DADT Repealed

The Congress has passed a repeal of DADT.

Via CNN:  Senate repeals ban on gays openly serving in military

Several Republicans joined the chamber’s Democrats in supporting the legislation, which passed by a 65-31 margin. The bill needed a simple majority — meaning support from 51 of the Senate’s 100 members — to pass.

The bill now goes to President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it into law. On Wednesday, lawmakers in the House of Representatives voted to overturn the ban 250 to 175.

I am guessing he will sign it.

This is, without a doubt, an historic vote.

Update: Doug Mataconis noted this at basically the same time as I did.  I am going to leave this post up given that I think the results deserve a headline placement, even if the post itself isn’t much more than basic information.

UPDATE (James Joyner):   Indeed.  In fact, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used exactly the same language.  Via Twitter, no less:  “Repeal of #DADT the right thing for our military & our country. Pleased to hear of this historic vote. “

FILED UNDER: US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    Sometimes it actually does get better.

    Big kudos to Obama, to Lieberman, to the brave Republicans who defied their backward, bigoted party to do the right thing.

    And big props to the United States military which once again showed their leadership by broadly supporting this move.

    Finally: no one who voted against this bill has any business being president of the United States. Yeah, that means you John Thune.

  2. ponce says:

    “to the brave Republicans who defied their backward, bigoted party to do the right thing.”

    This will make it rather tough for the bigots to keep fighting Same Sex MArriage, too.

    Military service is the highest calling in the fringe-right pantheon…all it will take is one pair of combat veteran gays openly demanding the right to be married to send the crackers into fatal stages of cognitive dissonance.

  3. Scott says:

    Today, equality for gays. Tomorrow, equality for non-Christians! One can dream…

  4. Steve Plunk says:

    Calling names must be part of the way liberals celebrate a victory. Adhering to one’s religious beliefs does not make a person bigot. I’m glad the repeal passed but I understand why some were opposed. Now let’s see if it works.

  5. ponce says:

    “Adhering to one’s religious beliefs does not make a person bigot.”

    It certainly does if your primitive superstition orders you to discriminate against a group of people and you obey.

  6. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    I just wonder how many enlistments just got canceled? Wonder how many people just decided to leave the military. Legislative actions alway have unanticipated results. I guess if you hate America and all it stands for, this is a good place to start. Any of you who are for this, I hope your kids come back from the service changed.

  7. michael reynolds says:

    Steve P:

    Adhering to one’s religious beliefs does not make a person bigot.

    Did you spend even ten seconds thinking that through before you blurted it? There are white supremacist churches in this country, following what they think is the word of God. And guess what? They’re bigots.

    Zels:

    Don’t pretend that the brave men and women who serve our nation in uniform suffer from the same deformity of intellect as you.

  8. Alex Knapp says:

    @Zelsdorf,

    Pardon me if I think that the opinion of the men and women who actually serve in the military, the vast majority of whom support this legislation, is more important than yours.

  9. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***It certainly does if your primitive superstition orders you to discriminate against a group of people and you obey.*** you mean like unborn babies?

  10. Herb says:

    “Adhering to one’s religious beliefs does not make a person bigot.”

    True, but what do you call making other people adhere to YOUR religious beliefs? Besides, this religious argument is ridiculous. The military can get over the “thou shalt not kill” stuff, but the “thou shalt not lay with a man” stuff is non-negotiable?

    I’m glad it passed too. I can also see why some people don’t like it. I just don’t think we should listen to those people because, well, they’re wrong.

    “I just wonder how many enlistments just got canceled? ”

    Probably not many. I’m guessing (just a guess, admittedly) that people who are willing to face death or dismemberment at the hands of the enemy will quickly get over the possibility of serving with one of the dreaded gays.

    And the guy who cancels his enlistment because he’s homophobic? Didn’t want him anyway. I guess we’ll just have to rely on the gay dude who takes his place and is actually willing to serve.

  11. Eric Florack says:

    Pardon me if I think that the opinion of the men and women who actually serve in the military, the vast majority of whom support this legislation, is more important than yours.

    OK, do these folks count in your mind, I wonder?

    http://www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/

    As for the other polling, I wonder how much of the number is the result of an activist White House….led by a self-described “Community Organizer”.

    As for the reliance on polling data, may I suggest
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1422

    …wherein we find:

    “By a solid margin, American voters say go ahead and allow gays to openly serve in the military,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Voters think 2-1 that keeping gays from serving is discrimination. But they are much more mixed on exactly how the transformation of the military will occur and how the Pentagon should adjust to the needs of gay soldiers, sailors and Marines.”

