When it comes to promulgating the crazy, Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) isn’t going to let GOP senatorial primary rival Sarah Steelman hog the spotlight (see also here). She may defend violent right-wing spokespeople, but he can actually legislate to defend Christian bullies in the military:

Congressman Todd Akin announced Tuesday he will offer an amendment to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act that will protect military chaplains and other service members from persecution based on religious beliefs on sexuality.

See the text of the amendment (pdf) here. As Think Progress’ Zack Ford observes:

… under Akin’s amendment, any servicemember would have free reign to express anti-gay views, regardless of what consequences they have to unit morale. For example, homophobic officers could intimidate and condemn gay troops serving under them, compromising productivity and creating a hostile environment of disrespect and potential violence. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may no longer be law, but it seems Akin still wants a military that forces out its gay troops.

If the demise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) had actually been accompanied by rules that would have forced military chaplins to act against their churches’ moral teachings, there might have been some point to such legislation legislation that would have addressed that specific issue in a more appropriate way than Akin’s effort. But that’s never been the case. As noted by Dr. Israel Drazin, a rabbi and lawyer who, in his days as a brigadier general, served as  Assistant Chief of Chaplins:

Our military has maintained the chaplains’ freedom to serve their congregations according to the principles of their faith for nearly two and a half centuries. There is no reason why this would change if gays and lesbians served openly in the military. Military chaplains are not required to perform services that violate their religious beliefs-a rabbi, for example, is not required to administer a Catholic’s last rite. So the claim that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will compel chaplains to violate their religious faith is blatantly false.

Dr. Drazin adds:

… chaplains must serve members of the military who hold different political, social, religious, and moral views. But they don’t have to endorse or support a particular point of view while doing this broader ministry work.

So why is Akin pursuing this waste of time? Could it be nothing more than a nasty little tantrum because he and his fellow bigots are going to loose the argument on this one? Today, President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, and, noting the failure of Mitt Romney to rise to the occasion and behave like a decent human being, no less than Fox News’ Shep Smith observed that:

I am curious whether you believe in this time of rising debt and medical issues and all the rest, if Republicans would go out on a limb and try to make this a campaign issue while sitting very firmly without much question on the wrong side of history.

The same could be said of Akin’s effort to wring out one last bit of controversy from the repeal of DADT.

That was then…

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 1 (August 11, 2011)

….Representative Hartzler: All right [crosstalk]. Listen, listen [crosstalk]…

Voice: When, when you ran your campaign [crosstalk] the only thing we heard was jobs, jobs, jobs [crosttalk], jobs, jobs. [crosstalk] You get into office and the only thing we hear out of you now is abortion [inaudible].

Voice: We were gonna fix it, that’s what you said….

[underline emphasis added]

…and it still is now. Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) sent out another campaign mailer style franking piece this past week.

The franking disclaimer and signature (condensed).

Details from Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) campaign mailer style franking piece.

Yep, abortion. And, of course, there’s the obligatory rhetorical beating of a dead horse intermixed with another wedge issue.

Are teh gay really so icky, Vicky?

It’s about jobs!

The full mailer:

Some of the “survey” questions:

4TH DISTRICT FAMILY VALUES SURVEY

…1. Do you support the department of defense’s repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy allowing open homosexuality in the military?…

…2. Should Congress pass a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, or should it be left up to the states to decide?…

…3. Should the federal government provide federal funding for abortions or health coverage for abortions?…

Is discrimination a family value? Just asking.

“…allowing open homosexuality in the military?”

Uh, isn’t that actually to allow individuals who are homosexual to serve in the military without having to worry if anyone knows or not if they are?

Should the federal government provide federal funding for federal abortions or federal health coverage for federal abortions? There, it’s fixed.

It’s about jobs, jobs, jobs! Evidently not.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Who needs the NRA… (September 17, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): franking right wingnut propaganda on Medicare (August 27, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): frankly, it looks like a campaign mailing (July 7, 2011)

Oi vay, the unhealthy obsession continues:

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): …Just wondering, are men and women, uh, currently, uh, housed together in barracks, do they shower together, uh, men and women soldiers?

Vice Admiral William Gortney: No ma’am.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Why not?

Vice Admiral William Gortney: Well, good order and discipline. And, uh, the, uh, they choose not to do it. Leadership is smart not to do it, to keep ’em separated, for good order and discipline.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Is it due to their sexual orientation.

Vice Admiral William Gortney: No, ma’am, it’s not. It’s due to gender.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): So there may be some opposite sex attraction there and so it, do to, it would disrupt order and discipline if they showered together and were housed together. Is that correct?

Vice Admiral William Gortney: For, by not separating the, not separating the sexes?

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Right.

Vice Admiral William Gortney: That’s correct.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): How come, then, you said that this is due to sexual orientation, that there’s not gonna be any change in policy, uh, what’s the difference? It seems to me that you have a double standard here.

Vice Admiral William Gortney: Well, one is because, uh, uh, uh, that gender is very public. Uh, and sexual preference is very private. And we’re not asking, uh, about their sexual preference.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Hmm, well, I, I think it’s a, the, you’re not being consistent…

“…Is it due to their sexual orientation…”

Uh, no, it’s about the plumbing.

Uh, if the current policy is “don’t ask, don’t tell” and there are gay people currently in the military (there are), and there currently aren’t separate facilities due to orientation, and gay people are in the showers and barracks already, do you think it should just be about the plumbing? Just asking.

What an idiot.

Previously:

Are teh gay really so icky, Vicky? (March 24, 2011)

Hat tip to our good friends at Fired Up.

In today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

3/24/2011 2:13:00 PM

Hartzler wants military gays to get back into their closets

Warrensburg – House Armed Services Committee member Vicky Hartzler said she and other Republicans have in their sights the newborn military policy that lets gays serve openly….

“….I can tell you people on the committee, who are my side of the aisle, think it’s very ill-advised and do not support that,” Hartzler said, and are “pushing back….”

Because obsessing over the orientation of people who serve in the military will shave at least two percentage points from the national unemployment rate, right?

The White House released a behind the scenes video around the bill signing for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

The transcript:

Jonathan Hopkins, Army Captain, Honorably Discharged: This event today really means freedom to a lot of folks. Everyone that’s here today just feels an immense sense of relief that they can be judged on one thing and one thing alone, that’s their competence.

President Obama: This morning I am proud to sign a law that will bring an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military, regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance because they happen to be gay.

Leaders like Captain Jonathan Hopkins who led a platoon into northern Iraq during the initial invasion, quelling an ethnic riot, earning a bronze star with valor.

Jonathan Hopkins: I was outed to my command, they had an investigation, and during that investigation, uh, I found, it was, I actually found out about the investigation the same day I found out that I was on the promotion list a year early to Major. Which shows the paradox of the policy.

President Obama: This law I’m about to sign will strengthen our national security. And uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend. And I’ve got to acknowledge Patrick Murphy [cheers], a veteran himself, who helped lead the way in Congress.

Congressman Patrick Murphy: I joined the Army, nineteen years of age, back in nineteen ninety-three. And, uh, I rose through the ranks to be a Captain, to teach at West Point, and when nine eleven happened I deployed twice. And I saw so many great American heroes, leaders in our military and in our army, be thrown out just because they happened to be gay. So, I saw it with my own eyes, and I know, I’ve fought so hard to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and I was so proud to have our president and our commander in chief fight for it every step of the way. And I will tell you that it, it means the world, not just for those in the military, but for our country to see a president who is willing to do what is right, which makes our country great.

President Obama: We are not a nation that says don’t ask, don’t tell. We are a nation that says, out of many, we are one. [applause, cheers] We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. Those are the ideals that generations have fought for, those are the ideals that we uphold today, and now it is my honor to sign this bill into law.

Melody Barnes, White House Domestic Policy Council: These words have often been said, but I think, what, particularly true today, that the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. And the President was determined that we were going to bend toward justice for the men and women serving in uniform. So this was a, a moral issue for us, it was a policy and a legal issue, and we all put our shoulder to the wheel to get it done.

President Obama: This is done. [cheers, applause]

Today the Senate failed to invoke cloture and advance the DREAM Act by a vote of 55-41. By Senate rules the bill needed 60 votes to move forward for consideration:

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281 )

Vote Number: 278 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 11:09 AM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected

Measure Number: H.R. 5281 (Removal Clarification Act of 2010 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 55

NAYs 41

Not Voting 4

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea    

[emphasis in original]

The DREAM Act would have enabled a path to citizenship and productive service for children who were brought into this country illegally (through no fault of their own) and who have lived here for a number of years.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) issued a statement on her vote:

Dec 18, 2010

Statement on DREAM Act

First and foremost, I believe it is wrong to punish innocent children for the crimes of their parents.  This bill would ONLY have applied to children who were brought here at least five years ago by adults, children who were under the age of 16 at the time and had no choice. These are not children who made a decision to break the law. These children were simply the victims of adults who were law breakers.

My faith played a big role in my decision.  Ezekiel 18:20 reads: “The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Unlike the last time this legislation was considered, this bill was much more narrow in scope. The children that would have been allowed to stay in this country are those who have already been here for five years at the time the legislation is enacted. If someone illegally came to America after this bill was already enacted, they would not be eligible. In other words, this bill cannot be a magnet for future illegal immigration.

Lastly, these children must meet very strict criteria, such as proving themselves of good character during their time in the United States and during 10 total years of conditional residency, which can be readily revoked at any time. The application process also included other rigorous requirements including health examinations, background checks, and the completion of two years of college education or military service.   I know many of the young people that would have been impacted by the legislation would love an opportunity to serve this country in the world’s finest military.

Of course, the batshit crazy wingnuts in the Twitterverse went insane:

@Ed4Congress Will @clairecmc vote for #DADT? Two votes against the will of Missourians in one day? First her YES on Amnesty/#DREAM, now …? #MOSen about 6 hours ago via HootSuite

Uh, Ed, you lost your congressional race in November in an environment that was the most favorable for republicans and teabaggers in years. What does that tell you?

@jeffmw @clairecmc would you allow the childern of bank robbers to keep the money the robbers stole? about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And you probably think that the profits from dumping credit default swaps are sacrosanct.

@chuck1125 @clairecmc your through about 2 hours ago via web from West Central, Springfield in reply to clairecmc

Maybe. And only because there are no longer literacy tests for voters.

@DanME @clairecmc It’s really disgusting that Democrats even tried to jam through the Dream Act and DADT after defeat in election – Stop Lame Ducks about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And, of course, you spoke up when Newt Gingrich (r – serial adulterer) pushed impeachment during the 1998 lame duck session, right?

@jantoday @clairecmc and I guess you care about the unborn . They are innocent too. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

Because all matters facing the nation should be based on what single issue voters think?

@flyoverland @clairecmc a tough decision. Why I will be voting against you. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

As if you ever were going to vote for Claire McCaskill?

@RyanSilvey I think @clairecmc #DREAM of convincing Missourians she isn’t a liberal is slipping away. #hcr, #DREAM, #DADT, the list keeps growing. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to clairecmc

Yes Representative Silvey (r), we understand that you used to work for Kit Bond (r) and that you consider anyone not to the right of Attila the Hun a liberal. We’ll just assume you’ve never voted for Claire McCaskill and leave it at that.

@907611 @clairecmc obviously you prefer illegals over legal citizens we will not forget who to vote out of office when your term comes up again 17 minutes ago via web from Elgin, IL in reply to clairecmc

Uh, if you’re from Elgin, Illinois you don’t get to vote in Missouri.

@RandyJohnsonLA @clairecmc You thinking of the next election? 4 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

As if you ever voted for Claire McCaskill?

There were a significant number of thank you posts in the Twitterverse, too.

Later the motion to invoke cloture (and end the republican filibuster) on the repeal of DADT passed by a vote of 63-33:

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 )

Vote Number: 279 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 11:36 AM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2965 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009

Bond (R-MO), Nay  

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis in original]

The rules were waived to allow a vote on the bill this afternoon which then passed 65-31:

Question:  On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 )

Vote Number: 281 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 03:02 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2965 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 65

NAYs 31

Not Voting 4

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea  

Brown (R-MA), Yea

Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting      

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Collins (R-ME), Yea    

Ensign (R-NV), Yea

Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting

Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting    

Kirk (R-IL), Yea  

Manchin (D-WV), Not Voting  

Murkowski (R-AK), Yea  

Snowe (R-ME), Yea  

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

[emphasis in original]

That would make it a bipartisan vote.

Sixty-five votes. It passed by a margin greater than two to one. And why was this bottled up in the Senate for so long with an outcome like this?

Blue Girl, via Twitter:

Yes! DADT repeal passes the Senate 65-31!!!     about 5 hours ago  via web  

I sent a message via Twitter in response to Blue Girl:

@BGinKC “Yes! DADT repeal passes the Senate 65-31!!!” | Why was it so hard and why did it take so long to get there with a vote like that?     about 5 hours ago  via web  in reply to BGinKC

She replied:

@MBersin Cuz Senate is broken, like the Polish Sejm of the 18th century. Rules MUST change 1/5/11, or it’s the Dems fault. cc: @clairecmc    about 5 hours ago  via web  in reply to MBersin

Good point.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) had a good day today.

The stand alone repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has passed the U.S. House:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638

H R 2965      YEA-AND-NAY      15-Dec-2010      5:24 PM

QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

BILL TITLE: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010

—- YEAS    250 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

—- NAYS    175 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Skelton

Breaking News: House passes “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal

….This is “an imposition of somebody’s social agenda,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri. It’s an “eclipse of reason, an eclipse of common sense….”

I wonder if they think teh gay is contagious? Or just bigotry?

There’s nothing new under the sun:

“….going concerns, accustomed through many years to the present system” of segregation, “no experiments should be tried…at this critical time….”

“…The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands…for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat…”

Social agenda? Where have we heard that before?

The republican majority in the United States Senate defeated the repeal of DADT in a vote of 40-57:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3454 )

Vote Number: 270 Vote Date: December 9, 2010, 03:33 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected

Measure Number: S. 3454 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011)

Measure Title: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 57

NAYs 40

Not Voting 3

YEAs —57

McCaskill (D-MO)

Claire McCaskill’s vote was not a surprise to most:

Claire McCaskill (D): “Kitchen Table Talk” in Kansas City, part 3 (December 19, 2008)

….Question: Hi, I just have a quick question, my name is Sarah…about the military. Two years ago when you were on Hardball with Chris –  

Claire McCaskill: I know what you’re going to say! Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!

Question: Yeah. I want to know, two years later, especially with the support of Barack Obama in reevaluating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and recent document signed by 104 Generals and Admirals, if you have rethought your position on reevaluating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Claire McCaskill: I think you will see action on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And, I think that – I think we’re to the point that people realize that that is a probably irrelevant consideration. And as I said to a general the other day, “I wish you guys were as worried about the problems you have in the military in terms of-” I’ve been very involved in looking at sexual assault issues that women have had in the military. And there has been an incredible problem of women being sexually assaulted in the military and us not dealing with it. Not with the right mental health provisions, not with the right criminal consequences provisions, and I think there is now, you know as time goes on, I think you are seeing adjustments, even within the military that I think, it has a very good chance of passing this time, if we, if he changes the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and I’ll be happy to support it. And my daughter, the one that talked me into voting, publicly endorsing Barack Obama, will be so glad that I’ve said that publicly. [audience laughter][applause] She bugs me constantly about it! Constantly! I will just be sitting at my desk, in the Senate, and I’ll get a text message, in all capital letters, “WHAT ABOUT DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL?” Exclamation, exclamation, exclamation. So Maddie will be glad you asked the question. Yes…

That was two years ago.

