Rep. Murphy attempts to repeal military ban on gays

The Hill ^ | July 8, 2009 | Reid Wilson

[jazusamo]

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) has taken up the mantle as the chief opponent of "Don't ask, don't tell" in Congress, and he's confident the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military will get its first full committee hearing in a decade and a half this session.

Murphy, a second-term Democrat, will be lead sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" — a policy first passed by Congress and signed into law under President Bill Clinton.

"It's our job," Murphy said of a repeal. "This was an act of Congress in 1993 and it will take an act of Congress" to reverse it.

The measure got a subcommittee hearing last year, but Murphy says Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has promised him a full committee hearing on the bill this session.

And though gay-rights groups have been critical of the Obama White House for what they see as a lack of attention, advocates of repealing the 16-year-old policy see new evidence that the administration is willing to move on reversing "Don't ask, don't tell."

President Obama has said he would sign a repeal, and the Pentagon has begun studying ways to only selectively enforce the policy until a repeal happens. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week that lawyers would find new ways to reduce application of the law.

Murphy also pointed to Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), Obama's nominee to become secretary of the Army. McHugh participated in the hearing on repeal last year, and Murphy said he trusts the New York Republican to follow the president's lead.

Murphy's bill had been championed by ex-Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who was confirmed last month as undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

But with Murphy taking over, the bill is getting new momentum. In the week he's been lead sponsor, Murphy, an Iraq war veteran himself, has attracted six additional co-sponsors; Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) was the latest to sign on when he joined the bill Tuesday. Murphy said he is targeting fellow Blue Dog Democrats and members of the House Armed Services Committee as potential backers.

Murphy called Levin's support important. Levin's brother, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On Wednesday, Murphy joined the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers United and other gay-rights organizations in launching a new national push to reverse the policy.

No Senate equivalent has been introduced, though Murphy says he has been encouraged by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), either of whom may introduce the measure.

"We will have the votes in the House. I can't speak for the Senate," Murphy said. But, he cautioned, "It's going to take a few months."

[Leg Olam]

Form a combat regiment that is all gay. Send them in first and take them out last.

[LeonardFMason]

Murphy is from my district(PA 8). He is an abomination. His claim to fame is serving in IRAQ as a lawyer. He is all about advancing his political career. He has his head so far up Murtha’s ass he can’t see anymore. Part of our district comprises a homosexual haven known as New Hope. We call it “NO” Hope. This craven opportunist voted for GWB in 2000. Supported Osbama in 2008. He would, no doubt, support Hitler if it advanced his political career. Other than that he is a great guy.

[jazusamo]

I know he’s used Fat Jack Murtha as his role model and follows him in Congress like a puppy dog.

Do you think there’s enough people in the district against doing away with don’t ask that this might be a problem for him in 2010? I know the district is in the Eastern part of the state, if it was Murtha’s district it would be a problem for him.

[LeonardFMason]

Unfortunately, our district has been invaded by folks fleeing Philthadelphia. These folks, driven by the deteriorating conditions in Philly for some reason vote Democrat. There is some kind of disconnect in their thinking.

[EDINVA]

Murphy’s district is Bucks County with a bit of Montgomery County, PA .... suburbs of Philadelphia. He’s probably Congressman-for-Life unless and until he seeks higher office.

It’s not as if our elected leaders are pillars of honor and integrity. They don’t take stands on anything controversial like this without checking/polling the district for how it will stand. Murphy figured it would not affect his reelection.

[jazusamo]

Thanks to you both. I figured he wouldn’t be dumb enough to try something like this if it might cost him and it looks like he isn’t.

[EDINVA]

Same thing here in No VA, and probably throughout the US ... folks move to a conservative area to avoid the horrendous conditions created in their home towns thanks to lib policies, then continue to vote lib.

[brushcop]

Hey Red, IMO, I think they are going to have to be removed, don’t know how that’ll be done but they are not listening nor does it bother them.

[wolf78]

That’s the way I see it but it looks like some of our Reps want to listen to the 3% minority.

Actually, "don't ask, don't tell" is bullshit regardless of of the size of the minority. Because it creates a special class with different rules instead of "justice for all". If you allow for such nonsense you open the door to other bullshit like hate crime legislation, all of which depends on putting people into categories instead of looking at their behavior.

The official policy should be "don't care, now do your job". The code of conduct already says what's appropriate between male and female soldiers, so why shouldn't it be enough to protect heterosexual male soldiers from homosexual advances?

The code of conduct already prevents soldiers from using the army as a dating service, the only difference would be that if it came out that someone has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend at home, he'd continue serving as if nothing had happened.

If a nation is to be build on principles, the principle should be to judge a man by what kind of job he does.

[jazusamo]

Ideally I’d say you’re right and it would work in a perfect world but we know it’s not.

In actuality in the military if a guy makes a pass at the opposite sex, depending on the circumstances he can get told to bug off up to and including disciplinary action. If a guy makes a pass at the wrong guy he may wind up dead, and it’s happened.

I believe the biggest obstacle would be changing the policy for ground fighting units, Army and Marines. Not saying there are those who couldn’t fit in but there are large numbers who are not going to accept them.

[wolf78]

In actuality in the military if a guy makes a pass at the opposite sex, depending on the circumstances he can get told to bug off up to and including disciplinary action. If a guy makes a pass at the wrong guy he may wind up dead, and it’s happened.

The problem here is: That's the same argument used for gun prohibition. Children have accidents with their parents' guns and it's happened. But that doesn't mean guns should be "verboten", it means parents should lock their guns away properly.

I believe the biggest obstacle would be changing the policy for ground fighting units, Army and Marines.

Yeah, but on the battlefield soldiers - male or female, straight or whatever - aren't sexual beings. They are fighting machines driven by purpose. Whoever doesn't get that has no place in the military. But that should be the line that needs to be drawn, not what a soldier answers to "Do you have a girlfriend at home?".

Not saying there are those who couldn’t fit in but there are large numbers who are not going to accept them.

They'd just have to tolerate it. There's this great, great South Park Episode "The death camp of tolerance", which has the following morale: Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it'd be called [..] Acceptance! "Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!

Ideally I’d say you’re right and it would work in a perfect world but we know it’s not.

That's the problem with doing the right thing. There are a thousand reasons for gun control and hate crime legislation and why polite speech is better than free speech. There's one reason against all that: It's wrong. If one has the choice between two solutions that don't work perfectly, one should at least choose the right, i.e. the value-based one.