|
09-21-2010, 12:40 PM | #1 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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: Last edited by Jess; 09-21-2010 at 12:54 PM. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jess For This Useful Post: |
09-21-2010, 01:08 PM | #2 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Jess For This Useful Post: |
09-21-2010, 01:56 PM | #3 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
queer Preferred Pronoun?:
They/Them & her/she Relationship Status:
Lucky, very lucky Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Portlandia, Oregon
Posts: 427
Thanks: 875
Thanked 1,286 Times in 315 Posts
Rep Power: 6505516 |
Thanks Jess, for letting us know. This seems dissapointing. THis is not good for us, true?
|
09-21-2010, 02:13 PM | #4 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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. |
09-21-2010, 02:53 PM | #5 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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/ |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jess For This Useful Post: |
09-21-2010, 03:12 PM | #6 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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 |
09-21-2010, 04:54 PM | #7 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
married Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 269
Thanks: 262
Thanked 587 Times in 195 Posts
Rep Power: 2134100 |
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 |
The Following User Says Thank You to Melissa For This Useful Post: |
09-21-2010, 05:04 PM | #8 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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 Last edited by Jess; 09-21-2010 at 05:07 PM. Reason: typos |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jess For This Useful Post: |
09-21-2010, 05:05 PM | #9 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Human Preferred Pronoun?:
He Relationship Status:
Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859 |
You are correct Jess.
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee) |
The Following User Says Thank You to Corkey For This Useful Post: |
09-21-2010, 06:27 PM | #10 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Woman Preferred Pronoun?:
HER - SHE Relationship Status:
Relating Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: CA & AZ I'm a Snowbird
Posts: 5,408
Thanks: 11,826
Thanked 10,830 Times in 3,200 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856 |
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.
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AtLast For This Useful Post: |
09-22-2010, 05:13 AM | #11 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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! |
09-22-2010, 06:39 AM | #12 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
married Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 269
Thanks: 262
Thanked 587 Times in 195 Posts
Rep Power: 2134100 |
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 |
09-22-2010, 08:26 AM | #13 |
Timed Out - Permanent
How Do You Identify?:
decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?:
other Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Patrick Springs, VA
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 9,247
Thanked 5,703 Times in 1,684 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
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! |
|
|