Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on December 09, 2010, 08:10:05 pm
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/dadt-repeal-fails_n_794626.html
WASHINGTON -- A major defense authorization bill carrying the repeal of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law was blocked on Thursday by Senate Republicans and one Senate Democrat after negotiations between the parties failed. A number of moderate Republicans who said they supported a repeal, including Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), voted to filibuster the measure. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined their efforts.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the prime negotiating partner of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's, voted to bring the bill forward but only after it was clear that the 60 needed to end a filibuster would not be achieved. Her vote came after she angrily roamed the Senate floor, rolling up text of the legislation and waving it around, smacking it on Sen. Dick Durbin's desk and hitting him on the arm with it. The final tally was 57 Senators in favor of moving forward, 40 opposed.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a lead proponent of repeal, promised after the vote to introduce stand-alone legislation quickly to repeal the ban. "Reid [told Lieberman] he would bring it up by the end of lame duck," a Reid aide said. "That is all that I know right now. And Reid will cosponsor it."
Alright, I've had it.
**** Congress, **** the Republicans, **** the Democrats who voted against this...just **** them all.
Evil, filthy thugs. All of them.
Any ONE of these bastards ever claims again that they support the troops...we're going to hold this to their ****ing face and say "NO YOU DON'T."
-
-.-
-
Unfortunately, this doesn't really surprise me. Congress sucks ass in all respects right now.
-
I get the nagging feeling that it did so ever since Obama was elected.
"Sure, we support healthcare reform, but can we get a new bridge built in our state?"
-
:(
This was my concern when they stated they wanted to leave it to congress rather than the courts.
-
This case was doomed from the beginning.
Too many fags in America...
-
This case was doomed from the beginning.
Too many fags in America...
wha..? I'm confused. Isn't that the point (though now with that... erm, wording)
-
Maybe I did word it wrong.
If that's the case, ignore me if you haven't already. :p
-
Obama is responsible for this actually. When a supreme court judge labelled DADT unconstitutional and ordered the military not to enforce it, Obama's administration defended DADT in court, likening gay marriage to incest, pointing out that we don't recognize that.
-
This case was doomed from the beginning.
Too many fags in America...
Touche.
-
The wound healed guys, take the band-aid off already.
-
To paraphrase from Robin Williams, speaking about the origins of the United States:
[...] people so uptight the English kicked them out [...]
Put it back to the courts and pray some rationality comes out of it, because it is rather clear that Congress have their collective heads in their collective asses at present.
-
Put it back to the courts and pray some rationality comes out of it, because it is rather clear that Congress have their collective heads in their collective asses at present.
Do pray tell when they didn't have their collective heads in their collective asses.
-
Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. :p
-
Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not? What business does the Congress have in this to begin with, unless they amend the constitution to allow the discrimination against openly homosexuals?
Seriously guys, your government should really keep the executive, legislative and judiciary branches separate... :blah:
-
Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not? What business does the Congress have in this to begin with, unless they amend the constitution to allow the discrimination against openly homosexuals?
Seriously guys, your government should really keep the executive, legislative and judiciary branches separate... :blah:
Alright, let me break it down.
1) A Federal District court found DADT unconstitutional and ordered an injunction for the military to stop discharging homosexuals.
2) The Department of Justice essentially halted the injunction, which means there's not really an option in the courts to repeal it based on it's unconstitutionality.
3) Congress, on the other hand, can repeal it, since it was an act of Congress that first implemented DADT. They have the power to repeal one of their own pieces of legislation.
So yeah, a court DID find it unconstitutional, but a higher court essentially blocked the ruling. That's why Congress is necessary.
It's not really an issue of the branches stepping into each other's territories, it's just another viable option where one fell apart.
-
Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not?
It's not a question of constitutionality as it's been put before Congress. The Republican Party, and others, have embraced the myth this is about armed forces readiness. Since Congress pays for the military, Congress gets powers over the military.
-
Also, this:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
-
Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. :p
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/Londonsilk/clapping.gif)
-
Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not? What business does the Congress have in this to begin with, unless they amend the constitution to allow the discrimination against openly homosexuals?
Seriously guys, your government should really keep the executive, legislative and judiciary branches separate... :blah:
Alright, let me break it down.
1) A Federal District court found DADT unconstitutional and ordered an injunction for the military to stop discharging homosexuals.
2) The Department of Justice essentially halted the injunction, which means there's not really an option in the courts to repeal it based on it's unconstitutionality.
3) Congress, on the other hand, can repeal it, since it was an act of Congress that first implemented DADT. They have the power to repeal one of their own pieces of legislation.
So yeah, a court DID find it unconstitutional, but a higher court essentially blocked the ruling. That's why Congress is necessary.
It's not really an issue of the branches stepping into each other's territories, it's just another viable option where one fell apart.
Urgh, how convoluted.
