From the Washington Post: “A Senate vote Saturday cleared the way for final passage of a bill to end the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy…. Fifty-seven members of the Senate Democratic caucus and six Republicans—Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio) —voted yes” on the procedural vote (that is, the vote to have a vote).
In the final 65-to-31 vote taken Saturday afternoon, two additional GOP senators supported repeal: Richard Burr (N.C.) and John Ensign (Nev.).
If the military report had been requested earlier and finished before the final month of the 111th Congress, and if the Democratic leadership had made it a priority, the repeal could have happened sooner. GOP senators Collins, Snowe and Brown, in particular, didn’t just become socially moderate.
But with the incoming GOP-controlled House, the path is blocked in terms of further legislative advances. It will be up to the courts to modify the Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal recognition of state-authorized same-sex unions. And the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which during the two years of a Democrat-controlled Congress never made it out of committee, is dead. (In 2007, during the 110th Congress, the House had passed a version of ENDA covering sexual orientation but not gender identity.)
More. The change won’t take effect right away. After being signed into law, the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ fighting ability. After that occurs, there’s a 60-day waiting period.
Furthermore. It’s worth noting that the Dream Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for children brought into this country at a young age by their parents, was set up to fail, just as “don’t ask” repeal was set up to fail until this week. The Senate Democratic leadership allowed no committee hearings on the controversial measure, and then in the final weeks of the congress brought it to the floor with truncated debate and no process for voting on amendments. It failed to achieve cloture, letting Democrats continue to paint the GOP as the “enemies” of Hispanics.
So, after two years of inaction and shenanigans over “don’t ask” repeal, tying it to a complicated Defense Authorization measure and allowing no debate or amendments, why did Harry Reid at long last move forward a separate measure that, surprise, garnered eight Republican votes? I think many (not all) activists and many (not all) left-progressive bloggers finally demanded an end to the gaming and threatened to blame Democrats as well as Republicans for failure (see, for example, Richard Grenell at the Huffington Post, as previously referenced). The threat to withhold dollars and support pushed the Democrats to give in and allow “don’t ask” repeal to be legitimately presented and passed. Unfortunately, Hispanic activists let the party have its way in order to keep the Hispanic vote tied to the Democratic party through 2012.
Still more. From Slate:
While undoubtedly a step forward, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t suddenly establish a legal principle that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and also doesn’t allow transgendered individuals to serve in the military. [emphasis in original]
In retrospect, it’s surprising that LGBT activists didn’t sabotage DADT repeal by demanding transgender inclusion.
29 Comments for “A Step Forward for Legal Equality”
posted by Tom on
The roll call on the cloture vote. I’ve bolded the six Republicans who voted for cloture.
YES 63
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NO 33
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NOT VOTING 4
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
(edited to fix bolding)
posted by Jorge on
Copy paste doesn’t duplicate bold/italics, Tom.
posted by Jorge on
Is *that* what I sound like on this site? (I’ll admit it’s close to how I feel like)
So as Mr. Link predicted, the naysayers lost. A compromise bill toward repeal has passed during a lame duck session, when it seemed all hope was lost. This after a comprehensive study was issued giving us a blueprint for how to repeal and what the risks are. Other lame duck session Democratic party priorities failed. It only minorly broke the Republican filibuster pledge: a tax deal got passed and signed, but the government hasn’t been funded yet, so we don’t get painted as more important than the rest of the country, just more important as the government. Not a bad exchange from my point of view. I think it took all of us at one point even if the progressives carried it to the end.
posted by BobN on
Jorge, you don’t understand the GOP position on funding the government. They DON’T want it funded at all. They want the omnibus bill to FAIL.
They got their wish. Now they’re off to destroy START.
posted by Jorge on
The change wouldn’t take effect right away. After being signed into law, the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ fighting ability. After that occurs, there’s a 60-day waiting period.
Well, I hope they don’t just rubber stamp it. I think Gates was right to point out that it’s better this way than for the courts to overturn it, but I still want this to be done the right way. President Obama will now be the commander-in-chief of all our troops. He needs to make sure they can all work together now.
posted by Doug on
There may be a 60 day waiting period but I doubt the military is going to continue processing discharges for being gay during that time period. If they do some heads ought to roll.
posted by Tom on
The roll call vote on the bill itself (Republican “Yes” votes are bolded):
YES 63
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NO 31
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NOT VOTING 4
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
posted by Tom on
Is anyone else curious why Hatch opted not to vote? I can understand Bunning and Gregg avoiding a vote, but not Hatch.
posted by Doug on
Hatch is worried about a Tea Party challenge like happened to Bennett so he’s trying to cover his ass just alike all the other cowards who voted NO.
posted by BobN on
An amazing abdication of responsibility from one of the Senate’s most prominent senator in the area of defense and foreign policy. What a coward.
posted by Tom on
Jorge: I think Gates was right to point out that it’s better this way than for the courts to overturn it, but I still want this to be done the right way.
I think you can count on it being done right, Jorge.
President Obama was roundly criticized (including by Stephen Miller in earlier posts) for his strategy of waiting until the DOD did a careful and comprehensive study of the issue and the military had time to understand the requirements of an effective implementation plan.
