This presupposes that history as a whole is becoming more liberal all the time. If Repubs are able to stamp our homosexual agitators then wouldn’t they be on the right side of history?
As an aside (although DADT does not quite do so) the act of banning gays from the military would be extremely pro gay. It could be followed by banning blacks, hispanics, asians, women, legal residents, human beings…
I suggest a major change in the way the Senate operates, in order to more properly allign it with reality.
Legislation brought forward by the Republican Party: Requires 50+ votes to pass
Legislation brought forward by the Democratic Party: Requires 60+ votes to pass
I mean, this this simply reflects the way things are - why not formalize it? That way, the voters can be aware of the actual repercussions that will occur when they elect a senator from a particular party.
I wonder what would happen if 40+ Democratic Senators in the incoming Congress announced their intention to filibuster each and every measure sent up by the House of Representatives unless its primary sponsor were a Democrat?
Oh well; off to the courts we go to overturn DADT.
Like I said, this isn’t necessarily over. This vote was as much Reid being an idiot about scheduling as anything else. The Republicans have repeatedly said they won’t vote to allow debate on anything until the tax cuts pass, and the tax cut deal’s been made, so if Reid actually wants to get this passed, he just has to wait until the tax bill is voted on. Then there’ll be a real vote, and we’ll see how much support repeal actually has.
I have a question. Even if DADT is repealed, there were earlier rules against gays too, what about those? And without DADT couldn’t a soldier be ASKED again about this, either before enlisting or if in service and then let go per the old rules? Has anyone thought about this, that they might end up worse off without a new rule expressly ending any orientation mattering?
I would have to assume that, with a lot of the current debate around this issue specifically mentioning being able to serve openly and with repeal of DADT being considered as a reflection of current reality as it relates to all tried and rejected past practices, the repeal language would be crafted to wipe the slate clean in terms of rules about enlistment/retention practices going forward.
The Fox News Douchebags TM would have a meltdown.
That would not be Reids fault. that is the demands of the Repubs who are in the minority insisting they should set the agenda. That is not how it works.
They would announce it as a new policy and a threat to democracy. Many righties would buy it.
I can’t see why he wouldn’t want it to pass - I’ve never heard Reid accused of homophobia. And surely anything that increases the size of the recruiting pool is all to the good.
I really just don’t understand the Senate Republicans. I mean, these are all educated people - is there a single Senator who doesn’t have at least a BA, and often quite a bit more? And I truly believe that most people genuinely do seek elected office to serve their country - yes, they want power, but they want power in order to do good. This doesn’t mean that everyone agrees on what “good” is, of course - but good grief, can’t we at least agree that it’s silly to keep people from fighting and dying for the Republic because of who they sleep with?
It’s Reid’s fault in the sense that he knew that if he scheduled the vote before the tax cut vote, it would fail. You can criticize the Republicans for creating that situation in the first place, but given that that situation exists, Reid has to act within the limitations of that.
They don’t like gay people. Or, if they personally don’t have a problem with gay people, are being backed and supported by people who don’t like gay people, and they want to keep them happy.
Legislating from the bench! 
Unrelated, but is the fact that your name is Mantis backwards a coincidence or on purpose?
No, because that’s not an honest and neutral summary of their position.
Yeah. It’s only who they *want *to sleep with that matters.
That’s right. The current policy doesn’t care about who you sleep with, so long as you lie about it and don’t get caught, or else only form the shallowest of relationships with the people for whom you’re expected to lay down your life.
Very… smug.
But again, not the position that your opponents are actually espousing.
This is called a “strawman.” You piously announce that your opponent’s objection is grounded in “who people sleep with” or “who they want to sleep with,” and then seem genuinely surprised when the majority of the voting population doesn’t immediately rally to your side. You, Richard Parker, I expect better from; you’ve let your distaste for stupidiity color your response here.
The actual argument is, so far as I can see: forcing straight soldiers to serve side-by-side with gay soldiers will hurt morale and unit readiness. This is an argument that should be fairly easy to rebut. Why you wallow in the laziness of sttacking the strawman is not clear to me.
First, the supermajority of the voting population supports repeal.
Second, you’re conflating three things: the actual effect of the policy (which I honestly and neutrally summarized for you), the arguments made by non-politician supporters (which run a range, including the one summarized by Mr. Excellent), and the mealy-mouthed arguments asserted by Senators who oppose repeal.
Your point seems to be that the Senators opposing repeal don’t admit to opposing it out of bigotry, and assert arguments about fears about unit morale and readiness (i.e. the bigotry of soldiers). Your point, while true, doesn’t contradict anything said. And I fail to see why it’s especially important what public face certain Senators happen to put on their position.