In a victory for not only Obama, but, more important, for civil rights, the Senate repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy yesterday by a vote of 65 to 31. Since it already passed the House, the bill goes to Obama, who will certainly sign it. And about time!
Here’s the official breakdown by party (“yes” is a vote to repeal the policy):
Democrats
Yes 55
No 0
Not voting 1 (Manchin, WV)
Republicans
Yes 8 (Brown, MA; Burr, NC; Collins, ME; Ensign, NV; Kirk, IL; Snow, ME; Voinovich, OH; Murkowski, AK)
No 31
Not voting 3 (Bunning, KY; Gregg, NH; Hatch, UT)
Independents and other
Yes 2 (Sanders, VT; Lieberman, CT)
No 0
A couple of points here. First, the huge party difference in voting shows, as if we didn’t know already, the huge political polarization in this country. The Republicans, like the Dixiecrats of yore, are opposed to civil rights—this time for gays. This position is untenable, either strategically (in the military) or morally. And kudos to the eight Republicans who crossed party lines and did what was right. (I was surprised by Scott Brown’s vote, though I haven’t followed his views on the issue.) Not a single Democrat voted against the repeal, though Democrat Joe Manchin joined three Republicans in the cowardly act of refusing to vote.
Second, this vote represents the increasing moral arc of society—an arc that increasingly recognizes all humans, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, as deserving the same basic liberties. And this increasing morality has nothing to do with religion; in fact, much of the opposition to this bill, and to gay rights in general, comes from churches. Of course, some churches have been supporters of gay rights, but I maintain that they are following rather than leading the Zeitgeist. Moral improvements have nearly always come from secular considerations, and drag the churches along in their wake.
Finally, it’s always baffled me why gays serving in the military is an issue. Why would a unit that included gay soldiers fight less effectively? Maybe a few people would be made temporarily uncomfortable by having same-sex gays in their unit, but I’m convinced that that would go away with a bit of experience. After all, the same reasons were adduced for keeping black and white troops separate during much of the last century (including WWII), yet now we see that policy as not only wrongheaded but immoral. It is experience with those of other persuasions that leads to acceptance. And that’s the reason why the world is becoming more moral (see Peter Singer’s The Expanding Circle).
___
UPDATE: The Party of No is set to oppose the new arms treaty with Russia.
Murkowski is from Alaska, not Arkansas.
Sorry, fixed.
Alaska is AK; AL is Alabama.
If I remember correctly the great Spartan armies were composed entirely of homosexual (probably actually bisexual). If I remember correctly young men were paired up and went through the extraordinary training as pairs and the experience included sexual activity that continues as long as both soldiers were alive. Part of their ferocity may have occurred as a result of each man being devoted to protecting the life of his life-partner.
In that same general vein, what about Israel where there is mandatory conscription? Surely a percentage of the Israeli army is gay. They seem to be a pretty capable army most of the time…
You might want to check up on that. It seems to me a common enough stories about early troops here and there, and IIRC the last time I heard that on a historical show they ended with “but of course there is no evidence for this”.
Story.
You may be getting your ancient history mixed up. From ancient Greece, the most historically notable homosexual warrior group was The Sacred Band of Thebes. The Sacred Band was the acknowledged elite in their time. The unit was composed of hand picked paired lovers.
Along with innovative tactics (1st use of an oblique deployment), the Sacred Band was instrumental in the crushing defeat of the Spartan Army at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, which marked the rise of the Theban hegemony, and the waning of Sparta.
It took Philip the II, Alexander The Great’s father, to defeat the Sacred Band. Pretty much annihilated them actually. Upon witnessing their last stand Philip II purportedly said, “Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.”
This is cause for great celebration! What an ugly, horrible policy. From the beginning it was a corrupt compromise that posed serious, life-altering threats and consequences to gays and lesbians, but did nothing to punish those who did the outing. Didn’t the policy, “don’t ask,DON’T TELL” refer to everyone? You are right…the secular voices of reason and compassion have led the way. The churches, concerned about butts in pews are being dragged along, every step of the way!
Over at Ed Brayton’s blog, a commenter named Davis addressed this. The actual policy is 10 U.S.C. 654. The “DADT” was an executive order given by Clinton on top of 10 U.S.C. 654, and nowhere in 10 U.S.C. 654 does it say anything about who can or cannot ask or tell.
This act repeals 10 U.S.C. 654 in its entirety once the implementation process is complete.
I can attest that much of the bigotry against homosexuality is religious based. I gave up religion over 2 years ago and with it my own bigotry. Since then I have been a proponent of gay rights, whether it be marriage or serving in the military.
Speaking of gay marriage, this is a big step in that direction. Who is going to tell gays and lesbians that they can put their life on the line for their country, but they can’t marry the one they love?
Well, the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/catholics-told-lobby-against-gay-marriage/story-e6frfkvr-1225973609160" Catholic Church for one.
argh… oh for a preview window. If that entry can be deleted, please do so 🙁
I always listen to Christian Talk Radio on my drives home from OK. (*shrug* Why not?)