So let's see if I got it straight this time - the Congress originally introduced DADT policy, because by constitution they have the power to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
A Federal District found this to be in contradiction with the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10).
Department of Justice repealed their decision and put it back to Congress.
So, I guess in its core it's a question of whether the original constitution (which grants the Congress the power to make the rules for armed forces) or the amendments which secure the rights of minorities (among others things).
One has to ask what the point of the amendments is if they can just be ignored when it suits the people making the decisions...
-
discharging homosexuals.
:D
-
Department of Justice repealed their decision and put it back to Congress.
You were doing well until here. The DoJ appealed the ruling from District to Circuit federal court (in essence local to regional), requesting a stay on the District Court's ruling taking effect while the case was argued before the higher court. (And meanwhile hoping that Congress would make the whole issue moot. Which it didn't.)
-
Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. :p
But what about hawt girl-on-girl action? :nervous:
-
Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. :p
But what about hawt girl-on-girl action? :nervous:
:wtf:
I'll personally note that I don't approve of the behavior in question here, but I will concede to the views of actual servicemen like Nuclear here when it comes to fellow brothers and sisters in arms. As someone who was actively pursueing attaining a career in the Air Force for about two years, what I really wouldn't want to see in a military environment would include notably apparent sexual behavior which is generally disproved of. However, what individuals do on their own time out of uniform is up to them, and relieving qualified personnel from their positions due to activites which, when within reason, should not damage a military organization internally or externally, is irrefutably stupid.
Ah, lest I forget... Shame, Mongoose, SHAME.
-
Department of Justice repealed their decision and put it back to Congress.
You were doing well until here. The DoJ appealed the ruling from District to Circuit federal court (in essence local to regional), requesting a stay on the District Court's ruling taking effect while the case was argued before the higher court. (And meanwhile hoping that Congress would make the whole issue moot. Which it didn't.)
Arrgh... :confused:
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.
Sooo... now that Congress insisted on keeping the policy in effect, does that pass the ball to a higher (or the highest, whichever that would be) court again?
-
Pretty much.
-
Sooo... now that Congress insisted on keeping the policy in effect, does that pass the ball to a higher (or the highest, whichever that would be) court again?
Sort of.
The Defense Authorization Bill that the DADT repeal was a part of was collectively voted down. A few Senators are proposing a DADT repeal as its own bill. Congress can makes as many bills and vote as many times as they want.
-
Great, more nonsense about "Activist Judges" again. :rolleyes:
-
The Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal failure is much more a victim to the current tax cut fight than it is of Republican "bigotry"
The Republicans are pretty much holding Congress hostage until they get their tax cuts for the top 2% wealthy to pass. There were enough Republicans on the floor who stated their support for DADT repeal to get cloture. But right now tax cuts are just so important to the GOP that they're willing to screw over any bill that comes through until they get what they want.
-
The Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal failure is much more a victim to the current tax cut fight than it is of Republican "bigotry"
The Republicans are pretty much holding Congress hostage until they get their tax cuts for the top 2% wealthy to pass. There were enough Republicans on the floor who stated their support for DADT repeal to get cloture. But right now tax cuts are just so important to the GOP that they're willing to screw over any bill that comes through until they get what they want.
And people other than those in the wealthiest two percentile vote for them? :nervous:
...I don't get it
-
Yeah.
They're called rednecks, Neo-Nazis, and Teabaggers.
Not all mutually exclusive.
-
Create a bill in favour of puppies and kittens and attach it to that. :p
-
Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. :p
But what about hawt girl-on-girl action? :nervous:
Am I the only one that notices that all this anti-homosexual ruckus in the goverment is only directed at gay men and not lesbians?
-
If you think you are, it's because it's not. DADT applies to both sexes.
-
I think he means that when people talk about homosexuals, especially in the military, they're almost always thinking gay men...
A lot of men don't believe lesbians exist, and most of our politicians are men, so that's probably why.
-
A lot of men don't believe lesbians exist
I don't know what to say to that statement.
-
A lot of men don't believe lesbians exist
I don't know what to say to that statement.
I believe she is referring to the (false) belief that most men believe all lesbians to be, in actuality, bisexual. I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like.
-
I'd say rather what she's referring to is that men supposedly are not as concerned about female homosexual interaction, and thus do not consider it an issue like the might male homosexual interaction.
-
I'd say rather what she's referring to is that men supposedly are not as concerned about female homosexual interaction, and thus do not consider it an issue like the might male homosexual interaction.
Very likely this, I see the opposite all the time with women. They despise lesbians while they don't mind gay guys.
-
yaoi lol
-
I think what you're all tip-toeing around is the notion that people tend to find homosexual relations of the opposite gender hot, while those of their own gender are icky. (Not saying this is actually so for everyone, just that it's how people suspect other people think)
-
The above issue is actually an interesting tangent to discuss, though it does deviate from the primary issue substantially.
