happy day

Senate Passes Compromised Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Bill 65-31

With a few votes to spare, the Senate this morning passed the procedural hurdle — voting for cloture — on the standalone Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal bill. The full Senate will now vote, without risk of filibuster. From there, it’s sent to the president’s desk in time for a pre-Christmas signature. Keep in mind, kids: Signing the bill does not repeal the law. Military brass must “certify” the armed forces are ready for gay troops to serve openly, and there is no set timeline for them to do so. Repealing DADT, once Obama signs off on it, is then in the hands of Sec. Gates. So keep your sexuality to yourselves for the time being. But ya know what this means? According to Andrew Sullivan’s timeline, Joe Solmonese gets to keep his job. And isn’t that what everyone wanted Santa to give them this year? UPDATE: And it’s off to the president. Around 3:30pm EST, the Senate wrapped it up with a 65-31 vote to pass the bill.

The Republicans crossing the aisle to vote in favor of cloture were Scott Brown, Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, and George Voinovich. Joe Manchin, the lone Democrat who said he would not vote for the bill, was absent (though maybe he’ll show up to cast a No vote during the bill’s actual roll call?). Republicans Jim Bunning, Orrin Hatch, and Judd Gregg were also absent.

Now let’s give Sen. John McCain one more chance to write his name down in history as a certified bigot.

Meanwhile, what about the Log Cabin Republicans’ lawsuit against the federal government? Technically the courts don’t yet have reason to dismiss it — since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is still, technically, alive and well. But once Gates signs off on implementing repeal, yes, that should be enough for LCR’s suit to be declared — legally — pointless, because the thing it was suing over is no longer a law.

Oh, and here’s Obama’s statement, because this man DESERVES ALL THE CREDIT: “By ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #don'taskdon'ttell(dadt) stories and more


  • Mountainword

    Alright, so its finally going to a vote – maybe the stress of all this will put McCain in a tidy little box for Christmas. I hope he got my gift of bacon and cheese!

    Seriously though – it is a step in the right direction, and even if it doesn’t pass, it’s still proof that LGBT have enough of a voice to get noticed by the government. So don’t stop now, guys – we’ve got their attention!

  • DR

    Well a bunch of Republicans kept their promise. The Republicans voting “yes” were: Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass), Susan Collins (R-Alaska), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

    Let’s see what the next 30 hours holds. I’m not holding my breath that McConnell will waive the debate time required by procedure and would be surprised to discover that the bill passes before some time tomorrow evening. And since only a simple majority is needed, we ought to have enough votes.

    It’s about damn time.

  • kayla

    @Mountainword: You obviously don’t understand how the Senate works! It’s a done deal, they’ve achieved cloture with 63 votes, they only needed 60. Now a simple majority of 51 votes will make the repeal complete, all that has to happen is for Obama to sign the bill. I know that a lot of people on this sight in particular hate Obama with an unbridled passion, but I have no doubt he will be more than happy to sign this into law. Obama understood that in order to get Repubs onboard, certain steps had to be taken, and it looks like the strategy worked. Not that I expect anyone on this sight to give the man any credit. You all hate him with a mad passion and even as he signs this seminal bill into law, which will, in my opinion have the same positive effect on gay civil rights that the racial integration of the military had on black civil rights, you all will and can curse him to hell.

    I do consider it poetry that it’s a black president who will be signing this into law, it’s like a full circle…or something!

  • Cam

    Now that passage is pretty guarenteed it will be interesting to see if any additional GOP Senators vote their actual opinions and not the party line. I think if Brown wants to win again in MA. he has to vote for passage.

    Solomnase, the person who told us not to push for DADT should be ashamed of himself.

  • DR


    Considering all the appeals he filed to continue this policy, you’re damn right that even if he signs the bill I’ll not trust him. I may not “curse him to hell”, but he’s gonna have to do a lot more than sign this to earn my trust back.

  • jason

    It was WE who did it. WE put the pressure on.

  • Mr. Enemabag Jones

    Guarenteed the Republicans will use this to hammer the Dems in 2012.

  • kayla

    The final vote is coming at 3pm., like I said it’s a done deal!

  • Tricky

    It is obvious that McCain does not care about his own legacy and that is his right, but to continue to be an embarrassment to his family. If he was my dad, I would have him committed, and Senator McCain, just so you know, all of the Veterans that I know have no problem with gays serving in the military, myself included. I guess it all depends on who you ask.

  • Bubba in TX

    @Kayla: I don’t hate President Obama at all, but I definitely feel that he didn’t do nearly enough to make this happen. Yes, he publicly supported ending the ban, but as it’s been pointed out many times, he didn’t seem to want to put ANY pressure on individual Congressmen to get them to vote for repeal. In retrospect, it was a shrewd political move, since it will pass, anyway (and he will get to sign repeal into law, ensuring his place in history…again), but this whole process has been a nail-biter when it didn’t have to be. Obama has proven once again that he can talk the talk, but he’s not willing to walk the walk for us.

    Having said all that, this is great news, and I am excited to be living in these historic times for GLBT rights. May this trend continue.

  • kayla

    @Mr. Enemabag Jones: This is a total non-issue and though some Repubs will attempt to use it to foment their base, it won’t have much traction. And the reason is simple, the military will not have a meltdown, there isn’t going to be mass desertions or a mass of people choosing not to reenlist. THE GAYS will continue to serve like they always have and this will go down as the most anticipated non-event is military history! The crazies will always be the crazies and their votes were always going to the Repubs anyway.

  • Kieran

    The Republicans still don’t seem to get it that it was 8 years of the disastrous, incompetent regime of neo-con monkey George W. Bush along with this angry, war-mongering prick John McCain that put a Barack Hussein Obama in the White House.

  • Tricky

    @kayla, I am with you, I don’t understand all of the animosity towards Obama, by the gays either. Anyone can see that this man faces an uphill battle on everything he does, not just DADT. Sometimes I feel as if he has not done enough either, but I like to think I am smart enough to understand that he is doing what he can. Imagine for a second that McCain had won the election, I suppose that for a lot of Queerty folks, that would have been so much better. We can see how much support he has for us.

  • kayla

    @Tricky: As I have said to all the Obama haters, Sarah will be more than happy to have their vote!! She just love TEH GAYS!!

  • whatever

    The gay hatred of Obama on this site is partly Hillary deadender-ism left over from the primaries of 2008, some homocons who hate him for being a Democrat, some who are just plain old racist.

    That said, there are obviously many valid criticisms of the guy and his policies, but the reflexive and comical rabid anti-Obama stuff comes mainly from those places I listed above.

  • DR


    If the best commentary one can make of an elected official goes no broader than “well, he’s better than the other guy”, we’ve reached the point where it’s clear we need viable third and fourth parties because the two party system is a joke.

    And for the record…

    Palin and McCain probably would have appealed the LCR and Witt decisions, JUST LIKE OBAMA DID.

    Palin and McCain probably would have appointed an anti-DADT head of the Marine Corps, JUST LIKE OBAMA DID.

    Let’s not pretend that Obama hasn’t made decisions which have had a negative impact in the DADT amendment process.

  • OrchidIslander

    @kayla: Well said Kayla, and I couldn’t agree with you more. From your points about the visceral, frothing of the mouth hatred of Obama at this site to his pragmatic and compromise approach to repealing DADT. Whether most of you like it or not, and I’m guessing not, Obama had a huge impact on the repeal. He didn’t do it in a dramatic, over the top bitch-slapping session as so many of you wanted to see, but with some behind the scenes manoeuvrings, diplomacy and engagement. He needed some Republican backing and he wasn’t going to get it by being shrill and with a its-my-way-or-the-highway approach. That’s Obama’s style. That’s how he works. And for such a young presidency, he has plenty to show for how well his work works. Sometimes we all have to be flexible enough to amend our course or change our approach to get what we want. Such is the nature of politics and life. Still in agreement with Kayla: that the man many of you love to hate (with no good reason whatsoever)is a huge part of the repeal, many of you are incapable of giving credit where credit is due and his signature will forever be associated with and affixed to the repeal. That has got to make many of you haters ill! Sweet, sweet delicious irony!

