May 12, 2011 | by Chris Johnson
House panel adopts anti-gay amendments in defense bill

Rep. Duncan Hunter introduced an amendment that could disrupt 'Don't Ask' repeal (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A House defense committee approved on Wednesday a series of anti-gay amendments as part of major Pentagon budget legislation aimed at disrupting the process for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and at demonstrating support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

The most high-profile amendment came from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who introduced a measure that would expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include input from the four military service chiefs. The Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee voted 33-27 in favor of adopting the measure as part of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill.

The vote in favor of the Hunter amendment was mostly along party lines, although Reps. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) and Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) voted against the measure. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) was the sole Democrat to vote in favor of the measure.

The repeal legislation signed into law in December allows for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hunter’s amendment would expand the certification requirement to include input from the uniform chiefs of staff for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, billed the amendment as a means to ensure the uniform military leaders — which he described “the ones that are actually responsible for the men and women under their care” — are able to express their opinion before moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“Right now as it stands, the only folks that have to sign on to this are the president, who has never been to war or in ground combat, Adm. [Mike] Mullen, who, with all due respect to him, has never been to ground combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Secretary Gates, a political appointee, who is a very fine gentleman, but has never been in ground combat in Iraq or Afghanistan,” Hunter said. “I, and others in this room, have more combat experience than the people who would sign off on the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

Hunter emphasized his amendment would require the service chiefs to issue certification only based on their belief that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal wouldn’t harm morale and unit cohesion for combat arms units under their jurisdiction. According to the Pentagon survey published in November, these units are the most skeptical about whether open service would cause a disruption in the U.S. military.

Involving the military service chiefs in the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal certification process could disrupt or delay open service in the U.S. military because some uniform leaders of the military — notably Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos — expressed opposition to passing repeal legislation last year. Amos has since said the Marine Corps would work to implement open service.

Despite the concerns that were expressed last year, each of the service chiefs testified in April that the process for enacting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has been proceeding smoothly. Some service chiefs — including Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead — have said they oppose any effort to expand the certification requirement and they believe the defense secretary would adequately represent their views in the certification process.

Many Republican committee members voiced support for the Hunter amendment as they expressed opposition to implementing open service in the U.S. military.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said he supported the amendment because the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had already backed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal before Congress acted to end the military’s gay ban.

“I always felt the deck was stacked when the three people who were supposed to sign off on it, agreed to and had all been on record ahead of time saying what their preference was,” Lamborn said. “This broadens it, and, I think, adds more objectivity to the whole matter, and I think that that’s really good thing.”

Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) said he opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal because he hasn’t encountered one American or U.S. service member who wants an end to the anti-gay law. Despite his remarks, polls found that around 80 percent of Americans favored ending the military’s gay ban at the time Congress repealed the statute.

Palazzo added he had a visit earlier today from about 85 veterans of World War II and said he believes they’d be displeased with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“I don’t think that they would look upon this as progress,” Palazzo said. “I don’t think they’d look at this as the sacrifices they made for our families, for our country, for our allies, future generations of Americans — to see their military go down in flames by implementing [an end] to the DADT policy. Our men and women in uniform deserve better.”

Rep. Adam Smith (Blade photo by Michael Key)

But Democrats on the committee defended repeal of the law that Congress passed last year and said the current repeal process is working well.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said the Hunter amendment troubled him because it suggests the president and the defense officials identified in the repeal law aren’t capable of making critical defense decisions.

“It’s a very, very dangerous thing to say that the president of the United States, the commander in chief; the secretary of defense; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are somehow not quite qualified to make important military decisions,” Smith said. “These are the same people that decide whether or not we go to war. They made a decision on whether or not to kill Osama bin Laden.”

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) directly responded to the view expressed by Palazzo that World War II veterans would be unhappy with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“Let’s not fool ourselves,” Pingree said. “Some of those soldiers were gay as well, and many of them took a long time to admit to that, or come out on that, but they’ve all been courageous in doing so and I think that they can’t be characterized as a generation that doesn’t want to see this change in the military.”