This last time, whatever host I was listening to got a huge shock. A good-ol-boy from Tennessee called in. He was intensely offended that the host suggested that he wouldnt defend/die for someone in his platoon just because that someone was gay. He fought with his brothers and didnt care about their sexuality, and was PISSED OFF this host gave the impression that a Christian wouldnt fight honorably just because they had someone in their bunker who was gay.
PISSED.
I loled 🙂
Ha!
I do the same thing. 🙂
You guys are masochists. I really don’t think I could handle that.
I don’t think those that oppose gays serving openly understand the bonds that form within combat units. Excepting those from certain religious sects, it’s been “don’t ask.. don’t care…” for a long time.
It might be a victory for Obama if he actually supported it in deed, instead of words. His lack of support, his insistence that the DOJ continue to defend challenges to it despite no requirement to do so, his refusal to use signing statements to even halt discharges, and (along the same line)saying that the discharges will continue (hopefully only) until the waiting period is over after he (hopefully) sings it.
If he lets the discharges continue, it will not be good for him politically. He’s already screwed LGBT Americans the whole time he’s been prez, so he really gets very little credit for the inaction he’s had in getting this passed. Americablog has lots of info on his (lack of) action.
On the plus side, though, considering I just read about the increasing use of mercenaries under Obama, maybe there won’t be a real American military soon to worry about, and all the homophobic bigots can work for companies that are only paid by the government, not actually be sworn to protect the Constitution and the US.
/snarky rant
Evidently, there is a distinct possibility that discharges will continue for a while. According to MSNBC, “A servicewide memo will be sent instructing any gay or lesbian service members not to openly declare their sexual orientation because they could potentially be subject to separation from the military.”
Except, since the court victory over DADT, Obama has moved all discharges under DADT to be reviewed and executed only by the people at the top (I think it was people directly under Gates’ control). If that policy continues, that makes it much harder for discharges to be finalized and, if nothing else, it also puts a bottleneck on the rate at which discharges can happen.
Whatever comes next and the speed at which DADT is buried, the rest of it is in President Obama’s hands.
Certainly. It’s good that the vote went this way, but it could have easily turned out otherwise. (In fact, it’s rather surprising that it went the way it did.)
The easiest way for Obama to dispose of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was to simply not (allow his executive branch to) challenge the federal court judgment ruling it invalid in the first place.
Who wants to win the George Wallace Award for ‘last bigot standing’?
McCain, by the looks of it.
Though I’m sure someone younger’ll die later.
Manchin. Disgusting coward. Elected to Robert Byrd’s seat.
Reminds me that Clarence Thomas has Thurgood Marshall’s seat.
Does anyone remember The Kiss of the Spider Woman in which the William Hurt character, who is straight, is jailed with the Raoul Julia character, who is gay? Maybe it should be required viewing in boot and church camps….
William Hurt was the gay character and Raul Julia was the political prisoner. It was a good movie.
You’re right. Thinking back–it’s been a long time–I recall an interview in which William Hurt discusses his feelings on playing a gay part. But the main point I took away– and it is undistorted by time– is not who was what, but–and not to sound too Christian here–OGod, anything but that–the main point is how compassion, friendship, love–more or less in that progression–could bridge so visceral an issue as the gay-straight divide.
Since one of the things said in opposition to the repeal was “I don’t want to lose any Marines to a distraction,” has anybody yet pointed out what an awful distraction religious proselytising is? DADT would be a really good idea regarding one’s religious beliefs.
And here is the bigoted law that the DADT Repeal Act of 2010 will do away with:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
As to Manchin, he wasn’t there. He choose to blow off the day to go to a family Christmas party.
He blew off the votes on DADT and DREAM for a party.
However, there are more important matters than him. We repealed DADT, which is cause for celebration.
However, DREAM failed, which pisses me right off.
While someone else (I forget the name) came in for the vote despite being supposed to get a checkup before having prostate surgery.
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Pleasantly surprised to see Mark Kirk’s yes vote, since I know most of the time I’m going to be angry about what he does.
And in other Illinois news, a civil union bill has recently passed both the house and the senate and is awaiting a gubernatorial signing ceremony in January. The law will go into effect June 1, 2011.
Republicans are a strange lot indeed. My mom is a teabagger, and she says that she would vote republican, even if republicans were trying to prohibit black people from marriage instead of gays. She says that fiscal policies are more important than human rights. And. . . she’s a hardcore atheist. I stand in awe at her mental contortionist skills.
She says that fiscal policies are more important than human rights.
you might want to get her to pay a bit more attention to which party has supported fiscal policies that have directly hurt her interests.
I have a good idea which one that would be, and I bet you do too.
Have her look at what the Reagan administration’s efforts at deregulating the banking and finance industry had over the next 20 plus years.
….the best definition of teabagger behavior is:
displacement.
sometimes the old ethological terms are the best.
Not my nation, but good for them.
Now as some commenter said, it will be a little bit harder to fight against equal marriage (partnership) rights. Another part of the world that may take the Enlightenment a bit further.
Having no other stakes in this (but common morality obviously), I like that.
“It is experience with those of other persuasions that leads to acceptance.”
As with IDers and Creationists…?
hello