Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...NY Sen. to introduce bill to stop gay military discharges?
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) may introduce a bill in the Senate later this week to put an 18-month moratorium on discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
It would be the first time since the vote on the military ban in 1993 that Senators would be forced to publicly state their stand on gays and lesbians serving in the military.Jason Bellini reports in the Daily Beast that Gillibrand may introduce her amendment on Tuesday to the Defense reauthorization bill.
The Daily Beast reports:
“If the amendment were to pass, gay-rights leaders expect it would stand a strong chance of being approved by the House and could be signed into law by President Obama, who has expressed his desire for the ban to be lifted. Rep. Patrick Murphy is trying to build support for a bill that has already been introduced in the House that would repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
well maybe it ought to change to don’t ask, but tell if you want to and can deal with it all. Let us all in our anxiousness look at the security issues at hand for a lot of persons who act on behalf of our country as undercover brothers and sisters. It might be something to think about.
I would be more apt to utilize this site if the articles were just a bit more in depth. For instance, an explanation as to why they’re suggesting an “18-month moratorium on discharges” instead of a permanent lifting of the ban. What’s the senator’s strategy?! What value does this maneuver have for the LGBT community or the senator?
Many fail to realize that the main obstacle to repealing DADT is the military itself. For all the 70 percent public support of a repeal, there is very little support for a repeal in the military.
The military is a lot more conservative than the general population. Obama is taking his advise from Gates and General Mullen who are both advocating a more cautious approach.
Obama can sign a million executive orders, DADT is law and he can never undo it without Congress.
@Sean: I was wondering the same thing. I can only conclude it is something being pushed on 2 fronts. One from Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and the other from Sen Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). I wasn’t sure how it worked so I read the process again, and a bill can be made from either branch of Congress. This will be a way to get momentum built in both branches so Obama can sign to repeal it. That way, one or the other can move swiftly through both houses without it getting nixed in either place. I think it’s a good move.
@Nick: Certainly Obama can issue Executive Order or even go as far to stop loss troops that are currently being discharged. Leadership doesn’t just have to come from the President. I had this conversation with a friend last week and basically told him that the problem with Congress is that they move slow and often get things wrong. What’s more important is not pushing someone else to fix the problem… It’s making sure the people responsible for creating it don’t allow the problems to continue. In the bigger picture… The process is what has to work. I think this is a great move… I would strongly encourage anyone reading this to write up an e-mail to their Congressman asking them to support it.
MoJo you are correct, if you are not following this on the Knights Out or another anti-DADT site there is not much here.
Also, this is correct:”The military is a lot more conservative than the general population. Obama is taking his advise from Gates and General Mullen who are both advocating a more cautious approach.”
…. BUT THIS IS WRONG.”Obama can sign a million executive orders, DADT is law and he can never undo it without Congress.”
By definition OBAMA can sign an executive Moratorium because we are at war, he signs it as Commander in Chief. But he will not spend ANY political capital on GLBT rights, because Rahm Emmanuel is still living in l993!
What about all the gay men and women discharged in the last two decades, that lost their retirements and dignity? Are they going to be compensated and get an honorable discharge finally?
This sounds like a good, interim step. Good idea!
>I don’t see why this legistration is necessary. Instead wasting time, why don’t Congress just vote to repeal DADT now
Because, emotionally, both congress and the military are not ready to support a complete end to DADT. Emotions are a more powerful predictor of behavior than logic.
Passing this law could prevent damage to those already serving, and could buy a bit more time for those squeamish politicians and military people who are almost-but-not-quite-there yet.
>More underwhelming advocacy from the political party that could rightfully claim itself to be the new GOP. We’ve traded an elephant for a jackass otherwise it’s all the same
I remember this rhetoric. It was 2000. Because both political parties are equivalent, a vote for Al Gore and George W. Bush is virtually the same. Many decided to register protest votes for Ralph Nader.
Worked real great in 2000.
You suggesting we try it again?
So, the appointed (to fill the term of the sainted Hilary) junior senator from conservative upstate NY has more guts and
and honor than our “Fierce Advocate”, the Commander-in-Bullshit! He could do this LEGALLY with a Stop/Lose order, which he should have done on day one in office. Our REAL allies are trying to force the coward’s hand while greasing the wheels in Congress to repeal DADT. The military brass abhor any change and I suspect, is riddled with fundies. While Obama studies the issue, careers, relationships and even the lives of our brothers and sisters in uniform are being destroyed. I wonder how long Ireland and South Africa studied the issue? Perhaps he should study Truman, who had SOME resistance to change from the brass and the war hero five star Gen. MacArthur. As Commander-in-Chief he ordered them and when they didn’t comply he fired them! During the Korean War BTW! Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way! No Stop/Lose order, then how about Paterson/Gillibrand in 2012!
I agree with several of the commenters. This seems to me to be a very workable strategy.
A moratorium on dismissals in a time of war when the armed services are having trouble recruiting (and continuously lowering standards) is “easier” for people to either vote for or just not oppose than a complete dismissal of the DADT policy. Plus after time goes on, it makes it ever continuously harder for opponents to claim that ending DADT would harm the military.
From a purely strategic viewpoint, it would also be good strategy for those who support DADT to support a moratorium because if they really believe it would be a failure this would be a good way to prove it.
It may not be all that we want, but to me it seems like a pretty good strategy.
John said: Kari-he would sign it if it reached his desk.
John. Have I got a deal for you! I have this historic bridge here in NYC that I can sell to you very cheap due to the harsh economic times. You can even use President Obama’s pen to sign the contract of sale! Get back to me asap as tnis deal, unlike DADT, won’t last long!
Heterosupremacist in Chief Obama might not sign an amendment or any bill ending Don’t Ask Just Kick the Fags Out, as he is still asking the old white good old bad old boys military massahs what to do.
Obama would rather see fascists and felons replace fags, all in the name of military unity.
Obama is keeping his promises to his supporters who voted for Prop Hate in California.