Although the committee adopted the amendment as part of defense authorization, passing such a provision into law would be challenging because the Senate would have to agree to it during conference negotiations and Obama would have to sign the measure.

Further, defense officials have testified that certification could happen mid-summer, and the final version of the defense authorization will likely not reach the president’s desk until after that time, rendering Hunter’s provision useless.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed skepticism that the adoption of the Hunter amendment would impair the U.S. military’s ability to move toward open service.

“Despite the passage of this amendment within the ever-hostile House Armed Services Committee, it is highly unlikely that such an amendment would ever pass the Senate and be signed by the president,” Nicholson said. ”The offering of this amendment was a shameful and embarrassing waste of time. The service chiefs have unequivocally said that they do not want this extra burden forced upon them, so if Congress really values their advice on this issue they should take it and forget this unnecessary and unwanted amendment.”

Hunter’s amendment was one of three anti-gay amendments the House Armed Services Committee approved on Wednesday as part of the defense authorization bill. Other measures affirmed the panel’s commitment to DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

The DOMA-related amendments were apparently inspired by Navy guidance on same-sex marriage that was made public this week.The guidance, which is dated April 13 and signed by Chief of Navy Chaplains Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, indicated military bases could be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies in states where such unions are legal and that Navy chaplains can officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies if they so choose.

However, following an outcry from conservatives, the Navy rescinded the guidance and said further legal review on the issue was necessary.

Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) introduced an amendment mandating that marriage ceremonies on military installations must comply with DOMA and that chaplains can only officiate in their official capacity over such ceremonies if they comply with the anti-gay law.

The committee adopted the amendment as part of the Pentagon budget legislation by a vote of 38-23. Republican members of the panel were unanimous in their support for the measure. Reps. McIntyre, Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) and Mark Critz (D-Pa.) joined with the GOP to vote in favor of the amendment.

Akin said the amendment was necessary because he believes the recent Navy guidance demonstrates that the U.S. military was willing to skirt federal law.

“There is a federal law on the books and the military has decided they’re going to ignore that law,” Akin said. “That’s a very serious question. Does that mean that the law code on our books is an a la carte menu? Does that mean that the military can decide they’re going to change the rules of engagement and how they’re going to interrogate prisoners or [enforce] whatever particular law suits their fancy?”

Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), who opposed the amendment, said the Navy guidance was the result of the Pentagon looking at how the U.S. military would look after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“We asked them to deal with these issues and to speak specifically to them,” Davis said. “So, when a facility is made available to such events, individuals who meet all the requirements for use of those facilities should not be denied access to the facility because of sexual orientation.”

Davis added the amendment restricts the right of chaplains to exercise freely their religious beliefs if they want to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies.

“Many chaplains represent faith traditions in which marriages between same-sex couples are celebrated and to prohibit them from doing so — to do that would be an attack on their rights with this amendment,” Davis said.

Although the Navy has said it will revisit the guidance, Davis said she’s confident the service will reach the same conclusion it had come to before.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler introduced an amendment to ensure DOD policies comply with DOMA (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Another amendment came from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), whose measure restated that the definition of marriage under DOMA as a union between one man and one woman applies to Defense Department regulations and policies.

The panel adopted the measure as part of the defense authorization bill by a vote of 39-28. The Republican members of the panel were unanimous in their support. Reps. McIntyre, Kissell and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) as well as Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) joined the GOP to vote in favor of the measure.

Hartzler said the intention of the amendment was to reaffirm congressional support for DOMA and opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I think that this is a time for us in this Congress, the 112th Congress, to give our stance that we believe this is a wise policy and that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” she said.

But Smith, who opposed the measure, disputed the idea that the federal government should be involved in state regulation of marriage and questioned why the committee was taking up the issue when the panel’s area of jurisdiction is the U.S. military.