  • greenmanTN

    Discrimination against gays and lesbians by the military and the government was one of the first gay rights issues, the thing that got people like Barbara Gittings and others to first march, making gays visible and fighting for their rights. So whether you would ever join the military yourself or support the current wars this is a huge step, even if it’s at least a decade late.

    And once a group “serves its country” openly, opposition to that group’s full rights is even less supportable so this is also meaningful in the larger struggle for gay rights. DADT and previous policies allowed the military to pretend there were no gays and lesbians serving, and if they were they were harmful, so now that convenient lie is no more.

    So take a moment to appreciate this because it really is important.

  • Tricky

    @DR, I think General James F. Amos is pro DADT not against it. And yes people should vote for the better of two candidates, what is your point exactly?

    Palin and McCain probably would have appointed an anti-DADT head of the Marine Corps, JUST LIKE OBAMA DID.

  • kayla

    @DR: It’s called pragmatism. I myself am no lover of every step Obama has made. However I know very well that had the Repubs been in office, this day would never have come. I’m not even sure if Hillary had been elected that this day would have come, since she has always taken a political page out of her husband’s play book ( and no doubt, he would’ve been there whispering in her ear at every turn) and we know that he is a fence straddler, that is his political style. People don’t seem to appreciate that Obama is the most liberal President this country has ever seen. But anyways I’m done arguing. I’m just glad this horrendous policy is on the way out, and the Congress has undone a little of the damage done by Mr. Hillary Clinton aka Slick Willy. We’ll have to wait at least until 2012 to get rid of DOMA seeing that the Repubs are about to take over the asylum…

  • tjr101

    History note: Bill Clinton gave us DADT, Barack Obama ended it!

  • whatever

    NPR headline for the clintonistas

    “Ending Military’s Gay Ban Lets Obama Fulfill Another Clinton Promise “

  • jacknasty

    is there any way we, as a nation, can issue a “we told you so” 6 months from no to John McCain and force him to acknowledge he was wrong?

  • Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

    Assuming that the Bill passes and is signed, the Democrats don’t have that much of a risk of a backlash in 2014 from the Moderate and Republican electorate if there are no major scandals during the first couple of years as the Military branches implement the policy. Since many gays and lesbians are already serving, and are often discretely known by or out to their fellow service members and commanders, it really just a matter of avoiding any major sex-scandals or homophobic assaults or murders.

    Domestic partners and spouses of G/L service members will still not be living in base housing or have base privileges…just the same as straight service members girlfriends and boyfriends.

    Sex between service members will still be restricted per good military order and the anti-sexual harassment and anti-fraternization regulation…just like their straight fellow service-members. But the lying and dissimulation about the gender of the partners or hook-ups will be reduced. It’s not like in two years there will be gay bathhouses and cruisy leather bars in the basements of the NCO and officers’ clubs on base.

  • I5.

    @kayla: How is Obama the most liberal president ever when Elliot Spitzer calls his presidency the third term of George W Bush? Obama has continued nearly every Bush policy. This is not the change we expected.

  • Brutus

    @DR: You’re not perceiving the difference between legislative repeal and a court ruling that it’s unconstitutional. Of course the Executive Branch is going to try to hold on to as much power as it can. But just because they want to say they have the ABILITY to pass a law, does not mean that they think it is a good idea to HAVE the law. These are two very different things. It is not at all inconsistent to work for repeal while upholding the policy *as simply constitutional* (as in, within the power of government to enact if it so chooses) in the courts.

  • kayla

    @I5.: Elliot Spitzer…………..

  • tjr101

    @I5.: LOL, you quote hooker loving Elliot Spitzer?!?

  • Jonathan

    @kayla: Not everyone hates Obama.
    Many who do will have to eat crow for dinner if the final vote is successful.

    Now on to DOMA. If we can serve openly then we can marry openly, too. The Christian meanies are NOT having a good day. Hee hee.

  • toddinsf

    @DR What is the point exactly? Gee, I don’t know, if you were given the option of having a leg amputated or just a foot I’m sure you’d prefer just the foot. Does that being the better option mean it’s a GOOD option? Does that mean you can’t try for a better option, or complain about the effects of the option you wound up with? (For the record, my point here isn’t to equate Obama’s presidency with amputation, but rather to show that ‘better of two options’ is not the same as ‘no room to complain’.)

    Yes, Obama is better than McCain. No, that doesn’t mean we have to approve of everything he does or the manner in which he does it.

  • DR

    @Tricky: thanks, I typed a bit too fast. Amos, as you pointed out, has opposed repeal.


    I don’t care what you call it, he created several important bumps in the road. Having just ONE head of one branch of the military vocally oppose repeal was one too many. I sincerely doubt that Amos wasn’t vetted, so Obama knew this going in. It’s also an insult to appeal the Witt and LCR cases; he could have stepped out and not opposed, just like the last 5 presidents chose not to defend laws they were morally opposed to. His fence straddling cost a lot of votes in November, and if it keeps up, I’m certainly not inclined to vote for him in 2012. He needs to step up to the plate and bust his ass before I trust him again.


    Bull. Carter, Regan, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton all refused to defend laws they knew to be unconstitutional. This apologist movement is sick. He never should have appealed, he should have ceased the discharges, maybe then he’d have some credibility.

  • Brutus

    @DR: I don’t know about you, but I was at protests in the early 2000s calling for the end of stop-loss. I refuse to turn around and support it just because it provides and end-run around DADT.

    Who cares if those other Presidents refused to defend laws they thought were unconstitutional? They didn’t have to do that. Moreover, this affects the military. The arguments that this is something the government CAN do, under our current constitutional text and precedent, are strong. But once again, just because the government CAN do something doesn’t mean it SHOULD. And now it has made the proper judgment that it should not.

  • Brutus


  • edgyguy1426

    Thanks GetEqual for all those who kept turning the thumbscrews on Reid and Obama and Pelosi to get this thing moving. For those that kept insisting that it was those Republicans we needed to be hammering on, do you really think demonstrations in McCain’s office would have made any difference? Of course not, we had to make those that gave us lip service walk the walk. Thanks Dan Choi and get well soon!

  • OrchidIslander

    65 “ayes” to 31 “nays.”

    How sweet it is…..

    Congratulations to us all!

  • Brutus

    @edgyguy1426: lol. It was the LCR suit that sped this along, not GetEQUAL’s wordless screaming.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @Brutus: Even if one buys that the president had to appeal, he could have used Stop Loss, which no one seriously disputes, to prevent the short term damage to those dismissed before legislative appeal could happen under this watch. He was legislatively given this power, and even during the Bush administration this was well understood to be within the statutory language that Congress expressly gave as far as Stop Loss is concerned. So, I celebrate this victory. I am glad the President will sign the bill. He could have done more. He choose not to. Both things are true.

  • GayGOP

    8 Republicans voted Aye in the final count…Brown (Massachusetts); Burr (North Carolina); Collins (Maine); Ensign (Nevada); Kirk (Illinois); Murkowski (Alaska); Snowe (Maine); and Voinovich (Ohio).

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @GayGOP: However most of them didn’t. I am glad the GOP decided not to be completely wing nut here, but frankly, if they believed their arguments bout individual freedom they should have voted with the Democrats en mass on this issue.

  • kokobean


    That said, you gays are so fucking ungrateful. Obama is the star here. it doesnt matter..what Reid or the rest do…he is the final say. And the man got shit done. Its time for gays to stop bitching and give props where props are due.

  • Americans=Rightwingers (John From England)


    Exactly but dint try reasoning with crazies.

  • Americans=Rightwingers (John From England)

    Don’t people get this had to be a bipartisan vote? Oh well.