The arc of homophobia is long and it bends toward frustration.

Tonight (July 20) Rep. Todd Akin (R-2nd), along with fellow travelers Ollie North, Tony Perkins, the hysterically funny Senator James Inhofe, and a few others, will participate in a Webcast to demagogue against the Defense Authorization Act, specifically efforts to lay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) to rest. The Webcast is sponsored by an organization which shares its name with a turgid thriller by Ollie North, Mission Compromised, and proclaims that its goal is to insure that we not “use the military to advance a political agenda” – which some might view as a novel sentiment coming from the patriotism and warmongers on the right.

What specific political agenda are they worried about?  According to the overheated rhetoric on the Mission Compromised Website, we must “protect our military,” vulnerable and fragile institution that it is, from efforts to repeal DADT, a misguided exercise in “social engineering” that is being used to advance the homosexual “agenda” and secure “special protection for homosexuals.” You name a right-wing, anti-gay buzz word, and you’ll find it on the Website, I guarantee.

Interestingly enough, Igor Volsky over at the Wonk Room suggests that there is another agenda in play here – that of the religious right which seeks to “manufacture fear to make money and hold on to what’s left of their constituency.” Volsky quotes “former AFA insider,” Joe Murray:

The battle for marriage, the fight against Heather and her two mommies, and the fictional “homosexual agenda” were created for one reason – it produced a cash cow. […] Need to see how the cow works? Look no further than the American Family Association (AFA).

In its battle to keep patriots from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces for no other reason than their sexual orientation, the AFA is preparing to educate supporters about the importance of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT)….When the reader opens the AFA email, he cannot help but see a picture of what appears to be a U.S. soldier sitting alone on a Middle Eastern street. The solider looks exhausted, isolated, and desperate. His picture is centered and on his right (viewer’s left), are the words “DON’T ASK” and on his left (viewer’s right) are the words “DON’T TELL.”

The insinuation is clear – thanks to the power of the “homosexual” lobby and a complacent administration, U.S. soldiers are left stranded on the battlefield as a new batch of recruits are soon to be inducted into the military under the rainbow flag. In other words, the image is an unfortunate manipulation of U.S. troops to further a profitable political message.

I am not suggesting that Akin is anything but sincere in his homophobia. Not to put too fine a point on it, he doesn’t seem clever enough by half to game the believers like, for instance, one suspects Roy Blunt does with regularity.

Sincere or not, though, I also fervently believe that he is quite aware that ginned up fear of “the homosexual agenda” is a profitable and useful political tool. And it is exactly this awkward combination of stupidity and cupidity mendacity that makes me despair when I drive around my conservative neighborhood and see all the Vote for Akin signs – how, in a just world, could such crude manipulators ever prevail?

 

Seriously?

Posted on Advocate.com  June 09, 2010

Skelton on DADT: What About the Kids?

By Michelle Garcia

Missouri Democratic congressman Ike Skelton says the military should retain the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly so parents can avoid talking to their children about homosexuality.

Skelton, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been a vocal opponent of the move to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Skelton told reporters Tuesday that the repeal could put parents in the position of talking to their curious children about being gay.

“What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” he asked, according to CBS News.

As somebody on a blog somewhere commented (paraphrase): “Now we’re basing national policy on the opinions of seven year old kids?”

Okay, given the republican minority’s behavior in Congress I may need to rephrase that question.

My guess is that most seven year olds don’t care.