“I don’t think we need to be inserting into the Defense Authorization Act a Congress-wide view on how marriage should be defined, however we may feel,” Smith said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was particularly critical of what he said was invoking the more controversial debate over marriage in an attempt to derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“These adopted amendments to delay and derail repeal are a partisan political attempt to interject the same-sex marriage debate and other unrelated social issues into the NDAA where they have no place,” Sarvis said. “Make no mistake — these votes should be a wake-up call to supporters of open service that our work is not done. Our commitment to timely certification and repeal must be redoubled as we move to the House floor to defend the progress we have made to ensure that LGB patriots can defend and serve the country they love with honesty and integrity.”

Another anticipated anti-gay amendment didn’t see introduction before the committee on Wednesday. Palazzo was expected to introduce an amendment that would require conscience regulations for service members who have religious or moral objections to open service. His office didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on why the measure wasn’t introduced.

After adopting the anti-gay amendments, the committee voted to report out the defense authorization bill to the floor by a vote of 60-1. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) was the sole panel member to vote against the legislation.

The Republican-controlled House will likely pass the defense authorization bill as a whole when the measure reaches the floor. A vote on the legislation could happen as soon as the week of May 23.

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson attends the daily White House press briefings and is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

26 Comments
  • Here’s exactly what Rep. Hartzler’s amendment #3 does (voted on 11 May 2011 by the Republican members of the HASC):

    In violation of the U.S. Constitution, it would expand the original DOMA so as to prevent same-sex couples and their pastors from conducting private, religious ceremonies.

    If passed, the federal government would guarantee that every heterosexual military couple and their clergy may perform any private, religious wedding ceremony, but would deny the same exact right to every homosexual military couple.

    A century ago, states were outlawing private, religious weddings for bi-racial couples, but the Supreme Court declared all those laws unconstitutional on 12 June 1967.

    • Dear Ned, As a Elected Official you and your fellow Rep’s should ask the people you represent as to what they want instead of sitting up there in Washington doing as you see fit. I bet you all would wake the fuck up if every gay & Lesbian, Bi-sexual & Transgender person stopped paying their taxes until they were represented equally under the same laws that you are protected by. I hope that every fucking one of you are denied basic rights at some point in your life so you will have a first hand understanding of how it feels. Further more each and every elected Official that votes against Us having these rights should be prosecuted for denying Us these rights. The Government should have to pay back all the Monies spent on fighting this as well. What is that you don’t understand to be a Constitutional Right !! May You all Burn in Hell !!!!!

  • Fuck you, Republican bigots. Go fuck your cousins.

    • Well, basically, as we observe these impotent bigots at work, that IS what they’ve done in their families, mainly Republicans/TBaggers, mostly from the south and southeast. We observe them as they truly represent themselves. Blessedly, the USA has no great problems now except for who sleeps with who. Very interesting, not to mention that the fourth denomination, the PC-USA has just announced the acceptance of gay ordinations. Somethin’ ain’t right with right wingers’ brains… not enough blood in their systems to function properly, I guess.

  • A part of my wants these folks who are ruining the lives of gays to have a taste of their own foul medicine. Shameful Americans who protect injustice.

  • It is nice to see that same-sex enthusiasts are still blaming everybody but themselves for the choices they make.

    • I am not blaming any one for my life but myself, however you seem to be endorsing discrimination by the US government in direct violation of the US Constitution as defined by Lawrence v Texas (2003).

    • It is even nicer to see bigots like yourself engaging in sustained hateful views that cannot be excused as anything else. Cling to that bible, it’s full of silly musings like yours.

  • Peter Rosenstein

    It is sad that members of Congress still feel they need to enter the bedrooms of American Citizens and make determinations for them. You would think that with the economy as it is and so many Americans out of work our elected officials would have other things to occupy their time.

  • These are just stalling tactics, they are trying once again to humiliate the President, put him in his place, and attempt to get the message out that they still pull some strings. At the end of the day a waste of tax payers money, they should be focused on more important issues rather than continue with their draconian and divisive agenda.

  • “”Palazzo added he had a visit earlier today from about 85 veterans of World War II and said he believes they’d be displeased with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.”"
    ________________________

    So he didn’t even ask them, he’s just putting words in their mouths. Well Rep Palazzo, I “BELEIVE” that you want to give me $100.00 for every single letter I have typed in this post. Does that make it true? And lastly, considering that the youngest of the WW2 vets would be in their 70′s. i’m curious, even if they were all against the repeal…since none of them are in the military anymore explain the relevence.