  • reason

    @Bubba in TX: You obviously are not aware of what you are talking about the presidents personal political campaign arm has been working on this issue non stop. They didn’t even address the tax compromise so I think that gives you an idea that this was a top priority for the president. If you watch Hardball on MSNBC Howard Fineman was even talking about how hard Obama’s campaign arm has been working on this. The president also personally called senators on the fence in the same manner he did with health care and the tax compromise.

    @DR: Anyone crying about how it was done can shove it. Unlike the other presidents before him his strategy actually worked and he got it done just like health care. He succeeded where others failed because he knew it took more than rhetoric to get these things done. He stated clearly how he wanted to accomplish this task and he has delivered. People like you have done nothing but make the task more difficult and you should go down in history right alongside enemies like McCain.

    Once again I have been vindicated, all of my strategy defenses have come to past. All of the people that said I was just defending the president were wrong, I was examining the strategies from a realistic perspective. I have seen idealistic bills get pushed like Hillary Clinton’s health care bill which was excellent and pleased a lot of people, but what happened to it? It failed to get past. It seems like people on here would rather have someone that was on t.v. everyday talking about DADT and failing to pass it, rather then someone working behind the scenes focusing on how to get it done even if it ruffles some feathers and actually repealing the law.

  • mk

    @kayla: The fact something happens to work out in the end in no way means that there was a clever strategy in place that got it there. Obama has not had good strategy with the GOP and he has been really ineffective at dealing with them and getting them to do anything they don’t already want to do. Even when he’s offered plans to do things republicans used to say they wanted to do they’d turn up their nose at the plans from him and he wouldn’t be able to get them on board. He’s bad and weak at bargaining with tough customers like the GOP, he’s given in to inappropriate threats, he compromises too much and he’s failed to appreciate what’s been clear for a long time about the GOP being only interested in its own power and far right agenda and not interested in the good of the nation.

    I think he’s used to the idea of good natured compromise, thinking everyone wants the best for the public good, and people coming together. He didn’t have a lot of experience with national politics. GOP greed, willingness to crew over America for political points, and skill at manipulating the public and media conversation with ludicrous accusations and slogans isn’t something he was prepared for adapted to well.

    DADT repeal has had support from military brass and it has widespread support in the country. It’s not one that should be challenging to pass, and it would have been easy to defend stopping implementation with an executive order before to stop the investigation and dropping of gay service members. There are only a few republicans crossing the aisle now and they are ones who were expected to cross on this issue all along.

  • reason

    @edgyguy1426: You are clearly clueless, it took getting the few republicans on board to actually get it done. It took arm twisting, million dollar survey, getting military leaders on board, Organizing for America working non stop, and a tax compromise deal to get this done.

  • Michael

    Thank you Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama.

    I wonder if this will at all be mentioned in John McCain’s legacy.

  • Jack E. Jett

    Cyber pats on backs, air kisses, and hugs to everyone.

  • rrr

    @tjr101: Spitzer is a really sharp, astute liberal regardless of who he has sex with in his personal time.

  • reason


    GOP: 8/42 = 19.05% F

    Democrats: 57/58 = 98.28% A+

    That is including the two republicans that tried to block the vote than cheated and switched to be on the right side of history. Even with the cheats the GOP’s numbers are dismal. The numbers say it all.

  • B

    No. 21 · tjr101 wrote, “History note: Bill Clinton gave us DADT, Barack Obama ended it!” Half-true: it was forced on Clinton, who signed it, no doubt knowing that a veto would be overridden by Congress anyway. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html has a description of what actually happened:

    “By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military’s ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve “the real, practical problems that would be involved” in implementing a new policy. Clinton’s proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public.

    “After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban.”

    Regardless, it will be gone shortly (once President Obama signs it, which is supposed to be sometime next week). The embarrassing thing about it is that it took nearly 20 years to correct a mistake.

  • soul_erosion

    It’s a great feeling to have this behind us. I’m hoping it’s one of those pivotal moments in time that helps us with the general population in changing their views and renews or convictions for the many fights to come.

  • Richard Ford

    The repeal of DADT is a breakthrough event and a cause for jubilation. If we were to experience such a momentous victory for the cause of human dignity and equality each and every day, beginning tomorrow, I am confident that we would put an end to hatred, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, and oppression across our nation in perhaps as little as 100 years.

  • Jeffree

    Meanwhile, the fundie and “family” blogs are seeing this as the end of civilization and the harbinger of US military losing strength. Yeesh!

    They repeat the words “de.vi.ant” and “im.mor.al” over and over, and call the Repubs who voted AYE “turncoats.”

    It’s being noted that Joe Lieberman (indep.), an Orthodox Jew voted on the sabbath.

    DADTs gonna be the topic at many churches tomorrow.

  • TelltheTruth

    Just get it over with and a few years from now everyone will wonder why it was a big deal to begin with. Nothing will change re. the military effectiveness nor anything else. Might even be better.

  • Phillip

    Bill Clinton tried to end the ban on gays in the military via executive order. Congress rebelled and was prepared to put an outright ban into law by a filibuster proof majority. DADT was enacted as a compromise – an imperfect compromise yes – but still better than an outright ban. People act like Bill Clinton sat down one day and dreamed up DADT – it was the best compromise under the circumstances, supported by Barney Frank and other LGBT allies. Please learn your history.

  • Dawson

    Let us not forget our brave gay service men and women who have had to endure this archaic policy. This is first a victory for them and then for all gays and lesbians in the good ole U.S.A.

    This is more than a 17 year victory. Next stop legalize marriage and universal benefits. I have no time for anger. This is a time to look to the sky and just say Thank You. But most of all Thank you to our members of the arm forces.

    Merry Christmas

  • Red Meat

    Now, DOMA and marriage equality. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • reason

    @Phillip: That is absolutely true but it is way to intricate for most people on this site to understand. Obama actually got the law repealed and some people are still angry.

  • reason

    @Red Meat: Next stop EDNA then DOMA and marriage equality. All of those are likely post 2012 objectives. The best route near term route for DOMA is death in the courts.

  • TwlightoftheDogs


    How it is done matters. Whether a repeal is affirmative- you must stop discriminating- versus negative- simply ending legal discrimination- matters.

    The bill that the president pushed in his traditional non commit way means that we have only won the first battle.

    We still have the regulatory and administrative end to address.

    Your post is why I think lay people should be told they are ignorant over a subject. The age of telling people they are right simply because they have an opinion must come to an end if this country is ever going to move forward.

    You claimed you didn’t care how thins happened. Yet how this happened will define the battle going forward. We could have won it all today in one move. Now we got several more. Let’s be happy over winning the battle. let’s not be ignorant about understanding what it means.

  • WillBFair

    This is a great day!
    Enda next.
    This victory is strategic. And it was easier than enda. Keeping dadt while our people were fighting and dying for America was too hypocritical even for the general public.
    And the victory will be great pr for enda. As David E says, why should the military have more rights than we have? That’s the next argument in the battle.
    Enda is going to take some doing. We’ll have to make a concesion, as the public did by approving civil unions, which we didn’t take enough advantage of.
    But it’ll be next to impossible to make the concession needed to get enda because the self destructive crowd will continue to sabotage our movement. And no, the concession is not to throw trannies completely under the bus. But there is one job that the public don’t want them to have. And we should be willing to exclude them from the one job so we can pass enda for us all.
    That said, this is a great day!!!

  • Ceaser

    STFU McCain!! Really, what’s wrong with this man???

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: I am not really sure what you are referring to. I have always supported legislative repeal and an orderly process. If you have read any of my post over the years you would know that. Whether people agree with me or not is their choose. This is the best way it could have happened, an affirmation by the government body closest to the people. This is how the government is supposed to work. The end to government sanctioned legislated discrimination has always been the first pillar in ending discrimination. DADT is ending and will have the signatures of the president, secretary, and chairman. Whether it is a slow change or immediate will depend on the smoothest possible way to implement it, I am already well aware no mater what is decided it will take six months after that for anything to take effect. DADT is on its death bed and it is only a matter of time before GBLT can serve openly in all aspects of military life.

