I'm annoyed that they are going in the back door, so to speak, by planting this in another, more popular, bill. I've always thought doing that with any legislation was a real dickish move.

But, I guess political realities are what they are. And at least they're pulling this move with a measure that expands equality. That makes it slightly less unpalatable.

it's extremely important to honor and respect the american taliban even as we're killing them (and anyone who accidentally comes near to them) all over afghanistan and pakistan.

it's this kinda centralist politics by the Obama admin and the Dims in Congress that has garnered such respect and bi-partisan support from the Repugnants, and just astonishing popular support throughout this great country of ours.

2009 was such a resounding success story for Obama and the Dims (i still tingle all over thinking about it.) I look forward to more of the same in 2010 -- and -- ho ho -- not to mention a tidal wave @ the mid-term election -- heh heh heh.

Whatta country!

I'm annoyed that they are going in the back door, so to speak, by planting this in another, more popular, bill. I've always thought doing that with any legislation was a real dickish move.

You know, I usually hate it, too, but it doesn't bother me in this case because the bill is for funding to the military. It's a little bit of the carrot and the stick: if you want funding for 2010, you have to get rid of this policy. If keeping a stupid and counterproductive policy in place is more important to you, then you're going to need to figure out an alternate funding source.

To Neill @ #2: What are you attempting to say? I read and reread your post several times and cannot understand or even identify your argument. The absence of All CAPS had me confused until the name calling (Dims) and creative punctuation suggests that you may belong to that tea bagging set. How is that going for you? I personally have not tried tea bagging but some of my drunken friends have talked about it and I've seen pictures of it on the internet. Not my cup of tea really. My wife was curious about this new tea bagging fad so I showed her the pictures. She thought it was silly but a little bit gross. "Don't even think about it" she said.

Query: given that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, why can't he simply order an end to DADT?

-Z

Zorro, @16:34,

It'll be that much harder for Comandress-in-chief, Palin to repeal it in 2016, if it's a law duly fought for and signed off on by Congress, rather than an ukase.

"Query: given that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, why can't he simply order an end to DADT?"

Answer: Because that only stands until a different president rescinds the order with a new order that the law must once again be enforced. Putting an equality law through Congress means a different President can't (legally) order that the rule be changed.

Considering that the DADT policy is expressly designed for the US military I, as a retired veteran, think the annual appropriations bill is the best vehicle to use to change that policy. That it will give the Republicans fits has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion. Really, absolutely nothing, nada, zilch!
Truthfully, I really do think that something such as this, which will have such an impact on US society*, would best be handled in a stand-alone bill. The most important thing, however, is the repeal of DADT via legislation. Whether by itself or as an amendment, the repeal won't be liable to the vagaries of a general election.

* Just what will this do to DoMA, when a male soldier decides to marry his boyfriend? Spousal survivor benefits. Use of on-base housing. Dependent travel. And then when openly gay veterans start showing up all over the country - talk about cognitive dissonance for a certain sector of the populace!

We used the military appropriations trick to pass the hate crimes legislation, which was the one big-ticket LGBT rights item that passed last year. Using it to pass DADT would make if anything more sense.

My only worry is where this leaves ENDA, which is kinda floating lonely, keeps getting delayed in the House, and has to get to 60 votes in the Senate somehow.

Answer: Because that only stands until a different president rescinds the order with a new order that the law must once again be enforced

Or sooner. Note, the theory that Obama has the power to abridge DADT (originating with analysis from the Palm Center; see here) is based on emergency powers: "According to "stop-loss" statute 10 U.S.C. 12305, Congress has authorized the president to suspend any law regarding military separations during national security emergencies". In other words, if the national security emergency situation ends then so does Obama's power to override DADT. This would, as the Palm Center originally advocated, get us as far as the "real" DADT repeal which will be attempted this year, but it's simply not a durable solution of any kind and I'm not convinced it would be worth the risk it would create that it would endanger attempts to repeal DADT normally.

Remember, Obama tried to close Gitmo by flat-out executive order too. How'd that work out? There's a reason they're trying so hard to work with Congress on everything.

The notion that an executive order to end DADT by President Obama would be rescinded by a future President is ridiculous. Once you have gay and lesbian soldiers out of the closet, there is no reasonable way to put them back in it. If a DADT repeal were somehow rescinded, the military would be faced with the immediate discharge of up to 65,000 servicemembers who might be living open lives if the ban is lifted. No President, regardless of ideology, is going to summarily fire tens of thousands of soldiers with the stroke of a pen. President Obama has every bit of power to end this now. Instead he continues to stall and delay. Each day that passes equals another day that a gay or lesbian servicemember is fired, another day that a gay or lesbian servicemember's same-sex partner won't be notified when their servicemember is killed or wounded on the battlefield, and another day when gay and lesbians are distracted by lies and deceptions they must concoct in order to serve.

I thought that DADT was a law enacted by Congress. President Obama can't abridge that law by himself (otherwise Congress would be pretty pointless wouldn't it)? It has to be repealed by an act of Congress.

I love how the people saying that Obama should just do away with DADT with a stroke of his pen are probably the same people that used to scream bloody murder whenever Bush issued a signing statement or about Bush's increase of the unitary power of the Presidency. Get it together people.