world

Republicans block bill to lift US military gay ban

45 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

That's worth repeating over and over...

Republicans blocked the bill to lift the ban on gays in the military.

Republicans blocked the bill to lift the ban on gays in the military.

< :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Against Lady Gaga's wishes? Shocked, I am.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, the bigger reason the bill was blocked was because of Reid's sleight-of-hand attempt to get DREAM enacted, which was also attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Looks like he underestimated the resolve of the American people who hounded their representatives with phone calls and faxes to vote against DREAM.

Reid is considering to re-introduce the bill later this year. What arrogance. Doesn't matter what the American people want, he knows better.

Hopefully come November, Reid starts his journey into civilian life where he can do no more harm. He needed to be retired long ago.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lady Gaga ... isn't she the loony tune who wore a dress made out of meat to some music awards event recently? Heh, yeah, I'd want her endorsement of any cause I supported.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the majority of Americans think the ban on gays in the military should be overturned, why not let them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the majority of Americans think the ban on gays in the military should be overturned, why not let them?

Because the majority of us don't. Otherwise, it would have been overturned by now.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lady Gaga was probably the nail in the coffin; not the other way around.

Nonetheless, you have seen once again how 'tolerant' and 'open-minded' Republicans are. I like how RR tries to spin it so that Reid is going against the American people on this one, when clearly it is the Republican party once agian failing to listen to the voices of the people. Hopefully this hurts them at the polls a bit, if nothing else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans have only blocked this bill. It is safe to say his supporters here still believe Barack Obama supports DADT; and it's because, well, he is America's first gay president, so to speak, the way that Toni Morrison and others said Clinton was the first black president. It's cold comfort I suppose, but smithinjapan and dayadream can take that away from all of this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Next week, Lady Gaga will wear a dress made out of tea bags and Jon Stewart will explode.

Hey it could happen.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/potyo/4998284912/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bill doesn't lift the bad. It allows the the military to determine it's own policy on the matter instead of congress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"because, well, he is America's first gay president, "

I bet you are a lot of fun at parties, Tim. Most of the world spins on an axis defined by reason and rationale, and then there are people who swing from one meme to another like acrobats on a jungle gym. The GOP is chock full of them. This week everyone in the GOP can be anti Gay, last week it was anti tax, anti-RINO, anti Powell. I don't know how you keep it all straight.

It is always anti-something. What is a little creepy is that I can tell that you are looking at this issue sexually and not socially. It is visceral, not pragmatic. Hence the comment about Obama being gay.

Oh well. Keep saying it. Over and over. Obama is gay. Just keep repeating it and I am sure that a lot of your cronies will believe you. I am certain of it. It does not really explain his marriage to an attractive woman and his two kids, but when has reality ever stopped anyone making similar accusations about the POTUS? Are you going to say that everyone who voted for the bill is gay too? Say it loud and clear if that is what you feel.

The comment defines you and it defines The TP/GOP very well. Don't be shy. Be proud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope Obama fans can have a good cry when this is all over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"... he is America's first gay president..."

This and his attempted little jab at adaydream and me is Tim Russert in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. Not only can he not see the forest for the trees, he'll keep walking into them denying they are there.

"Recent polls suggest that a majority of Americans think the ban on gays in the military should be overturned."

I guess Tim feels the majority of Americans are 'gay', based on his logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wouldn't care if we'd had our first gay president, that's no big deal to me. To several of you homophobics it's a big deal.

Republicans blocked the bill to lift the ban on gays in the military.

Republicans blocked the bill to lift the ban on gays in the military. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"ban on gays from seving openly in the military"

This is one thing I didn't like about the U.S. military when I was serving and don't now. In my unit they had an enlisted guy I worked with entrap this officer who they suspected of being gay. They both suddenly disappeared, the enlisted guy got PCSed to some base on the other side of the planet, and the officer got booted out. I thought, "Gawd, what a waste of time and money."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You'll never see me agree with the Republicans again, but they did the right thing today.

DADT is archaic and should be repealed, but DREAM is a piece of crap; If this act allowing the children of criminals to become citizens had passed, it would have been followed by an act opening the border to anyone who wanted to come to the US without qualification.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is the reason they aren't allowed to serve openly? I've actually forgotten...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why did they throw so many other things in this bill? I'm all for letting gays join but the other things in this bill were way out. So, if the issue and the title of the bill was about lifting the ban on gays, why would you throw monkey wrenches in it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Junnama, good question!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

motyrah:

The bill doesn't lift the ban. It allows the the military to determine it's own policy on the matter instead of congress.