  • TwlightoftheDogs


    (a) I am referencing your ignorant statement to the other poster that you aren’t interested in how this happened. You clearly don’t understand what “this” is.

    (b) I can that you don’t understand because you go off spouting ideological crap that has no relationship to (i) our system of government (which has 3 co-equal branches- sometimes its the legislature that ends discrimination and other times its judicial- Brown v. Board, for example, came before the Civil Rights Acts) and (ii) in your statement before there seems to be an ignorance of what was addressed today. The law does not affirmatively protect gays from being fired in the military. it simply passes the right to discrimination from law to administrative action of the military. What this means is that any president now or in the future can recreate an administrative law version of DADT. That means we are likely to see more litigation and more action on this as the battle now moves from one quarter to another.

    Were you focused on the legal ramification of today’s historic action rather than an ideologue (What you believe about who should do what is ideologue rather than the system of checks and balances that defines our federal structure as per the Constitution and case law since Marbury v Madison), you would understand what I just wrote.

  • Richard Ford

    The sad reality is that many people who were staunchly opposed to the repeal of DADT are secretly hoping that some significant harm WILL befall our military as a result of this action, just so they can say “I told you so.” Offered only as a little insight into some small minds.

  • Ross

    YAAAAY! Just about time! Now, I’m seriously thinking about joining within next year. =D

  • B

    No. 53 · Jeffree wrote, ‘Meanwhile, the fundie and “family” blogs are seeing this as the end of civilization and the harbinger of US military losing strength. Yeesh!’

    No doubt, but at least some of them are seeing the proverbial handwriting on the wall and saying it is really no big deal:
    http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religious-right-now/2010/12/no_dadt_no_problem.html .

    It seems they know it is a lost cause and want to concentrate on marriage, so it’s not like they’ve really “seen the light”. Rather, they don’t want to give the impression that this is the start of them being routed. By pretending it is no big deal, they can pretend it was not a major defeat for them.

  • JR

    Take that John McCain !!!

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: You should learn how to read. I have not said in any of my post that I don’t care how this was done. If you read my post it is clear that my point is that without a good strategy this would not have happened as it didn’t in the Clinton era. The way that the people harping wanted to go about it would not have worked. An executive order would not have ended this law.

    Actually the judicial branch of government in this case if they decided it was unconstitutional would have been cleaning up after an error in the legislative branch. That would mean that the legislative branch had failed at their job. It is there as a safe guard and the constitutionality of DADT had not been decided on by the supreme court and could have gone either way.

    To suggest that after GBLT are serving openly in the military that it will be reversed down the road is ludicrous. That would be similar to saying that the military might ban people that are left handed from serving by administrative route. You sound paranoid and ridiculous.

  • edgyguy1426

    @reason: I agree with you on the other items you listed. Calling me clueless? Classless.

  • Richard Ford

    A short while ago I wrote about some small minds on the other side of our ideological fence. To give equal time to some cerebrally-challenged folks in our own ranks, I have talked to some gay guys who see DADT repeal as a setback for homosexuals, because now they can’t opt out of military service by declaring they are gay. Isn’t humanity a gas?

  • reason

    @edgyguy1426: I am regretful that I called you clueless, but to suggest that we didn’t need to hammer the republicans is not right. I also think that the people that were suggesting such during the battle were actually hurting the cause. People like Scott Brown needed to know that they would not be reelected if they voted the wrong way.

  • reason

    @Richard Ford: From that vantage point it would be discriminatory against straights which would be just as wrong.

  • Devon

    I’ll celebrate once it’s actually repealed, and not waiting on the military’s go-ahead.

  • Richard Ford

    Boof! What will the Westboro Batptist Church has to say about this?!

  • AndrewW

    In February, at the Human Rights Campaign’s Carolinas fundraising gala, Joe Solmonese promised donors, “This year we are going to bring down the discriminatory policy known as DADT.”

    The deal, that was cut in February (by HRC and others), enabled some Republicans to support repeal based on the “military study,” and it has worked. What’s left is for the President and Congress to “certify.” The repeal will only take effect 60 days after the last of conditions a) and b) are fulfilled:

    a) The Secretary of Defense receives the Comprehensive Review he requested on March 2, 2010 concerning implementing a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    b) Congress receives written certification from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff stating that:

    1) The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action.

    2) The Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement the repeal.

    3) Implementing all necessary modifications required to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

    I think HRC and the organizations that brokered the deal in February deserve some credit for understanding they needed something real to convince enough Republicans to support Repeal. To that end Gates and Mullen (one supposes at the direction of Obama) deserve a lot of credit for crafting an effective study of DADT. It worked.

    Let’s hope the new Republican Congress doesn’t stall the process to “certify” this potential repeal of DADT. There is already talk that the House will hold “hearings” in January and they will try to make funding “implementation” an issue.

  • reason

    @AndrewW: Do you believe now? You thought it wouldn’t be done and here we are. I think it is appropriate that you pull out your checkbook :)

  • a

    A big shame that John McCain decided to fight so hard for DADT, and decided to end the bill on such a sour speech. His legacy will be his bigotry, certainly.

  • reason

    @a: @a: I don’t think it is a shame, let history note the truth of John McCain’s character.

  • AndrewW

    @reason: No, I don’t believe now. Read my comment – HRC and a few other groups made the deal in February to get a few Republicans based on the “Military’s Study.” So far, it has worked. We’ll see what happens during the next two months.

    I have said repeatedly that the circus-activism of GetEQUAL and Choi, Inc., didn’t help us and they didn’t. This was a smart deal done by the groups we all like to hold accountable, including HRC. As you will recall GetEQUAL and Dan Choi (and Pam Spaulding and other progressive nutjobs) condemned the so-called “backroom” compromise-repeal-deal. But, IT worked, not the childish publicity stunts.

    HRC did this with Obama and the rest of the Democrats. The figured out how to get some Republican votes in the Senate. They deserve some credit, but DADT isn’t gone yet.

  • ewe

    @kayla: we ALL hate Obama? Gee that’s news to me. I think you are the one painting with a broad brush. I read very harsh sentiments coming from you. It is not hate when one expects equal treatment from their top representative. What’s next? You now try to shame people into guilt for achieving what should never had been an issue in the first place by propping up a president as some sort of savior backlash? Obama is not some great individual more than anyone else for doing what is right. You will have to grovel on your knees by yourself.

  • Meh

    Remind me again why this became priority number one?

    ENDA affects far more people, but for some reason all our time and energy was spent getting this non-repeal-repeal done. Now because of that any chance we had of getting ENDA passed in the near future is dead and buried.

  • ewe

    @tjr101: wrong!!! Gay people ended DADT.

  • Jeffree

    @B: You’re right! The ” faith/family” organizations are realizing they lost the DADT issue, and that DOMA repeal/state marriage issues generate more fear, thus more $ than DADT did. Some commenters are still seeing the end of DADT as an “affirmative action” program for LGBs, lol, in terms of promotion/recruitment!

    Interesting: Many more negative comments about the vote from “retired” military folks than those claiming active/reserve status.

  • DR

    @Brutus: @reason:

    A true “fierce advocate” would have done something! He had options not to appeal or to stop loss, and he relied on everyone else to get their hands dirty when he could have done something more than just talk. He had the legal authority to do it, and he didn’t. You want me to applaud, I’ll applaud Levin, Collins, Leiberman and everyone else who voted to amend, not the guy who authorized his DOJ to file appeals calling us pedophiles.

  • berto

    Obama is to blame when it doesn’t happen. Obama is to blame when it happens but not fast enough. Obama is to blame when it happens but not the right way.

    I guess gays really are JUST like everyone else. Stupid, spiteful and mentally lazy.

  • Obama

    Congratulations President for fulfilling another President Clinton Campaign promise.

    Log Cabin Republicans can eat crow especially since they campaigned against Rep. Patrick Murphy.

