American army, a cross-section of the population. in my outfit, there were, in the enlisted ranks, both high-school and college graduates, including a harvard mba. and as i say, no doubt gays as well.

  • TJ Parker

    This it stupid. Hey GOP: We’ll make sure that everyone under 35 remembers this for a long long time.

    What these military gays and lesbians need to do is all come out, all at once, and force the government’s hand. Stop-loss. Then de facto end to the policy.

    And leave John McCain to drown in a puddle of his own bile.

  • jjv

    I wish to clarify my statement from some of the comments here. I have zero doubt that people of homosexual inclination have served and are serving in today’s military. By definition they are subordinating their inclinations for the good of the unit. Their are people prone to over eating who are making huge sacrifices to meet the weight requirements. They are doing so for the good of the unit. I could go on with other behaviors that if indulged in and trumpeted would be bad for unit cohesion. My antagonism to those wishing to get rid of DADT is that they want to incorporate the entire GLBT world view into a military where it will not work. Does that mean we will lose wars? No. It will be a marginal effect, but marginally negative. The DADT compromise was just that a compromise. It has worked well. The amount of effort expended on this issue to please a tiny well placed minority is ridiculous.

  • lessadoabouteverything

    My antagonism to those wishing to get rid of DADT is that they want to incorporate the entire GLBT world view into a military where it will not work

    And the evidence for this is where exactly? The military already has laws against fraternization, they are enough, we don’t prohibit women from serving alongside men out of fear that the men can’t control themselves? And we didn’t prohibit it because we didn’t want to incorporate feminism into the military (which it wasn’t)