This must be incorrect because, as everyone rightly knows, the GOP are the party of small government and they'd simply jump at the chance to pass responsiblity onto the military and out of government politicians' hands. I can only conclude you're lying or poorly informed.

motogaijin:

DREAM is a piece of crap; If this act allowing the children of criminals to become citizens had passed, it would have been followed by an act opening the border to anyone who wanted to come to the US without qualification.

While I disagree with this I'm with skipthesong - why the need to keep lumping tenuously linked acts under the same bill? It's a bit of an indictment on congressional efficiency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is always anti-something.

No, actually, it's someone trying to be everything to everyone:Obama, since he first arrived on the national scene. He admitted it in his first book, that he would let people project onto him their hopes and beliefs. And now we see it was all an angle, a way to grab power, a cynical way to play one group off another. No one really condemns him for not making the acceptance of gays in the military an executive order, nor do they resent him for not doing the same with gay marriage, because they know he lies. He'll meet gay rights groups privately after this, and he'll allude to how he elevated one of their own to the SCOTUS, and by inference, basically tell em to shut up and be happy they got that. Likewise, he'll let, say, California black and Hispanic voters know that while he believes in gay rights for some (like those who want to enter the military), he is, like blacks and Hispanics, opposed to making gay marriage law of the land. And all the while he will just explain his away his lies,deception and posturing as things he had to do, to "take on certain folks, the intolerant, people who cling to their guns and religion because they fear others different from them, and they wanna turn back the clock," or whatever b.s. his handlers put on the teleprompter for him to recite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well that was an angry, hate-filled rant....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When the GOP was asked why they blocked the DADT bill, they replied, "Don't Ask."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And now we see it was all an angle, a way to grab power, a cynical way to play one group off another

This....from a conservative!!?? ROFL!!!

In a generation, the conservatives will be claiming that it was they who were for gay rights and it was the Democrats who thwarted them. Just like they lie about the civil rights act today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, if there is anything Republicans hate more than gays, its foriegn kids of "good moral character", who are what DREAM is meant to protect since they got there for no fault of their own.

The reason why Congress shoves so many riders on bills is because they do not want to do their jobs first of all. Second is they don't want to be responsible for what they do do, so if a law fails, they can say they voted for the rider.

The whole thing started as a compromise idea, but its being abused. Something as important as DADT deserves their undivided attention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought America was about freedom and less government interference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the democrats were soooo sure repealing DADT and enacting DREAM were such good ideas, they should have put those two up for a vote as separate bills.

So, thanks to Reid for adding DREAM to the defense bill, there's now no funding to resupply the troops nor pay raises to active duty military personnel (on a personal note: I have not had a COLA increase since Obama took office).

Heckuva job, democrats.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard wrote:

if there is anything Republicans hate more than gays, its foriegn kids of "good moral character", who are what DREAM is meant to protect since they got there for no fault of their own.

You may have missed it , but the DREAM act only requires a person to be in the U.S. for 5 years (since age 16). Sounds like a back door amnesty whether or not you're in our country legally.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The DREAM Act would allow people to serve two years in the military, to then qualify to apply for permanent U.S. residency.

To be eligible, an illegal must enter the country before the age of 16, live five consecutive years in the U.S. and have a clear record void of criminal activity.

Thus, if DREAM were enacted into law, about 2.5 million people under the age of 18 living in the U.S. illegally would qualify.

More democrat fuzzy logic. How is it possible to have a clear record void of criminal activity if a person violated our laws by being in America illegally in the first place?

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First sentences should be, "Senate Republicans, who are the minority party on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats, who hold a controlling majority in both the Senate and Congress, and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision. The Democrats were unable to do so as even THEY did not believe in the measure"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII said: You may have missed it , but the DREAM act only requires a person to be in the U.S. for 5 years (since age 16).

False. Since BEFORE 16. The bill is granting amnesty...FOR MINORS or those who were minors when brought here...and minors get amnesty for everything else anyway, this being much more sensible to grant them amnesty on then say carjacking.

They are here, like it or not, and they are not going away, squint your eyes and wish as hard as you can. So may as well deal with them, get them official, and get them working, paying taxes, studying, and serving in the military. There is nothing for them in their so-called home countries because they were just minors when they left.

This bill has been tooled so many times the only reason to be against it now is to hate immigrants and nevermind the fact that most Americans are the offspring of immigrants themselves!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More democrat fuzzy logic. How is it possible to have a clear record void of criminal activity if a person violated our laws by being in America illegally in the first place?