    So it depends, one could argue, exactly how the questions get asked. Are we talking generalities or specifics?

    Interestingly, a lot in here seem reliant on the bandwagon for their arguments about DADT. I notice in the same report:

    American voters say 59 – 35 percent that 9/11 terrorism suspects should be tried in military courts rather than in civilian courts, as currently planned. Voters say 68 – 25 percent that terrorism suspects should not receive all of the constitutional protections afforded by a civilian trial. Democrats prefer civilian courts 48 – 45 percent. Support for military courts is 73 – 23 percent among Republicans and 61 – 33 percent among independent voters.

    I wonder if they’d be so willing to follow the crowd, here as they seem to be on DADT.

    The military can get over the “thou shalt not kill” stuff,

    If you read the passage in the original language, it actually reads “thou shalt not murder”….. There’s a difference.

  12. wr says:

    Hey Eric — Which language is that, specifically? How fluent are you in it?

    Oh, wait — you’re not?

    Never mind.

  13. Eric Florack says:

    I think it above you, wr, Given what I’ve seen of you here, but the verb used in the Torah commandment is “ratsah,” which is translated as “murder”, Kill, per se is generally “harag”. And yes, I’ve done serious study on various translations of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.

  14. anjin-san says:

    > Adhering to one’s religious beliefs does not make a person bigot

    You are free to practice any set of religious beliefs you wish to. The attempt to impose your beliefs on others by force is bigotry and simply un-American.

  15. anjin-san says:

    > an activist White House

    You have to love the way the right alternates between whining about how Obama is a helpless, do-nothing empty suit and how he is an “activist” who is busily altering American beyond all recognition.

    The one constant is the whining…

  16. anjin-san says:

    > And yes, I’ve done serious study on various translations of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.

    WR… I would take bit at his word here. Someone once described him as “dumb, but not unintelligent”. I have found that to be pretty accurate.

  17. Ben says:

    Eric,
    When the majority is in favor of fundamental rights and the equal protection under the laws, then what they have to say has weight. When the majority wants to deprive a minority or other group of fundamental rights, then they can go to hell.

  18. Grewgills says:

    Adhering to one’s religious beliefs does not make a person bigot.

    Not unless the dogma of that religion is bigoted.

  19. dirk says:

    Using the Torah as a guide to any sphere of life, or in this case death, is foolish.

    The ten commandments were used to govern the Jews. The strictures placed on killing people who weren’t Jewish were looser, given that slaughtering entire tribes man, woman and child, leaving only virgins as booty was how they rolled.

  20. Eric Florack says:

    When the majority is in favor of fundamental rights and the equal protection under the laws, then what they have to say has weight. When the majority wants to deprive a minority or other group of fundamental rights, then they can go to hell.

    Fortunately, that’s not your decision to make. The fact of the matter is that in wartime, different standards apply. And that’s reality. You might consider looking it up.

  21. Eric Florack says:

    WR… I would take bit at his word here. Someone once described him as “dumb, but not unintelligent”. I have found that to be pretty accurate.

    Translation; Anjin gets spanked with enough regularity to make him think twice about giving the usual knee jerk leftist responses. Not all the time, but usually. But that’s OK, wr… you’ll never understand it, I’m sure, but just for the sake of completing your initiation…. from Wikipedia:

    Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words לא תרצח are variously translated as “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not murder,”. Older Protestant translations of the Bible, those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually render it as “Thou shalt not kill,” whereas Jewish and newer Protestant versions tend to use “You shall not murder.” There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of many opposing ethical standpoints.

    The Vulgate (Latin) translation has Non occides, i.e. “Thou shalt not kill.” English translations using “kill” include the King James (Authorised) (1611) [although note Matthew 19:18 “do no murder,” following the Vulgate non homicidium facies], the American Standard (1901) and Revised Standard (American Protestant, 1952) Versions. Almost all Roman Catholic translations, including the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609/1752), the New American Bible (1970), the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) and the Christian Community Bible (1986), have “kill.” Martin Luther (German, 1534) also uses töten (kill).

    Protestant translations using “murder” include the New International Version (American, 1978), New American Standard Bible (American, 1971), New English Bible (British Protestant, 1970), and the New King James (American, 1982), New Revised Standard (American, 1989) and English Standard (American Protestant, 2001) Versions. Jewish translations almost all use “murder,” including the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (1917), the Judaica Press tanach (1963) and the Living Torah (1981). A Jewish exception to this pattern is the Artscroll or Stone Edition tanach (1996).

