Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Clipped from this article:http://www.slate.com/id/2243421?wpisrc=newsletterAnd this is assuming Congress actually passes the law repealing the policy. Which may be the trickiest part. Neither chamber has taken up a bill that would lead to repeal. But there are two main options on the table. One is to attach the repeal to the annual defense appropriations bill, which comes up for a vote in the spring. That would give skittish members of Congress an excuse to support it—we were just voting to fund the military, we swear!—while putting its opponents into the awkward position of voting against money for troops. Another option is to pass a stand-alone bill. Sen. Joe Lieberman was considered an early candidate to lead that crusade in the Senate, but Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has lately taken up the torch. In the House, a bill sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy already has 183 cosponsors. This option might be faster, but it risks making members of Congress who vote for repeal more vulnerable. (Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin is on the record as being dubious.) That's not to mention potentially massive roadblocks if Congress doesn't like the results of Gates's study. The odds of the study concluding that gays in the military hurt unit cohesion are next to nil, because, well, no study ever has. Even the 1993 study the military commissioned from the RAND Corp. concluded that "the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance." But that didn't prevent opponents of gays in the military from demagoguing the issue. If the new study reveals even a shred of doubt that gays serving openly could affect their ability to win in battle, Congress will flee. As Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., put it, the primary purpose of the military is "not to promote civil rights or individual justice, but to prevail in combat." **********************************Now that made me LMAO
Clipped from this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2243421?wpisrc=newsletter
And this is assuming Congress actually passes the law repealing the policy. Which may be the trickiest part. Neither chamber has taken up a bill that would lead to repeal. But there are two main options on the table. One is to attach the repeal to the annual defense appropriations bill, which comes up for a vote in the spring. That would give skittish members of Congress an excuse to support it—we were just voting to fund the military, we swear!—while putting its opponents into the awkward position of voting against money for troops. Another option is to pass a stand-alone bill. Sen. Joe Lieberman was considered an early candidate to lead that crusade in the Senate, but Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has lately taken up the torch. In the House, a bill sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy already has 183 cosponsors. This option might be faster, but it risks making members of Congress who vote for repeal more vulnerable. (Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin is on the record as being dubious.)
That's not to mention potentially massive roadblocks if Congress doesn't like the results of Gates's study. The odds of the study concluding that gays in the military hurt unit cohesion are next to nil, because, well, no study ever has. Even the 1993 study the military commissioned from the RAND Corp. concluded that "the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance." But that didn't prevent opponents of gays in the military from demagoguing the issue. If the new study reveals even a shred of doubt that gays serving openly could affect their ability to win in battle, Congress will flee. As Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., put it, the primary purpose of the military is "not to promote civil rights or individual justice, but to prevail in combat."
**********************************
Now that made me LMAO