  • reason

    @DR: Stop loss wouldn’t affect GBLT because the DADT law was written to prevent that. Not appealing would put the Health Care bill that he spent his first year on in jeopardy. We already had some crazy southern judge rule it unconstitutional, so when a republican gets in there what is to stop them from not appealing some low level judges ruling? The legislative route was the most sound route to pursue, and they got it done. All of you prognosticators have been at it for decades and nothing has got done until this president that is not fierce enough for you got into office. I am not looking for fierce advocates, I am looking for pragmatic leaders. The president brought it up at his most important address in front of the entire country, the state of the union, and expressed his desire to appeal the law. His campaign arm also worked tirelessly to help get it done. Obama built the proper coalitions and cut the right deals to get to this point. I will applaud the president, Lieberman, Pelosi, and all the other house and senate members who supported it and didn’t just jump on at the last second. If Collins wanted it done earlier why did she spend time blocking its progress from the beginning? The president doesn’t need your applause, it wasn’t done for you but the patriots that actually choose to serve. I am pulling out my checkbook.

  • Obama



    President Barack Obama plays to win.

  • Isaiah

    @tjr101: Your statement is misleading. Actually, Bill Clinton nearly lost his presidency trying to allow gays to serve openly in the military. DADT was a compromise forced on Clinton by Colin Powell, the former joint chiefs chairman.

    It is important to remember that Clinton’s efforts were not all bad. After DADT was implemented in 1993, the question became whether gays could be open about their service, not whether they could serve at all.

  • reason

    @Obama: Right on!

  • Obama


    “Politically though the thing not to lose touch with here — this is the president’s victory. He took a lot of criticism, a lot of abuse, a lot of skepticism from his otherwise most loyal supporters, but this is an issue on which the president did not waver. He continued to insist this was possible, that it would get done. It in fact was not possible for the President to do it through executive action. This had to be done legislatively. The President did not waver. He did work on the Senate to get this to happen. He insisted it was possible. This was a difficult promise to keep, not just a promise kept, it was one that was hard to keep that cost a lot of political capital and a lot of work, and this is the President’s victory and his base will reward him for it.” Rachel Maddow.

    Well done, Mr. President.

  • reason

    @Obama: That says a lot coming from Rachel because she was one of the critics and someone that stated it could be done by executive order albeit mistakenly. I would hate to call some people hateful, I think they just don’t understand the depth of political effort that it took Obama to get this done.

  • ewe

    @Obama: True and Obama won’t let you marry the person you want to because he feels that way too. Of course your equal rights don’t matter there at all. So i do not say Right on Mr. President. I say it’s about fucking time.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @reason: Its funny how you claim that I didn’t read what you said before, and then in this latest comment basically say what i thought you were saying. You claimed I was misreading you as far as your attempts to praise without context issues like Stop Loss, etc. Then you turn around to claim it wouldn’t have stopped DADT. It would have saved 1000 careers while DADT was repealed. That may be nothing to you. But for those 1000 peo it matters a lot.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @reason: Lord, now, I am very suspicious of you and others. Rachel is one of the harsh critics of the president? Really? In what fantasy reality is that true?

    WHat you call hate is a balanced presentation. I don’t think the president was horrible here. He was just a pol acting like a pol. That means that he didn’t do much beyond some light support and playing both ends against the middle to see which way the wind would blow in the end.

    He does this a lot in fact as far as polciies go. he never sticks himself out there alone. He’s a follower as far as circumstances.

    if you want to praise someone- Praise Liebereman, Pelosi and Reid. They along with people like Murphy and Gilibrand and yes a few Republicans this time did the bulk of the heavily lifting.

  • John (CA)

    The negative comments are not surprising. Over the years, I have sadly come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way for Democratic lawmakers to please the Republicans among us. Nothing short of disbanding the party I suppose. And there is really no point in even trying at this point. You simply cannot win with these people. They have been pre-programmed to find fault with practically everything nice you do for them.

    If you pass hate crimes legislation, gay conservatives will say that it is an infringement upon free speech.

    If you pass ENDA, gay conservatives will whine about it being bureaucratic and anti-business.

    If you pass a law against homophobic bullying, gay conservatives will call it liberal indoctrination.

    If you repeal DADT a couple months late, gay conservatives will hold you personally responsible for each and every discharge in the interim (i.e. pay no attention to that crotchety old man from Arizona filibustering everything).

  • JusticeontheRocks

    Can we all please shut up about how it got done, agree that we’re glad this watered down repeal was passed, and agree that Sen. McCain is the Gov. George C. Wallace of his era. What a disgrace that man is to the senate, to the military, and to Americans.

  • Obama

    @John (CA):

    I find Gay Republicans hilarious. The vote against their own self interest and then ride the coattails of the Democratic Party for civil rights screaming and tearing down all the way. I guess they hate government more than they love themselves.

    This is President Obama’s victory and many worked hard for it.

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: Stop loss does not stop GBLT discharges, it was a myth that most news organizations corrected including MSNBC and Politico. Of course fox news tried to continue spreading the rumor to cause a fight within the democratic party. The GOP crafted the legislation so Clinton or any democrat after him would not be able to stop the policy with executive order. After all they knew Clinton was trying to allow GBLT to serve openly, why would they leave him with the capability to end it unilaterally. So, you are wrong when you suggest there was a way to save a 1000 jobs.

  • reason

    @JusticeontheRocks: I wouldn’t call him George Wallace just yet, George Wallace at least confessed in his life time about his errors. McCain could turn to dust at any minute, and take his bigotry to his grave.

  • L.

    Um. “Compromised”? Say what?

  • reason

    @Obama: Thanks for the link, I looked it up on her shows page also as soon as you posted the quote.

  • reason

    @L.: They think it is compromised becuase Obama, Sec. Gates, and Adm. Mullen have to sign off and set the policy change and it will take 6 months to take effect. When in truth it takes the shackles of the president that were put on during the Clinton administration that blocked him from being able to set the policy allowing GBLT to serve openly (the prime reason why executive order and stop loss wouldn’t work). It is lost on them that in effect DADT striped the power from the president which has been reinstated thus ending DADT. Obama’s hand with his Sec. and Adm. will actually be the ones to grant open service to GBLT in the end not congress.

  • DR


    Yeah DADT got repealed, and the GLB soldiers it impacts got lucky that real leaders got this thing passed while Obama watched from the sidelines pretending to care.

    A fierce advocate would have halted discharges; I take the word of the Palm Center over most of the hacks who post here any day when it comes to that issue. It was legal and able to be done, but Obama didn’t have the leadership ability to make it happen.

    Not appealing would have been the actions of a true fierce advocate. What we saw through this process was a cowardly politician who doesn’t have the guts to do what Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton did. A true fierce advocate wouldn’t have filed appeals calling us pedophiles.

    Obama created a situation where he could point fingers at everyone but himself if this failed, despite his lukewarm advocacy and insulting briefs. And as we can see, his apologists are tripping over themselves to defend him since it passed.

  • TwlightoftheDogs


    (a) I read the Palm report. I read military experts on the subject.

    (b) I am a lawyer trained in dealing with administrative issues. While this was not my area of expertise, I understand the analysis better than a lay person and average lawyer would understand it.

    (c) Its compromised for several reasons. You only mention one. The other more important one I already described. The language does not prevent future administrations from reviving DADT in military regs.

    I wish you would stop reading everything through your partisan and ideological perspective.

    The fact is I don’t think Obama was horrible here. I think he did somethings right such as the calls, but also some things wrong such as stalling and weakening the language when Pelosi and Reid had moved the bills earlier in the year. Rather than dealing with complex arguments, you keep reducing them to something entirely different, and , then you add your own spin.

    Again, the fact is that on the actual issue, Pelosi, Reid, Lieberman (whom I really don’t like) and folks like Collins etc all deserve more here than Obama. It doesn’t mean he was harmful. It just mean he wasn’t key.

    And on the issue of getting the best bill possible, I think he hurt because we could have gotten affirmative language. this negative language (which is to say a bill that ends a law rather than affirmative gay rights) means that we are still open to future discrimination. Not on that, it does not set up for affirmative battles like ENDA.

    Again, you won’t read any of this. None of the Obots ever do. But its a complicated situation that you really aren’t equipped from reading your comments to discuss.

  • JusticeontheRocks

    @Reason. Not a bad point. And Wallace always said his bigotry was to help him get elected. First time he ran for governor he was a “liberal.” he lost and said he wasn’t gonna get “out-nigraed” again.

    I get the feeling McCain really believes all his nonsense. I know the republicans are going to use this as a campaign issue in 2012. I hope Obama calls them on it – and says that they’re undermining the armed forces, which is exactly what McCain is doing.

  • Obama


    President Obama was not key? What are you smoking? He has the last word. Veto or sign into law.

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: Lol you read the palm report… Not biased at all huh. Why don’t you try reading the congressional research report. You honestly think you are a lawyer more skilled then Obama’s legal team that advised him that it would be illegal for him to try to exercise an executive order to stop discharges. You really are a tool, as expressed by your continued attempts to pretend that you have some expert knowledge that nobody else in the world has. DADT took the power out of the presidents hand, repeal put it back in. The decisions on open service will be made by the people that were supposed to make them before congress decided to interfere in the 90’s. Once again I already addressed your previous worry, the chance of that happening is similar to an administration deciding to ban left handed people from service. Will the administration have the power sure, but they will have the same power over everyone else in the military. It is called equality and that is what we are striving for, not special treatment. What you want would be similar to asking for a provision to be added to the repeal of DOMA that blocked the government from ever raising taxes on GBLT, while they would still have the power to raise it on anyone else.

    Its about truth and fiction, I could careless if you hate Obama, Pelosi, and Reid or not.

  • Obama


    Do you even realize Organizing for America (the people behind Obama’s campaign) put out a huge lobbying effort close to Health Care Reform this past week?

    Do you even realize President Obama made the left outraged over taxes cuts for billionaires so this issue would not die? He used much of his political capital.

    President Obama ended DADT.

  • jak

    Today is certainly not the time for cynicism or retaliation. It’s a time for JOY and HAPPINESS!! It’s a momentous day in a long struggle towards equality.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    I realize that like most Obots you can’t fathom how to read a complicated view of dear leader.

    I never denied the president his part in this, but I temper it with what he also did wrong. In fact, this is now my 3 or 4th post explicitly saying that his record is mixed. Its only because I don’t say that he wants on water that you respond.

    That to you is an forgivable sin. Its easier to froth at the mouth against some extremist who is against the president than the answer more complicated charges about what he actually did and did not do.

    His actions with OFA or calling do not excuse dragging his feet or sending out surrogates to sabotage certain movements that happened earlier on the issue. One thing does not justify the other.

    So, not President Obama wasn’t key. it was a factor. The key was the gay men and women who you each have forgotten who fought this policy when it was easier to give up. When it was unpopular in the polls and in politics. Those are the people I salute. You know- the people none of you give a shit about because they aren’t famous or powerful.

    I also salute the people in the policy trenches who actually researched issues versus spouting John McCain eque ideological dogma like Reason (and yes reason your absurd arguments that have no basis in legal analysis are of the same kind of closed minded view of the world as John McCain- since you both are impervious to anything but what you think on a subject. That you are on the opposite of the issue doesn’t change that fact).

    I solute a lot of people. Even president Obama for signing this. What I don’t do is ignore everyone else because his supporters get a hard on thinking about him.

  • Obama


    President Obama said in his State of the Union speech back in January that he would work with Congress and the military this year to repeal DADT.

    What part of that don’t you understand or was dragging his feet. If he signed an EO being gay in the military would still be illegal until Congress changed the law.

    President does not fight issues based on emotion like so many LGBT do. He fights to win and he does.

  • ewe

    @Obama: oh right, obama against same sex marriage is not based on emotion at all. uh huh. stop cheerleading for him.

  • Obama


    He doesn’t need cheerleaders. He won.

    Take Care

  • Meher Zaman

    FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let’s rejoice and keep fighting for our rights.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    My apologies. I think of President Obama as a pol. Apparently, you think of him as saint preaching gospel. For the record, all I said is that his actual behavior, when you look beyond the speeches, has been good and bad. Heaven forbid we look at his actions with any balance. No, he walks on water. All I added is that there were many people who contributed to this victory. I guess I should have said it was Obama and only Obama. Is that better?

  • OrchidIslander

    @TwlightoftheDogs: If sarcasm served with a heaping portion of curmudgeonly behavior constitutes better for you – than have at it. Obama deserves some props for what occurred today. True, he didn’t do it alone and a lot of sacrifices have been made, but his involvement as well as leadership were imperative, involved and effective.

    Without the backing of the POTUS, today’s outstanding story could not have happened.

    Why you would continue to harangue about who did what, mixed records, feet being dragged, etc. – instead of enjoying what the day has wrought says more about you than anything else.

    Lighten up! This is an incredible day for us; it took about 20 years for it to get here – so try to enjoy it……

  • jason

    While DADT has been repealed legislatively, in practice it hasn’t. You can still be dismissed for coming out as gay. This is because Obama and the Democrats made their support of repeal conditional on a “timetable” that must be determined by Robert Gates.

    The question we should be asking now is this: how long is it going to take before gays can serve openly without being dismissed? This is THE most important question each one of you should be asking. Don’t fall for the ebullience that comes with having the Senate repeal DADT in theory.

    I want to know how long this timetable is going to take. And I want to know now.

  • Jeffree

    All your questions have already been answered in the comments above.

    Try something new, will you? Read the article, read prior posters, and see if you can match your queries to those people who showed up before you.

    I hope that you DO realize that no “sleazy straight men” –and no bisexual double standards (your favorite daily expressions!)– were involved with the vote on Saturday. That must be a relief to you and the team of savants trying to connect you with reality (and get that tinfoil hat removed from your head in public).

    Best of luck to you as you try to cope with this curious thing called “facts”.

  • Kev C

    Obama is a political opportunist and is doing the expedient thing to be politically viable, to gain votes and money for him and his party. But I don’t think he sees the over-arching principle of equality, that gay citizens should be treated equally. The solution he opted for was a political solution, not a legal solution. He doesn’t see this as a civil rights issue but as a way of keeping gays on the farm.

  • Goodnight Moon

    anyone have a list of those who voted “nay”?

  • L.

    @reason: OK, I understand better now. But maybe then “temporarily bogged down in DC red tape” would have been a more honest, if less grab-frenzy, line.

  • reason

    @L.: When the site spends the whole year attacking the strategy, Obama, and the democrats when things get done they want to put the most negative spin on it. Hence the headline.

  • Daez

    @Mr. Enemabag Jones: No, the Republicans are smarter than that. You do not bring up a vote that 80% of the American people wanted and that you were on the wrong side of during election times.

    The tide is changing. DADT repeal was one step in the right direction, and after two years we can all start working on other legislation because we are about to experience a two year dry spell of anything progressive.

    However, if in typical Republican fashion, they manage to screw up this Congressional session, a Democrat sweep might actually see progression begin again.

  • Daez

    @Bubba in TX: Because McCain would have obviously signed repeal into law (that is why he fought it so hard) and so would have GWB for that matter (that is why he went after an amendment to strip marriage rights away from the states).

  • Daez

    @DR: The two party system is a joke. It counteracts the balance of powers that were described in the constitution. However, you will never get rid of it.

    You didn’t bother to continue with…

    Palin and McCain would have worked hard to appeal to Congress that they not pass DADT reform just like Obama (OH WAIT).


    Palin and McCain would have vetoed the bill just like Obama (OH WAIT).

    Seriously, you can’t start that trend without finishing it.

  • Daez

    @tjr101: It is so completely not that simple. You forgot the part that Bill Clinton gave us DADT as a way to end the military wide “gwitch” hunts that were common place for 60+ years before DADT was enacted.