-
No, I meant the way most men react to the idea of their girlfriend sleeping with another chick versus sleeping with another guy.
-
...I'm pretty sure most blokes would be pissed off either way.
-
Not me :p
...so long as it's not iaz. :p
-
And people other than those in the wealthiest two percentile vote for them? :nervous:
...I don't get it
People who believe in the American dream and so vote for the interests of their make belief self in the top 2% that will never exist, in small part due to their voting.
-
...I'm pretty sure most blokes would be pissed off either way.
I dunno. If my gal sleep with another gal, I think that's kinda hot. Recordings needed.
-
A lot of men don't believe lesbians exist, and most of our politicians are men, so that's probably why.
It's true. All they really need is a good deep dicking.
:nervous: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_Amy)
-
...I'm pretty sure most blokes would be pissed off either way.
None I know that've had that happen.
-
Depends on your views on the specified relationship, then. If it's pretty loose then some g-on-g action isn't nothing to be angered over. :P
-
I don't think it's wise to speak for all men. Opinions differ.
-
Well, that is what I was getting at with the 'depends on your views' part of what I said.
And I said most, not all. :D
-
...I'm pretty sure most blokes would be pissed off either way.
None I know that've had that happen.
Most blokes who don't let their knob do ALL their thinking for them then. :p
-
Well, that is what I was getting at with the 'depends on your views' part of what I said.
And I said most, not all. :D
Well I just think it's probably unwise to suggest that only people in 'loose' relationships could hold those views. There are pretty sizable poly communities out there, in various permutations.
-
Care Factor: 0.
I was making a joke, dude. Lighten up. :)
-
Care Factor: 0.
I was making a joke, dude, lighten up. :)
I think there's a happy middle ground between drama and flippancy that can be occupied here. Please don't make the discussion personal.
-
I get you, wasn't my intention at all.
-
I think what you're all tip-toeing around is the notion that people tend to find homosexual relations of the opposite gender hot, while those of their own gender are icky. (Not saying this is actually so for everyone, just that it's how people suspect other people think)
That sounds about right.
:nervous:
-
I think he means that when people talk about homosexuals, especially in the military, they're almost always thinking gay men...
A lot of men don't believe lesbians exist, and most of our politicians are men, so that's probably why.
They do believe they exist, but they can completely understand why they like women.
-
Hey guys, remember what I said about why Don't Ask Don't Tell wasn't repealed before?
The Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal failure is much more a victim to the current tax cut fight than it is of Republican "bigotry"
The Republicans are pretty much holding Congress hostage until they get their tax cuts for the top 2% wealthy to pass. There were enough Republicans on the floor who stated their support for DADT repeal to get cloture. But right now tax cuts are just so important to the GOP that they're willing to screw over any bill that comes through until they get what they want.
Yeah, that tax cut bill I mentioned had been passed. And subsequently today, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal bill has been voted on with 65 for and 31 against.
That pretty much confirms that this bill wasn't being kept down due to Republican bigotry. It had everything to do with the tax cut debate.
-
So... the lives, futures, and livelihoods of thousands and thousands of service members were being used as pawns?
-
welcome to politics.
-
So... the lives, futures, and livelihoods of thousands and thousands of service members were being used as pawns?
Well it's not as if DADT reflected any kind of due respect given to those service members.
Am I the only one who's at a loss to explain why on Earth the US Military didn't use DADT with women and coloured people too?
-
w...what...I mean, yes, I think you're pretty much the only one on Earth, since you don't have to ask a woman or person of color if she's a woman or a person of color, and they certainly can't opt to not tell you if they're standing right there. Hard to use DADT when it's impossible to not ask and impossible to not tell.
Or am I misunderstanding something profoundly here?
-
I believe you made the error of assuming I was making some sort of point, rather than poking fun at the very notion of DADT.
-
But the distinction between the two types of traits is exactly what enabled DADT, and what drives a lot of the dynamics that differentiate attitudes towards homosexuals from attitudes on race and classical sex. The (partial) invisibility of homosexuality, the dynamic of secrecy, is one of the main reasons it's been so difficult to make progress on the issue.
-
Oh sure, I agree with that. I maintain, I was taking the piss and nothing more. ;)
-
So the best burn I heard on this topic was one of those 'overheard at...' things:
"Now that they're letting gay men into the army, I think it's about time they start letting straight men into the navy."
-
w...what...I mean, yes, I think you're pretty much the only one on Earth, since you don't have to ask a woman or person of color if she's a woman or a person of color, and they certainly can't opt to not tell you if they're standing right there. Hard to use DADT when it's impossible to not ask and impossible to not tell.
Or am I misunderstanding something profoundly here?
*Cough* Mulan *cough* :P
-
"Now that they're letting gay men into the army, I think it's about time they start letting straight men into the navy."
IN THE NAAAAAAAVYYYYYYY!