President Obama was right to do so, and you can count on him to handle the implementation as responsibly as he handled the lead-up to the vote by Congress. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen can be counted on to act responsibly and in the best interests of the military, too, without question.
The implementation is likely to take time, perhaps as long as a year. We’ll no doubt hear a lot about how President Obama and Secretary Gates are dragging their heels, but so be it. It is important to do this right, and so far it has been done right.
posted by Jimmy on
I’m very annoyed with Dick Lugar.
posted by Carl on
It’s all games to these senators. He is probably worried about a primary challenge.
posted by Carl on
The biggest surprise to me was Richard Burr – I’ve never recalled him being socially moderate or having a strong opinion on this issue. Kudos to him. I’m glad that almost ten Republicans broke ranks. That means all the jumping up and down from McCain generally only kept those who were going to stay anyway.
I know this will take time to be implemented. I hope that they will eventually implement this and you won’t see them use smoke and mirrors and not actually make any changes.
posted by Tom on
Carl: I hope that they will eventually implement this and you won’t see them use smoke and mirrors and not actually make any changes.
Admiral Mullen seems personally committed to implementation, and the military has a solid record of implementing the law within the institution even when it is not personally committed. Implementation in other countries has gone smoothly. I’m not worried about the military.
I worry more that repeal opponents in Congress will make a run at reinstating the law or delaying implementation during the next term.
John McCain will be heading up the Armed Services Committee, and I think we can count on him to throw every monkey wrench possible at Admiral Mullen. With McCain, it seems personal.
posted by Carl on
Mullen is retiring isn’t he?
I didn’t know that about McCain and the committee. I guess he will probably do what he can to make the ban on gays either stay around or somehow make it even worse. If the Republicans think this would be a winning campaign issue for them and a way to get a lot of media attention (the Democrats hate the troops, etc.) then they will go for it.
posted by PIL on
I think this is a great day, and if Obama actually signs the bill, I will give him credit for the first time since he got elected. Of course, we’ll have to make sure that the military implements the policy the right way, a vindictive straight soldier could now make allegations of harassment against an openly gay serviceman he despises. We’ll have to make sure that allegations don’t turn into discharges.
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/second-hand-water-vapor-the-war-against-electronic-cigarettes/
posted by Jerry on
McCain will no doubt be a pain in the ass on the Armed Services Committee but he will not be chairman. The Democrats did hold that body.
posted by Jorge on
Is anyone else curious why Hatch opted not to vote? I can understand Bunning and Gregg avoiding a vote, but not Hatch.
That definitely caught my attention. Hatch strikes me as someone who consistently votes conservative and has a conservative reputation but sometimes speaks conservative-moderate, including on DADT. He was open to repealing the bill under certain circumstances. But when votes turn partisan, he usually votes partisan and justifies it. Liberals don’t usually get his vote. Instead his comments, such as that he’d need to see a detailed proposal first, tend to advance issues in a certain direction before the vote.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/79541-hatch-open-to-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell
Take it for what it is. The leader of the opposition was John McCain. The opposition argument was that repeal during wartime would be risky, unwanted by the troops, and cost American lives.
I think you can count on it being done right, Jorge.
I’m sure you’re right. But I intend to make certain.
posted by Tom on
Tom: I think you can count on it being done right, Jorge.
Jorge: I’m sure you’re right. But I intend to make certain.
We share the concern. I’m a veteran and I have a nephew and son on active duty.
The primary danger to “doing it right”, it seems to me, is to rush implementation.
President Obama and the DOD will be subject to intense pressure, coming as surely as I sit here typing, to rush implementation. The pressure will come from impatience on the left and from political opportunists on the right who will grouse at every turn that “this could be happening sooner” in order to drive a wedge between the public, who favors repeal, and the administration.
We’ve certainly seen a lot of that during the repeal process, and we are already seeing it in the post-passage period, mostly from the political opportunists so far, but it won’t take long for the left to join the fray. We’ll see a lot more of it in the coming year as the military implements DADT repeal.
I think that the President and senior military personnel will, despite the pressure, implement repeal with a steady hand.
The military is highly professional and effective. Admiral Mullen and upper-level command in all branches are competent, and all seem to have a steady hand and be on top of the implementation.
President Obama has handled DADT repeal deftly, in my opinion, refusing to be rushed and allowing the DOD time to complete a comprehensive study, despite enormous pressure to move more quickly, and I see no reason, given his calmness and steadiness to date, to think that he will act in an unmeasured way.
So I’m not worried. But like you, I will keep an eye on the implementation.
I would like to make one personal note, if I might.
I do not feel celebratory. It has been a long road, and a hard road, to this day, paid for with the currency of the destroyed careers of many thousands of gay and lesbian service men and women, patriots all of them, and unjustly treated.
I served in a less restrictive time — it was illegal for me to serve at all, openly or not, but there was a war on when I served, the need for manpower was high, and nobody worried about who was straight and who was not. So I encountered no problems, even though the men I served with were not surprised when I came out in the years following my service.