  • I was confused at first, because I thought Duncan Hunter was that fat old bigot who ran for President in 2008. Now I realize that this Duncan Hunter is his spawn, a handsome young bigot who got his job the Republican way: by inheriting it from his daddy.

  • YAWN.

    There is no way those amendments are getting out of conference committee when the defense authorization is reconciled with the Senate version this fall.

    Is it shameless pandering to their bigoted constituents? Yes.

    Do the amendments have any chance of becoming law? No.

  • MEMO TO CHRIS JOHNSON:

    In your excellent story, you misspelled the first name of Congressman Reyes. It’s SILVESTRE, not “Sylvester.” No big deal, just file for future reference.

  • DON’T SWALLOW THEIR BULL! And by “they” I don’t mean the Troglodytes in Congress but SLDN and their shameless attempt to create a phony crisis just to put more money in their coffers. How “Republican” of them. There is no chance these attempts to repeal the repeal authorization will succeed. SLDN should be focusing on the REAL problem—Obama continuing to refuse to certify repeal which he COULD & SHOULD have done the same day he signed the bill. He created this vacuum which the Repugs are filling with homohating noise—and HE can end it. WHY isn’t he? WHY isn’t SLDN demanding he do it? Who’s playing who?

  • God, we need help fighting against this. Gays can no longer just accept being attacked all the time– we have the power and the ability to stop this and make America actually safe and normal for us…

  • The service chiefs input isn’t required for nuclear weapons release authority, why is it needed for DADT?

  • I am a Gay man who served proudly in the U.S. Navy early 90′s. I never was so happy to hear that the repeal was being removed from law. DADT was a good step forward. Now it is time to get rid of it and let everyone be who they are so they can be all they can be to protect us.
    As a Service Connected Veteran I am outraged that the U.S. government are arguing over something that should already be off the books.
    Republicans just put shut to the up and count your millions you have stolen from us.

  • The language used, and the blatant disregard for the office of the President, and his appointees, borders on treasonous. The arrogance of the right-wing representatives is unbelievable. I hate that they lie and disregard facts, all the while pimping out the troops. It is sad that they are using them only to further an agenda, based on theology, and moralistic posturing.

  • Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs? You and other conservatives promised jobs last November, but instead we get taxpayer money and time wasted with this radical conservative nonsense. If militant conservative activists want to hate our troops, let them do it somewhere else instead of tying up the Defense Bills with this crap.

  • So is GOProud endorsing the Republicans that introduced these Anti-gay Amendents too? They love to brown-nose the GOP after all at the expense of their own community just to get attention from those assholes! What’s insulting is that GOproud call themselves gay at all! What’s there to be proud of?

    Who cares whether Veterans especially from WWII endorse repeal of DADT or not? They don’t serve in the military now. Screw what they think! Since when is the military a democracy where everyone gets a vote?

    The only thing I have to say about Ducan Hunter is…… where does he hang out when he has undercover gay sex? He’s hot and worth using for pleasure even though I hate his politics!

  • Phillip Sorensen

    The Republicans were historically a party which prided itself of staying out of people lives. Today, the party is evolving into a white supremacist group.

    • At least since I reached voting age, the Republican Party has prided itself on talking about staying out of people’s lives. What it says and what it does have long been about 180 degrees apart.

  • Skeeter Sanders

    That these Republicans are pushing through a piece of legislation to impose upon the military a law that clearly violates the very Constitution of the United States — the SUPREME law of this country — that they are bound by their oath of office is a disgrace. They should all be impeached for their refusal to obey the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

  • Robin Thompson

    America faces many dramatic and pressing problems from flooding to incomplete reforms of banking practices, not to mention our longest war, and this is how the Republicans in the House see fit to spend their time and our tax dollars? Heaven help us.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2014. All rights reserved.
Directory powered by Business Directory Plugin