    The Old Testament’s examples of killings sanctioned by God are often cited in defense of the view that “murder” is a more accurate translation. Additionally, Hebrew has other words for “kill,” including הרג (harag) and המית (heimit), while רצח (ratzach), which is found in the Ten Commandments לא תרצח (lo tirtzach), was more specific. Joel M. Hoffman concludes that “kill” is too broad but “murder” is too narrow to reflect tirtsah.[58]

    ….

    The strictures placed on killing people who weren’t Jewish were looser, given that slaughtering entire tribes man, woman and child, leaving only virgins as booty was how they rolled.

    And given the above passage, perhaps your definitions are inaccurate? And yes, I know it’s OT, but the charge got made and I could hardly let the inaccuracy pass unchallenged .

  22. An Interested Party says:

    “Fortunately, that’s not your decision to make. The fact of the matter is that in wartime, different standards apply.”

    It’s also fortunate that such a decision isn’t yours to make either, considering that DADT has been repealed…nice to know that you want to use the excuse of wartime to promote bigotry and discrimination…thankfully, Truman decided against that same line of reasoning in the past and the current Congress has voted against it now…

  23. wr says:

    Thanks for providing the passage that makes my point exactly, Eric: “There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of many opposing ethical standpoints.”

    You choose a translation that fits your political bias, and then claim it’s the direct, undisputed word of God.

    Which of course is true of every tyrant who uses the Bible as an excuse to commit acts of evil.

  24. anjin-san says:

    > Translation; Anjin gets spanked with enough regularity to make him think twice about giving the usual knee jerk leftist response

    Actually, it just means I am a reasonably thoughtful person. At any rate, I don’t think you are stupid, you clearly have a brain that works pretty well on some levels. I just think you are an idiot.

    > Anjin gets spanked with enough regularity to make him think twice

    This is coming from the guy who thinks he has the only dedicated music server in the blogosphere. You have to suspect there is an ongoing belief in the Easter Bunny lurking in there somewhere too 🙂 Run along and have a pow wow with David L. You boys can talk about how much spanking you do and have a few laughs…

  25. sam says:

    My experience with DADT is entirely anecdotal, but I teach government to high school seniors in a very red state. Opposition to repeal is virtually non-existent among this group. Right now I have around 10 students who have enlisted or intend to do so. None of them will change their minds over this policy change. This difference between now and 1993 is astounding.

  26. floyd says:

    Anjin-san;
    “The attempt to impose your beliefs on others by force is bigotry and simply un-American.”
    You think it’s a good line? … you wrote it , now read it.

  27. Eric Florack says:

    “There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of many opposing ethical standpoints.”

    Correct. But then again, any religion contains such. Still, the ground for the ‘kill’ translation is shakey at best.

    Actually, it just means I am a reasonably thoughtful person.

    At what point might we hope to ever see evidence of this?

  28. Eric Florack says:

    You choose a translation that fits your political bias, and then claim it’s the direct, undisputed word of God.

    Um.. no. I chose the original translation… and the only one that makes any sense at all within the context of the remainder of the Bible.

  29. anjin-san says:

    > At what point might we hope to ever see evidence of this?

    Well, you will never see it. Its a side effect of your severely limited vision.

  30. dirk says:

    “And given the above passage, perhaps your definitions are inaccurate? Eric Florack says:
    Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 13:01

    No. The relevant semantic distinction is between slaughter and extermination, either of which confirms the point I made. Using the Torah as a lifestyle guide is for the foolish, or those mendacious enough to pilfer Yahweh’s soiled imprimatur.

  31. wr says:

    The “original” translation? Would that be Wycliff’s from the 1380s? The King James (in which the commandment was translated as kill, not murder)? The Good News Bible from the 1970s? Which is the “original” and why is it better than any other?

  32. Real Deal says:

    Sounds like these folks may also agree to anything if jobs were on the line. Good job sell outs, now we have nothing but gay whores serving in the military also by association.

  33. Real Deal says:

    The young enlisted are usually the ones in the brig the most and do not command. We are all usually democrats until we grow up! Most 18 year old girls no longer want husbands either- after seeing Daddy cheat on mommy so much, probably better to marry a woman in the future. Retire from military at 38 years old and begin a family on retirement pay. Men no longer care for families, they just want it up the booty it seems. The DADT was a good move for women in general as it removes the barrier to enter all special forces.