But I’ve always felt an asterisk on my service — the asterisk that treated my service, honorable and in the combat arms, as an exception to the rule that gay men could not be good soldiers.
That asterisk, for men and women now serving and to serve in the future, is finally, at long last, removed.
So while I am not celebratory, I am very glad that the long battle to allow gay and lesbians to serve on an equal footing has finally be won.
The brave can now serve free.
posted by another steve on
the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which during the two years of a Democrat-controlled Congress never made it out of committee, is dead. (In 2007, during the 110th Congress, the House had passed a version of ENDA covering sexual orientation but not gender identity.)
LGTB activists bear much of the blame here. The reason ENDA never advanced in the Senate after passing the House in 2007 was because activists opposed the measure for not including gender identity, just sexual orientation. Their insistence that the bill also be a gender identity meausre doomed it in this current congress; even mainstream Democrats didn’t want to vote for a bill that was unclear about employees who cross-dress at work, and lockerroom/restroom issues (and yes, the bill’s language is vague on these matters, suggesting that pre-operative transgendered people, as self-defined, would determine their restroom choice, etc.) So, rightly or not, ENDA went nowhere, whereas a sexual orientation measure would, I think, have passed if activists had supported it.
posted by Tom on
Furthermore …
Well, Stephen, for all your thrashing about concerning President Obama and Senator Reid, and your earlier thrashing about concerning Speaker Pelosi, the simple fact is that when given the opportunity to vote on a unencumbered up-or-down DADT repeal bill, Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly against DADT repeal. That’s the truth of it, and that fact, while uncomfortable for you, cannot now be changed.
You have been trying to have your cake and eat it too, I think, on the one hand trying to blame the President and the Democrats for not acting swiftly enough and skillfully enough to counter massive resistance from Republican legislators, while, on the other hand, avoiding the facts of the vote as it came down in the last few days. You are a skillful spin artist, but you can’t remake the facts.
At some point, it is time to stop trying to kick the donkey, when it is the elephant that has been the dog in the manger all along. The Democratic Party is no prize when it comes to gay and lesbian rights, but you’d do better to get to work on the Republicans instead of demanding that Democrats carry your water for you.
posted by Jorge on
I think the difference between the Dream Act and the repeal bill is, actually, a lot of work was done on the latter. I have major problems with how late President Obama acted, but there was a decision made to have a study done, and all the military leaders testified on the bill.
In contrast, Senator Kyl pointed out today on Fox News Sunday that there was no debate on the Dream Act and the bill was not processed through committee. I don’t even think it was much debated in public. What we did have in preparation for the Dream Act was the failure of comprehensive immigration reform. So the Dream Act wasn’t really a major legislative goal like DADT repeal was, it was a bone to try to throw to “Hispanics” as a saving grace. Well, in my humble view, a piecemeal amnesty bill, however well-intentioned, cannot stand on its own during the war on terror and other major problems before we seal the border.
In both cases major harm was done by the way the Democrats ran Congress and the Presidency. If you want to hold the Republicans accountable for where they stand, Tom, you’re welcome to do so. However I happen to think that this victory was so narrow that it would be best to avoid turning healthy competition into civil war.
posted by Jorge on
I mean healthy competition among gays and gay activists.
posted by BobN on
I do not feel celebratory. It has been a long road, and a hard road, to this day, paid for with the currency of the destroyed careers of many thousands of gay and lesbian service men and women, patriots all of them, and unjustly treated.
Indeed.
As to the always-spinning Mr. Miller:
In the final 65-to-31 vote taken Saturday afternoon, two additional GOP senators supported repeal: Richard Burr (N.C.) and John Ensign (Nev.).
Burr and Ensign first voted “no”, then changed their votes after passage to hide their positions. Not even pro-gay, Republican activists should help hide their hypocrisy.
posted by avee on
Burr and Ensign first voted “no”, then changed their votes after passage to hide their positions. Not even pro-gay, Republican activists should help hide their hypocrisy.
Actually, they voted no on limiting debate (cloture) and then voted yes for repeal once the bill was on the floor for an up and down vote. Covering their bases with both sides? Maybe. But would it be preferable that they had voted no on the final repeal? Isn’t it a positive development to be able to point to 8 Republicans senators voting for repeal? It is, unless you’d actually like the Republican Party to remain in lockstep opposition (so much better for HRC’s fundraising efforts!).
posted by Carl on
It looks like Sens. McCain and Graham might not support the START treaty because DADT was passed. I guess we will be hearing soon that the gay agenda caused a national security issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/dont-ask-dont-tell-oppone_n_799238.html
posted by avee on
Per the START treaty, it looks like a big reason that Richard Lugar of Indiana didn’t vote for DADT repeal (he was viewed as yet another possible GOP pickup) was because he’s leading the GOP effort to pass START and was concerned about alienating McCain and GOP conservatives.
posted by Jorge on
It looks like Sens. McCain and Graham might not support the START treaty because DADT was passed. I guess we will be hearing soon that the gay agenda caused a national security issue.
At least it didn’t cause a double dip recession. They couldn’t get 42 Senators to put the START treaty in boldface, so I’m not concerned. BTW I don’t care about the treaty at all.