  • reason

    @Daez: You were incorrect with your thoughts that this was not going to happen. How about a little bit more faith and support next time. I get that the community has been disappointed a lot, but the key is to learn why that happened and correct them instead of just turning toward cynicism. The president learned from the Clinton era and adjusted strategy accordingly. He got the military to trust him, fought to keep his word to this community, and defeated the GOP that was fighting to make him fail both groups of people. This is a president that has shown over and over that his goal is to advance the ball even if he takes heat form those he is advancing it for. Politically it would be easier to throw red meat to please everyone and not move the ball at all. Health care is an example, he could have spent the whole year fighting for the public option and got absolutely nothing when Scott Brown got elected or he could have cut deals and focused on priorities to get the bill he got thus moving the ball forward.

  • Cam

    The line cominf from HRC now…

    We always knew it would go down like this, this is the way that it had to happen and was the plan all along.

    They seem to have forgotten that the White House said not too long ago that DADT wouldn’t be worked on at all in the forseeable future, and HRC was baking them up on it.

    It was only after grass roots put pressure on, and Pelosi shoved DADT repeal down the White Houses throat that the WH caved.

    If HRC had it’s way DADT would be here for another 8 years, remember, they attacked the court case filed against it as well.

  • Max Campbell

    Jeffrie, you are hypocritical pig! Shut up!

  • Max Campbell

    And bisexual double standards it is a really very big problem. It is humiliates and segregates gay\bi guys.

    But Jayson didn’t speak about it in this topic.

  • robert in nyc

    This is a victory for the Democrats. A major piece of legislation finally passed. At long last, we’ve joined the family of civilized nations who’ve allowed their gay men and women to serve openly and proudly for more than a decade.

    Kayla, No. 20….interestingly, Hillary Clinton also opposes same-sex marriage, unlike her husband. Ironic!

  • reason

    @Cam: Oh poor Cam, washed up in the emotional frenzy perpetrated by sites like this one. The presidents campaign arm has been working on this thing steadily, the president said he wanted it done this year. With a steady hand they jumped through each hurdle and got it done. Another win for the administration on a piece of legislation that sat for nearly two decades.

  • Jeffree

    In related news: John McCain is spinning in his grave. Wife Cindy and daugher Meaghan were seen stomping on it.

    Joe Manchin (D-WV), who skipped out on the vote to attend a very important and festive family Christmas party, has been nominated by his wife –who is also his half sister– to receive a Congressional Medal of Honor for being a “true patriot.” Gay, proud West Virginians plan to deliver his award to him today at 1 p.m. when he is released from police custody after setting an effigy of Nancy Pelosi on fire at the local WalMart.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @Cam: You are right, but unfortunately you are arguing with Obots. They are like the Bushies. Truth doesn’t matter to them. Just nutty posting about how great Obama is. As you can see from my comments, I try to point out that he’s done somethings good, and some bad, and I got the same response as if I had written like I was a Tea party member. Apparently, one can not have a balanced perception of president Obama or the democratic party. The thing that comforts me to be quite honest is the fact that I know what I write is reality, and that the Obots will eventually have to come back to where the rest of the world have to live or end up deadenders. Either way, let them gloat , rant ,etc. It kind of doesn’t matter. I doubt Obama given will even be president in 3 years. Then we will have to be dealing with some crazy ass REpublican. But I really don’t see how that’s unavoidable with the job situation and other economic indicators being what they are. Again, going back to reality, while I am happy about DADT this won’t change that the president in part felt pressure to do this due to his economic policies. THe vast bulk of Americans don’t care about us or our rights unless its to deny them. When its in the positive like this, they certainly won’t vote in 2012 on this even if they favor us. Nor will many gay people. My point is all this posturing by the Obots and gloating won’t last. They don’t get that because they can’t even tell the emperor when he doesn’t have clothes on much less engage in a course change. They are sitll playing that if a policy passes it was his doing, and if a policy fails it was the fought of others. That’s not a strategy after 4 years in office going into 2012. I still am hoping, however, that they will change. But given the nature of the two party system, I doubt it.

  • Teyshan


  • Jorge

    How come it took a Republican and an Independent just about a week to do this while Harry Reid struggled and fumbled with it for months?

  • reason

    The policy going in to 2012 is a stronger economy, business balance sheets are strong and the market is up. Unemployment is a lagging indicator but will improve over time. The tax cuts are not the most efficient way to stimulate the economy but they will, as well as give some certainty for business. In political time 2012 is an extremely long time away and anything could happen. But, the president is polling stronger than both Clinton and Regan in this time in their presidencies. Nearly all of the pundits are shocked at how well he is polling with unemployment this high, he has a base among African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, highly educated, and youth that has been unwavering. Women are also shifting heavily back toward the president after the midterms. Currently he is looking at having to pickup 5 or 6 points to win reelection which any political strategist would be happy to take. DADT is a victory for civil rights, politically it is inconsequential the improvement in the economy will be the driver. The presidents focus should be on the independents and moderates, a republican house that is determined to cut spending will aide the administration in showing that they are serious about fiscal responsibility.

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: The policy going in to 2012 is a stronger economy, business balance sheets are strong and the market is up. Unemployment is a lagging indicator but will improve over time. The tax cuts are not the most efficient way to stimulate the economy but they will, as well as give some certainty for business. In political time 2012 is an extremely long time away and anything could happen. But, the president is polling stronger than both Clinton and Regan in this time in their presidencies. Nearly all of the pundits are shocked at how well he is polling with unemployment this high, he has a base among African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, highly educated, and youth that has been unwavering. Women are also shifting heavily back toward the president after the midterms. Currently he is looking at having to pickup 5 or 6 points to win reelection which any political strategist would be happy to take. DADT is a victory for civil rights, politically it is inconsequential the improvement in the economy will be the driver. The presidents focus should be on the independents and moderates, a republican house that is determined to cut spending will aide the administration in showing that they are serious about fiscal responsibility.

  • reason

    @Jorge: Ha, you clearly don’t know to much about politics and it shows!

  • whatever

    On a sad note, the Dream Act failed. :( But many of the racist gays don’t really care about that.

  • whatever

    @Jorge: You seem really really stupid. No offense.

  • romeo

    Now we need to get the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed.

  • reason

    @whatever: Yeah it is a shame that the Dream act failed. Pushing people out that are actually getting an education and contributing to society is the wrong thing to do.

  • SexAddict

    Lots of hotties now woo hoo!

  • ewe

    @Obama: No, wrong again. We won. And unlike you, some gay people do not feel they have to say thank you to anyone for obtaining and enjoying equal rights. You are misguided with your hero worship and i am not even the least bit interested in knowing why that is.

  • DR


    I don’t care what McCain and Palin would have done, it’s a smokescreen thrown out out to forgive any idiotic move Obama makes.

    It’s simple, he appealed two favorable court decisions using vile and offensive language, appointed an anti-GBL soldier to run the Marine Corps right when we needed as many pro-repeal votes as possible, and oh, right, put enough pressure on OUR side to ensure that the non-discrimination language originally contained within the bill was removed in favor of the study, which we got lucky with since most soldiers couldn’t be bothered filling out.

    His luck that this repeal amendment passed doesn’t forgive the lousy decisions he’s made along the way.

  • ewe

    @robert in nyc: You are so right and that is the exact reason why we do not fall to our knees in gratitude to our representatives doing what is expected. I do not have to go around thanking anyone for rights that others take for granted. End of discussion. All i can continue to say is that is about fucking time. There is so much more to do.

  • MissLaWandaIsBack

    This is all so racist!