Because minors are not responsible for being illegal immigrants.

But Republicans have scored a perfecta. They got to step on some illegal immigrant kids and gays at the same time!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

republicans don't want gays in the military. They prefer them as political pages to be played with.

Sickening.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard wrote:

This bill has been tooled ... to hate immigrants and nevermind the fact that most Americans are the offspring of immigrants themselves!

False. Illegal is illegal. There's a big difference between an immigrant who legally entered America, enlisting and getting a fast track to U.S. citizenship and allowing an illegal to enlist for the same purpose.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

republicans don't want gays in the military. They prefer them as political pages to be played with. Sickening. Taka313

Your propensity for projection has gotten waaaaaaay out of hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(R)epublicans don't want gays in the military. They prefer them as political pages to be played with. Sickening.

Pure nonesense. Reid and the democrats are using the DoD and military to delay funds for needed weapons systems and overall military readiness so they can attempt to force back door amnesty to illegals down our throats.

Liberals put the concerns of illegals above our own nat'l defense. Now that, young man, is sickening.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think I would prefer a gay barracks-mate. They would keep the place immaculately clean, exchange the uncomfortable bunks with furniture from Pottery Barn and likely be able to entertain with a good show tune now and then.

Seriously, in this day and age does anybody really care? And if so why? Is the worry that they'll be accosted in the shower? If you're secure in your own 'manliness' - or 'womanliness' then you've nothing to fear. I say that if a gay man is willing and able to put his life on the line for his country then good for him. If the fear is an AIDS thing due to the chance of blood in combat injury I would counter that likely just as many 'straight' troopers might be so infected. If so paranoid force them to undergo more frequent blood screenings. I'm quite certain the troops copulating with everything that moves in foreign ports of call aren't bringing in anything dangerous [note: sarcasm}.

That being said, what RR stated is quite true. The bill had additions tacked onto it that made it unpalatable and not passable, as often happens with legislation from either side. So the liberals on hear can scream all they want about the 'evil, intolerant Conservatives' when in fact Reid sabotaged the bill from ever being able to pass.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the fear is an AIDS thing due to the chance of blood in combat injury I would counter that likely just as many 'straight' troopers might be so infected.

Nah, that's not a valid claim. Troops are tested once every six months and before a deployment/re-deployment overseas.

The beef I have with Reid and the democrats is that they allowed the Defense Authorization Bill -- which allows for our national security -- to be hijacked so they could attempt to further the rights of special interest groups. Policy bills like DADT and DREAM should be individual bills that pass or fail on their own individual merit; not piggybacked so that the democrats can come out and shed some fake tears saying the eeeeeevil republicans voted against funding for our troops.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard wrote:

Republicans have ... to step on some illegal immigrant kids

Referring to these people as an "illegal" immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed" pharmacist.

Too funny.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RR: "Referring to these people as an "illegal" immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed" pharmacist. Too funny."

Referring to what people, the 'illegal immigrants'? Should one simply say 'immigrants' without the qualifying adjective? You yourself made a point of how it's 'completely different' when a LEGAL immigrant fast-tracks to US citizenship, and now you're saying using the term 'illegal' is redundant? Too funny indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote said: Please, try to familiarize yourself with US law and immigration policy.

My point was one of a sensible philosophy, not one of what US laws and policies are.

If you think holding a six year old responsible for his crime of being an illegal immigrant is something to be proud of, you are quite welcome to that opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote said: Your propensity for projection has gotten waaaaaaay out of hand.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe you should crack down on your side for that sort of comment instead of ours? Because when I see that sort of comment from ours it is usually purely reactionary. Someone made a post about ideological acrobatics recently. I should have saved that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII

Troops are tested once every six months

Actually that's once a year during their yearly Physical Health Assessment. It's a routine matter.

Policy bills like DADT and DREAM should be individual bills that pass or fail on their own individual merit

I agree, but it wasn't and it's a fact that the republicans stopped the bill that would allow gays to serve in the military. The republicans stopped it.

Big deal. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All the losers that had to comment on my comment should ask themselves what letter is behind the name of every person in the last 10 years who has been in office and got in trouble with law because of their gay dealings. You'll find a hell of a lot more "r's" behind their names than "D's." HELLO LARRY CRAIG (r)!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ask themselves what letter is behind the name of every person in the last 10 years who has been in office and got in trouble with law because of their gay dealings.

Your naivete is something to behold. A politician's sexual orientation matters when the mainstream legacy media decides it does. "R" and gay? It's news! "D" and gay? Well, we don't need to go there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites