RECENT  POSTS:  » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry » Video: AFA prez expounds on organization's movement-destructive ad by adding even more religious fervor  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Don't ask about Gillibrand's bill -- signs don't tell her that there's cloture

by Jeremy Hooper

Kirsten-GillibrandWe have no reason to believe that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) was anything less than sincere when she intimated that she might introduce a bill that would temporarily put a stop on DADT discharges. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like enough of the rest of our U.S. Senators are on board with the reasoned (even if temporary) suspension of a thoroughly dishonorable military action:

Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesperson, told the Blade on Wednesday that the senator determined there weren't 60 votes available for a vote of cloture on the amendment.

"She was working for about a week to assess support among her colleagues for the measure," he said. "It does not appear that we're going to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. So she's not going to pursue the moratorium amendment at this time."
Gillibrand's 'Don't Ask' amendment off the table [Wash Blade]

So keep watching yourselves, gay soldiers: You have every right to fight and possibly die for your country, but an accidentally overheard phone call with your same-sex partner/spouse can kill your career. Someday the elected officials who sent you to war might get around to helping you out with that one, but first we must engage in more and more hours of overwrought debate about whether or not your penis and vagina placement make you an unequal citizen. You understand the hold up, right?

Ugh. Nauseating.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

So, it was all just hot air? Or is she just that bad a politician?

Posted by: Sandy | Jul 23, 2009 5:35:15 PM

I don't think either assessment's fair, Sandy. I think she (and by extension we) might be finding that we still have a ways to go in the Senate.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 23, 2009 5:43:06 PM

As a commenter on the WashBlade site mentioned, it seems clear to me that this was a cynical political move on Gillibrand's part. She gets credit for throwing it out there and staking a leadership claim on a gay issue. But really she's just positioning herself for a tough primary with a more liberal Democrat.

If we don't have 60 votes, then there are Dems who won't go along with this obvious civil rights bill. Who are they? Lets find out! Don't us gays have a right to know which Dems aren't on the side of basic fairness? Gillibrand should move ahead anyway with her bill, just so we could out these folks who only pay lip service to gay civil rights but can't bear to actually vote for them.

Posted by: pacnwjay | Jul 23, 2009 6:16:03 PM

I tend to agree w/ pacnwjay that it was cynical (hot air). If she had actually introduced the bill and then found there weren't enough votes, ok. At least she would have had the guts to introduce some kind of DADT bill (unlike the rest of the Senate). But she just put it out there that she might introduce a bill (getting lots of pro-gay publicity) and then didn't. And then said, oops, it seems there aren't enough votes to stop debate and go forward on a bill that wasn't even introduced. I'm finding it really hard to see it as anything but a cynical move.

Posted by: Sandy | Jul 24, 2009 2:13:44 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails