Yahoo! News Wrote:By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Anne Flaherty, Associated Press – 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said in a statement after a test vote cleared the way for final action. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."

The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday.

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for Obama, who made repeal a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.

"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,'" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.

Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. The Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill and he blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.

"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."

In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party on the procedural vote to let the bill move ahead and swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight. On the final vote for passage, eight Republicans joined the majority Democrats.

Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."

Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.

"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.

The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.

"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."

Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.

Hazzy Wrote:I'm all for human rights, but how am I suppose to get out of serving with this passed?

Hazzy Wrote:I'm all for human rights, but how am I suppose to get out of serving with this passed?

FanaticRat Wrote:It's about damn time. I've never got the "disruption" argument anyway--didn't they use the same argument to keep blacks out of the military?

About damn time, congrats to all the gay/les that are serving/want to serve. I welcome you to the military

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:But won't this now open another door to people being scrutinized by their peers in the military as well? What I mean is, under DADT what was your business was your own and it was best to keep private matters private rather than public flaunting them, lest you bring some unwanted criticism to yourself, your unit, etc.

I have mixed feelings about this measure really. I mean keeping your private life private is often best reserved, but flaunting yourself openly is going to bring criticism down on yourself as well. This measure should be taken by everyone with a grain of salt as inviting criticism means you will bring both good and bad criticism as well.

MasPan Wrote:Critical error in your logic - you're assuming people are GOING to flaunt it. What will likely be the case is the same as the civilian world - gay soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines will likely let their close circle know and that's it, or they'll invite their partners to events but won't bring up the subject. Just because they CAN speak out now doesn't mean they're going to go shouting about it all over the place.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:The problem I'm stating is of those who are going to be openly public with their lifestyle are going to invite criticism whether it be good or bad, wanted or unwanted, and that will cause some reflection upon not only themselves, but others around them as well.

Hazzy Wrote:The same could be said for literally hundreds of other traits. Religion, football teams, political views - to name a few that are high on the controversy list. What makes one's sexuality unique?