  • ewe

    @MissLaWandaIsBack: grow up and stop attempting to silence people with your childish bullshit. What exactly is “this” you speak of? Are we all supposed to jump into your twisted skull to know. I am sick of your blanket statements that mean squat. Elaborate of shut up.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @reason: You are delusional. The economic outlook for the next decade, including those of the administration when its not spinning, is that of Japan. If you know anything about Japan’s Lost Decade, or,f or that matter, the looming crisises that are expected in 2011, you certainly don’t display that knowledge here. My friends work in government on economic issues. They are all saying that no one expecting this to start to turn around- really until 2017 or 18. This being the jobs economy, sustainable growth that’s not anemic, etc. No one knows the future, but I trust them over your propaganda.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    @reason: By the way, your post is extra delusional regarding the tax cuts, the age of austerity sweeping Western democracies like the U.S. and the EU is not going to produce growth. Tax cuts aren’t going to help either. If the Bush economic policies were so successful, we would not have went from a projected 5 trillion surplus to a 5 trillion deficit. More over, we would not be facing long term unemployment numbers nearing 10 percent. I don’t blame the President alone for this. These issues took decades to happen under conservative economic policies followed by Democratic and Republican politicians. However, he’s doing nothing right now that will change the trajectory of the US economy that economist are predicting will be anemic at best. In fact, if you read the work of several Heterodox economics (look up the term if you don’t know it- and no its not marxism) the neo-liberalism that dominates the western economy will lead to more turmoil over the next few decades as our standard of living declines. He’s not changing that either. No one is. He’s not to blame for that. But he’s also not going to be part of the change in the type of capitlaism that we practice either. And in the short term- there’s no chance in hell of the economic indicators outside of GDP improving. You should stop reading the online bloggers shilling for the preisent, and start reading some of the hard core economic blogs not focused on politics. None of them are painting a rosy picture.

  • TwlightoftheDogs


    One point of explanation- the reason why you can’t use GDP as a determinant for our economy is that income inequality has grown so much that growth under GDP must be at certain number to even remotely affect most people in the economy. I read somewhere that growth must be greater than 5 percent for several years for GDP to affect the rest of us versus say the super wealthy who are receiving the most benefit from the anemic numbers. Meanwhile, the rest of us face foreclosures, unemployment and higher health care costs etc.

  • Black Pegasus

    Looks like all of you sullen, racist hateful bitches who BASHED
    President Obama for months can now eat your fucking crow!

    Queerty posted snarky anti-Obama stories for months leading up to the midterms elections with the hope of causing disillusionment and doubt among Democratic Leaning Gays, and unfortunately, many of you miserable angry White Gay Men bought into to Queerty’s Trap by trashing the biggest Gay Ally we’ve ever had in Washing DC!

    Now that the results are in, lets see how many snarky articles Queerty will publish about Homophobic Hypocritical Republicans.
    I’m convinced that this website is a gay republican shitrag which caters to the miserable and the dejected!

    Now eat your crow before it gets cold you silly bitches!

  • whatever

    @Black Pegasus: Most of the queerty eds are log cabiners or goprouders, so they were getting their hate on from the conservative side.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    I am black, gay, grew up poor, live in a working class black neighborhood now and am also to the left of the Democratic Party. It must be nice to live in a world of you versus everyone disagrees with President Obama due to race. The rest of us live in the more complicated world that tries to see what’s good and bad about a person’s actions .

    The irony is that you share more in common with the Tea Party, both regarding identity politics since you are just the flip side of their arguments, and policies, because you are all in favor of cultural wars that cover up economically conservative policies.

    Again, this will likely be lost of the Obots, but saying that the president did something wrong does not mean I am looking at him due to race. Nor do I think he did everything wrong. If that’s your best argument, you got nothing to add.

  • Obama


    Who cares what you think..lol

    People can kick and scream all they want. Ohio decides elections.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @Black Pegasus: You’re the real racist. You use “White Gay Men” as a racial slur, just like that racist Uncle Tom Michael Steele.

    If Obama were fully white, you’d hate him as much as sane people do.

    Gay is the new black, and black is the new whitey. Kill whitey.

  • TwlightoftheDogs


    “Voters in Ohio really aren’t too fond of Barack Obama. His approval rating there is only 42%, with 49% of voters disapproving of him.”


    This is before the next two years in which the economic indicators aren’t going to get any better for the bulk of voters.

    As I said, delude yourselves if you like. I don’t think you are helping the situation. I prefer a right of center candidate like President Obama over the crazy right of the GOP, but he’s not creating policies that will change anyone’s lives significantly enough to win in 2012.

    The only hope at this point is that the GOP will put up an extremist rather than someone who can fake not being an extremist like Romney.

  • ewe

    @Obama: You are one twisted cupcake. the post is about the senate vote.

  • ewe

    @Black Pegasus: carriage before the horse as usual with you. Obama has not done anything YET and here there are people not sticking to the topic at hand; the senate vote. You are so pathetic and desperate.

  • ewe

    @Obama: you refuse to address that obama is against same sex marriage even though i have attempted to get an answer from you. Obviously you will lick his balls no matter what he does so you are right about one thing. “who cares what you think”. You are blind in your allegiance.

  • ewe

    @TwlightoftheDogs: The issue here is sexual orientation. The post is not about race. Some people seem to think so though. Very odd.

  • TwlightoftheDogs


    They are not wrong to suspect there are a plenty of racists, including at this site, who want to president to fail rather than are examining what the president does as far as how his actions and policies affect us or the economy etc.

    The problem becomes when apologists use the fact that real bigots exist to cover up or hide behind that reality to avoid discussions about the president’s actions or policies etc.

    There is nothing racist about asking how much did the President contribute pro and con to DADT repeal and how much did he help or hurt the nature of the final bill that was passed?

    yet according to Obama, Reason, and others we aren’t supposed to do that due to racism. Its an argument making its rounds on by the Obots on a wide range of sites.

    Part of it is preemptive because the president will be moving even further right in the next 2 years. Part of it is cult of personality stuff. Part of it is honest, but misplaced.

    That’s how I see the truth here. Not that race has no place, but to define it in earnest rather than as a tool to bludgeon others into accepting arguments without question.

  • ewe

    @TwlightoftheDogs: you are speaking to the choir hun.

  • Activator

    Haha – GREAT NEWS! Bilerico finally blocked AndrewW from commenting.


    Is Queerty next? I want him blocked here, too. We shouldn’t let people express their opinions on the internet, that would ruin everything.

  • Obama


    When have I ever said anyone that had criticism of Obama was a racist? When have I called anyone a racist? Some of you all really need to get over yourselves. I have no reason not to support President Obama. When the people who constantly bitch and moan about everything Obama does present me with a man that can do better, I would listen. They can’t.

    Obama welcomes critics. He’s open about saying it because he says it will make him a better President. He loves debate.

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: I suspect that you are off your medication, becuase I have not called anyone a racist. Your grasp to make this a race issue says more about you than anything else. I know quite a few non racist that hate this president or want him to fail.

  • reason

    @TwlightoftheDogs: Typical, when you have realized that your arguments are worthless you resort to race to try to cover for your stupidity.

  • Hacktivism

    @Activator: Bilerico concluded that Choi suffers from “mental illness.” Who could have guessed?

  • ewe

    @Hacktivism: Ha. I don’t even visit that site. They are all a bunch of midwestern politically correct ninnys if i ever met one.

  • Hacktivism

    @ewe: It’s a Trans website. I don’t think many people visit the site.

  • TwlightoftheDogs

    Reason- if someone disagrees with you, they must be on meds. Must be a great life to reduce everyone who disagrees with you to drug users.

    Obama- did you just link us to Obot Central with all the pretty pictures as proof you aren’t an obot? Case closed on you.

    Ewe- that’s cool.

  • robert

    I think this site routinely bashes Obama and I do think the headline is misleading because why would anyone from this site think anything from this president for this community could be anything but an unqualified success. I am glad to read twilight because he is reasoned in what he says about Obama.. he is a politician which I agree with but I find his language demeaning Obamabots? of those who back the President because I have never found him in any of his posts to be supportive of the President.It really does not matter what any of us think because at the end the President will get the credit for this regardless of what any nameless commentator on this blog thinks

Comments are closed.