Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Harry Reid | Military | News

Reid to Schedule Vote on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Next Week

The Washington Blade reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote on defense legislation containing repeal of the Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy next week:

Reid"A senior Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Reid met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday to inform the Republican leader that the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill will come to the Senate floor the week of Sept. 20. The aide said Senate leadership is anticipating the Senate won’t have unanimous consent to bring the legislation to the floor, so 60 votes will be necessary to end a filibuster and move forward with debate on the bill. 'We are going to take it the floor next week to see where the votes are,' the aide said."

Said Alexander Nicholson, founder and Executive Director of Servicemembers United: "We are both pleased and relieved that Senator Reid has decided to schedule the defense authorization bill for floor time next week. We are fairly confident that we will have the 60 votes to break a filibuster of this bill. It would be shameful for lawmakers to vote to hold up an important and expansive piece of legislation like the defense authorization bill simply because of their opposition to one or two provisions within it."

Politico adds: "Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) downplayed the language in the existing authorization legislation, categorically rejecting that it amounts to a "repeal" of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy enacted in the Clinton administration. 'It does not repeal 'Don't ask, don't tell' — I wish that it did,' Levin said, before explaining that the language merely allows military authorities to overturn the policy if the internal reports they are conducting conclude that doing so would not be detrimental to troop morale. 'I think most people understand what this provision does.' Levin added that the bill was not perfect, but that the essential nature of funding troops in wartime necessitates passage."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Finally.

    Posted by: Tyler | Sep 13, 2010 5:22:19 PM

  2. Senator Reid has said publicly and repeatedly that he wants to end DADT. This formula is one that can work and, I hope, will result in Lt Dan Choi getting his West Point ring back from the Senator.

    REID 2010! Go Dan Choi!

    Posted by: Derek Washington | Sep 13, 2010 5:30:31 PM

  3. This better work or I'm going to DC and lisbeth-salandering somebody!

    Posted by: veg | Sep 13, 2010 5:58:17 PM

  4. 1. This is a defense spending bill.

    2. Robert Gates and the Pentagon want a VETO because it includes a wasteful jet spending program.

    3. Obama said he supports Gates. Obama will probably VETO the bill unless the wasteful jet program is removed.

    4. For the same reasons, many Senators will VETO the bill, even thought they oppose DADT.

    5. This is the very reason the DADT repeal should NOT have been attached to the spending bill.

    6. Fail.

    Posted by: Lee | Sep 13, 2010 6:11:22 PM

  5. Lee, maybe you didn’t know… Last year the new hate crimes law was passed attached to a defense spending bill. There were also threats of veto for that defense spending bill because of an unwanted jet program. Well it all worked out, and look what happened. We have a hate crimes law.

    Posted by: Kelly in Atantic City | Sep 13, 2010 6:56:00 PM

  6. Unfortunately Kelly, you are mistaken. The F-22 provision was stripped from the bill on July 21st of last year. That's why Obama was able to sign the DOD and Shepard Law into effect. That is not the case this year. We are headed for a veto.

    Posted by: Lee | Sep 13, 2010 7:12:30 PM

  7. They'll probably work out the jets issue if it comes down to that. What I'm wondering is if our community is willing to breathe down the REPUBLICANS necks who vote against this bill because of DADT. I'm talking about Scott Brown.

    Posted by: Bruno | Sep 13, 2010 7:20:28 PM

  8. As Lee said, this will be a giant fail. Although I don't think it will matter, they're to scared to do this legislatively. They let the courts work it out.

    Posted by: kansastock | Sep 13, 2010 7:21:39 PM

  9. I don't know why people get all their panties in a wad about a veto. It's one of the least credible threats Obama could make. Is he really going to veto a bill that took a week to pass the Senate simply because it provides too much pork? That's ridiculous.

    Now, what is annoying is that they are wasting Senate time and political capital passing this bill when it's obvious that the courts would have just done it for them. They should have gone for ENDA, which the courts can't give us.

    Posted by: Tyler | Sep 13, 2010 7:36:43 PM

  10. Great question, Bruno, but of course we already know the answer. The fact that Scott Brown had a viciously anti-gay record as a legislator in Massachusetts, having been centrally involved in the efforts to amend the State's constitution in order to overturn the State Supreme Court's ruling which resulted in marriage equality and having referred to a lesbian colleague's family as "not normal", certainly didn't deter the LCR crowd from peddling Brown as our friend. I think we can safely assume that, regardless of what Brown does on DADT or other bills or whether he unleashes further homophobic vitriol on any of his current colleagues, the LCR crowd will be hailing him as their latest "moderate" hero, just as they've done with Bob McDonnell, Linda Lingle, etc., etc.

