DADT vote happening now
 

http://live.cnn.com/

it is also being viewed on cspn2

Bill Summary & Status
111th Congress (2009 - 2010)
S.3454 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S3454:

OK, so the Senate blocked the bill and a motion to reconsider has been made.

I am not exactly sure why the DREAM act was added as an amendment to a "defense authorization bill". Sen Dubin who proposed the bill has made a beautiful argument for his vision, however, I am still not sure it is a military issue. I would see it better served in an immigration reform bill where the focus would be on his points and not buried in a military bill. I think it has unfortunately killed the debates on other amendments, including DADT.

Guessing the bill will now be tabled until after elections. Go figure.

Thanks Jess, for letting us know. This seems dissapointing. THis is not good for us, true?

At this point, no, it is not good for us. What happened today ( and i missed some of it while picking up the boy from school but will go back and watch it later), is that the Senate voted no to hearing debates for amendments.

Senators from both parties are now giving statements regarding the more controversial amendments ( repeal of DADT and the DREAM ACT) and expressing their opinions as to why they feel that debate was not even up for debate ( LOL). Gotta love politics.

Another DADT trial, but a different DOJ tack
 

I'll be very interested in seeing where this case leads. I am quite sure the feds are fearing the day that it ( DADT) IS deemed unconstitutional and all of the discharged vets sue the US Gov.

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...rent-doj-tack/

So.. maybe someone with more knowledge of how the process works can help me out with this... Sen Reid who has been the fore front champion of repealing DADT voted NO today to opening the amendments up to debate. He went right along with the entire Republican Senators and voted "NAY".

What gives?

Here is how they voted:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...ote=00238#name

Thanks Corkey, I appreciate that. I'm still kind of confused though, because to what little I do understand, I thought as Majority Leader he could bring up the cloture motion at "any given point." At least according to an article from KEEN, which makes note that the D from AR voted NO ( the only other Dem to do so) and yet seemed to just pass over Reid's NAY vote.

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...-repeal-today/

Guess I'll just have to keep reading.. or reiding.. as it were.. LOL

Right, I knew it was about the ability to even debate the amendments. What I wasn't fully aware of though, is that the language regarding DADT is not even a repeal. It is worded to allow the process for repeal, but is not the actual repeal itself.

From the KEEN article I linked above:

'Reid noted during Senate morning business Tuesday that the DADT amendment had been generating “all the attention” for the defense bill vote. He emphasized that the DADT law “is not repealed” by the language in the bill. Instead, he noted, the language provides for a process by which the law can be repealed. That process requires that the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all “certify” in writing that they have read the Pentagon report on how best to implement repeal and have considered whatever recommendations are made in the report. They must further certify that the necessary regulations to accompany repeal have been developed and that repeal is “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”


So, I'm not getting the sense of "urgency" if the language clearly states that it is only AFTER reviewing the Pentagon findings that the Pres, et al have to "certify" their considerations of those findings.

It all just feels way too dog/ pony show to me.

I am pretty upset about this too. He could have just given an executive order.

I tend to have very little faith in our political process for bringing about social justice. I have very little faith in most folks once they reach Washington. Kaine from VA has even discouraged me with his showboating and as Richmond resident ( then/ not now) I found him to be a great city council member then mayor then Gov , but now.. he just seems to be another mouthpiece yammering on.

I pray to see equal rights for the LGBT community in my lifetime, although likewise, I seriously have doubts. I tend to gravitate toward 2012 prophecies before believing politicians will resolve anything.

Does anyone know how the recent court ruling effects any of this? Also, for some reason I thought Obama had to go through Congress for a repeal and that an executive order couldn't be used. I thought I read this recently but now can't find where.

Melissa

I'm not sure which court ruling you are referring to Melissa. There have been quite a few gay rights related trials going on, so I'm not sure..

I think ( and as always could be wrong), that THIS was the attempt to take it to Congress to set up the process for repeal. I also think that it is within the Presidents powers to make an executive order to place a "stay" on further DADT charges against soldiers while the policy is being investigated/reviewed. I'm pretty sure that is what Rachel Maddow was all fired up about when she made her "challenge to do the right thing" to our President.

But, as ever.. I could be wrong LOL!

Thanks for taking part in the conversation. It is very important to me, as I just couldn't imagine being the spouse of a soldier who gets killed in action and not being honorably notified. That among the many ways of LGBT soldiers are dishonored by our government simply saddens me to my core.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...t-tell/#essay3

I think that the reason was that an EO wouldn't secure the repeal of DADT on an absolute basis to stand forever- another president could come in and just undue his EO. But, within the first part of his taking office, he had enough political capital to do an EO and light the fire for Congress to pass legislation to get rid of it forever. This is my understanding only.

Rachel Maddow on yesterdays Senate activity.

http://gayrightsmedia.org/2010/on-th...the-far-right/


I'm not sure if Melissa was referring to the Log Cabin Republicans VS US GOV case. What I have been able to find out about it, is that it was first filed in 2004 and recently determined by Judge Virginia Phillips that DADT is unconstitutional. I believe she promised to put an injunction on DADT in two weeks if US GOV had not filed a formal appeal.

I have not been able to find whether or not the US GOV has filed such an appeal or if Robert Gates ( named specifically) has filed one.

If anyone has any current info it would be great if you could share it!

Jess- Yes, that's the ruling I was referring to in my earlier post. The Obama admin has 60 days to file an appeal. I don't think that decision has been made or appeal has been filed yet.

Obama could suspend DODT with an exec order. It won't get rid of DODT but it could stop the military from firing or investigating anyone. For some reason, he has not done that. From the way I understand it, DODT would still be on the books but the EO would prevent it from being enforced. Which means that a new President could restart it again. So I'm not sure it would do much good. Especially if a service member came out while DODT was suspended and then was pushed out of the military in 2 years under a new President who scraps the EO.

Here's a article from the Huffington Post regarding an EO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-..._b_199070.html.

Melissa

Thanks, Melissa. I was pretty sure you were talking about that case. I am praying it is allowed to stand as it would indeed set a legal standard for the constitutionality of discrimination of gays. I think it would be a mere step ( rather than leap) for the general population to see the very deep wrongs across the board from there, not just in military service.

I think Pres Obama could extend an EO with a pretty good bet that DADT will be revisited during his term. I just don't see it going away until the civil rights of all of us are sanctified.

Thanks again!