START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
820,819 people care about Civil Rights

Barney Frank Calls on Obama to Veto A Defense Bill with Anti-Gay Amendments

Barney Frank Calls on Obama to Veto A Defense Bill with Anti-Gay Amendments

In a letter to President Obama, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) has asked that the president make it known he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it reaches his desk with provisions attached passed by the House designed to both slow the repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service personnel, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), and to shore up the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. 

The letter was signed by Frank and three other House Democrats: Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and David Cicilline (D-RI).

From The Hill:

“We believe it would therefore be extremely useful for you to make clear that if the final bill presented to you does include these sections, which would undermine the end to discrimination in the military, that you will veto the bill on that ground,” the letter states. 

While the letter stressed that the lawmakers do not believe the Senate will approve similar language, it said, “we think it would be the best course for you to reaffirm your strong support of the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by making it explicit that you would veto a bill in the unlikely event that it came to you.”

The National Defense Authorization Act passed the Republican-controlled House in May by a 322-96 vote with three anti-gay amendments attached.

Proposed by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California), the DADT amendment would require all four service chiefs, Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, to certify that the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy won’t harm readiness or unit cohesion, a move explicitly designed to slow the DADT repeal. 

Currently, only certification from the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs chairman is required. At least two of the service chiefs voiced opposition to repeal but all have since admitted that repeal proceedings have been going well with little to no impact or readiness or retention.

When the amendment was proposed a White House spokesperson said that the administration had “serious objections to any amendment that would unnecessarily delay [the DADT repeal] process.” 

There was, however, no mention of a veto alongside those “serious objections.”

The other two amendments are as follows:

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of military facilities for same-sex marriage ceremonies and would prevent Defense Department employees from officiating, ironically being touted as a way to maintain military chaplains’ rights to object to gay unions while in fact taking away the right of those that don’t object who want to be involved in such proceedings where gay marriage is legal.

One other amendment offered by Rep. Vicky Hartzier (R-MO) stipulates that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman for the purposes of military benefits and policy. This is actually superfluous as the military has stressed that the benefits system would not change under the DADT repeal, but likely anticipates a time when such a stance may be called into question in court. 

DADT certification is expected within the next couple of months, with over half of the military having now been trained. Read more on that here.

 

Read more: , , , , , , ,


Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with thanks to World Economic Forum.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

60 comments

+ add your own
11:07AM PDT on Jun 22, 2011

One of the most effective, dynamic military forces in the world, Israel, would be laughing at this.Israel can care less what your sexual orientation is. The government's only concern is their loyalty to their country. Obama can learn a lesson from the Israelis.

2:38PM PDT on Jun 18, 2011

Sorry for posting twice....my mistake.

2:37PM PDT on Jun 18, 2011

Writing from Canada, it is baffling that there are programs to prepare military personnel for the open acceptance of gays into their ranks. I've lived in San Diego, .....they have always been there. What preparation is needed? The only thing I can think of is the possibility that some may come from families that were so traumatized by the sudden exposure of a mammary gland during the Super Bowl a few years ago. Poor things!!

2:36PM PDT on Jun 18, 2011

Writing from Canada, it is baffling that there are programs to prepare military personnel for the open acceptance of gays into their ranks. I've lived in San Diego, .....they have always been there. What preparation is needed? The only thing I can think of is the possibility that some may come from families that were so traumatized by the sudden exposure of a mammary gland during the Super Bowl a few years ago. Poor things!!

8:08AM PDT on Jun 11, 2011

What are these people afraid of? Gay men and women have been fighting along side heterosexual men and women all along. They just have not been able to acknowledge that they are gay. I would be willing to bet, however, that many of those with whom they went into battle knew they were gay. Gay people are just people.

I am, and always have been, a Christian, and I have no problem with gay clergy, either. We are what God has made us, and He never makes mistakes.

6:10AM PDT on Jun 11, 2011

No comment my friends

4:28PM PDT on Jun 10, 2011

I agree with Rep. Frank

2:56AM PDT on Jun 10, 2011

Narrow minds...homophobia...accept a human being as a human being.

5:50PM PDT on Jun 9, 2011

Sandra G, you seem to want to force your beliefs on everyone else, so stop being a hypocrite and get over yourself.

4:39PM PDT on Jun 9, 2011

I'm with Jon Stewart who said "Neither "Stealth" nor "Poison Pill" amendments should NEVER [EVER?] be attached to legislation! If an amendment cannot pass on its own merits, it shouldn't be written into law."

Though I'd be tougher. Both amendements would probably pass the current House on their own "merits". (Hate to use that word for this subject). I would like to see an end to amendments that have nothing to do with the main bill. The Repubs are using this as a way of furthering their social agenda. If a bill is about appropriations, there should be no extraneous amendements that are not specifically focused on appropriation.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

I personally do not smoke! Not against it, have tried as a teenager. I love the smell, but I have 4 different…

He was dreaming about growing up to be one of those guys at the airport who directs those big planes…

I agree with John M. The USDA is not doing its job and we the people need to get it shut down. If they…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.