    KansasStock, if you think our rights on this and other issues are ultimately going to be determined by federal judges and not legislators, I hope you will then agree that we all need to get out and vote Democratic in November, in order to ensure that the federal judges appointed in the next couple of years are in the mold of Sonia Sotomayor and not John Roberts or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas or Alito.

    Posted by: Patric | Sep 13, 2010 8:13:53 PM

  11. Even if it does fail there's still the federal case that just declaired it unconstitutional (and a second pending trial to start soon).

    If I were president I would let the court decision to get rid of DADT and then veto the defense spending bill because of all the wasteful and unnecessary stuff in it.

    Posted by: ravewulf | Sep 13, 2010 8:18:36 PM

  12. It will pass. But, like Senator Levin said this only gives the military authority to end the policy pending its review, which will be complete this year. The commander in chief wants DADT repealed, it will get done. Just not on some arbitrary time table that some want. That is how politics and government work. There is a process and that process has to play out.

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Sep 13, 2010 8:26:41 PM

  13. Notice how we were told that this process was absolutely not about IF they were going to repeal it but WHEN and now they're talking voting on repealing it IF the military leaders determine that doing so would not be detrimental to troop morale?

    Is there anyone on the planet who believes that military leaders will determine that repealing DADT will not be detrimental to troop morale?

    How many times do we have to get fucked by the Democrats before we realize that they're just not that into us during non-election and mid-term years?

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Sep 13, 2010 8:43:12 PM

  14. It's September 13, 2010 -- we have all this knowledge, experience, education, a sense of history and science and fact and information -- and still gay Americans are not full citizens. When will this hypocrisy be fixed? When will all the damage the USA has caused to its own citizens and soldiers going to be repaid?!

    Posted by: X | Sep 14, 2010 12:18:21 AM

  15. Some of you kids will never be satisfied. So you all really think America has turned the corned on Gay rights just because a few Rethugs come out in support after they're no longer in office...HUH? What about the ones that are still there. Have you asked them??

    You just wait. I hope this passes for I am not rushing. But I wonder how many of you girls plan on enlisting once it's lifted I got a number for you.


    Some of you vain GaGa dolls give up your fabulous GAY life for military greens??? That's like asking a baby to give up candy. You know damn well you have no intentions on it so stop screaming.

    We know because The Magic Negro didn't jump to tbe command of the angry white gay voter. You will not vote for him in 2012 he gets it, and some of us get it also.


    Posted by: BRUTUS | Sep 14, 2010 12:36:22 AM

  16. Slight correction to RaveWolf: Major Witt's trial started today (in Tacoma). The first witness was a master sergeant who had worked with her for years. He was so angered by Witt's dismissal that he retired from the air force himself. Gonna be hard to prove that the decorated Witt was a threat to her team.

    Posted by: David R. | Sep 14, 2010 12:56:15 AM

  17. Obama has no interest whatsoever in repealing DADT. He's only interested in tricking us desperate gays into voting for him and his party. The Democrats are all liars and frauds who sat on their haunches for two years doing basically nothing for gay rights save for some minor symbolic gestures.

    The best way to show our displeasure with the Democrats is to throw them all out. Every single one of them.

    Posted by: jason | Sep 14, 2010 9:35:10 AM

  18. Brutus,

    There are many many reasons not to enlist in the military. However, most importantly, some of us believe in quaint ideas like peace, justice and international law and we do not support the barbaric and unjustified wars that the U.S. seems addicted to fighting.

    Also, I cannot take anyone in these threads too seriously when they engage in this sort of homophobic dismissal of other gays as "girls," "queens," "bitches," etc. It's very degrading and dehumanizing.

    Posted by: Vlad | Sep 14, 2010 11:22:07 AM

  19. It confounds me that they're even voting on the thing ... didn't the 9th circuit determine its unconstitutionality?

    Did anyone have to vote on anything before the Loving v. Virginia decision was implemented?

    This is bullshit.

    Posted by: Joe | Sep 14, 2010 12:10:02 PM

  20. It does not matter what happens to this bill. It is not perfect in any case. What matters is that if any Gay or Lesbian votes for any Republican this year; or does not vote at all (For whatever Reason) means that we will continue to have right wing religious bigots continuing to fight us for our rights; tooth an nail, for the next two years.

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Sep 14, 2010 8:39:12 PM

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #730« «