Six months ago today, as the hearings for the nomination of then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court got under way, my editors and I launched Poliglot. The political blog of Metro Weekly, the space was intended to serve -- as its tag line attests -- as "a queer spin on politics."

The title -- though an invention of Sean Bugg's -- is one that I have come to love. "Polyglot" is an adjective referencing something "containing, composed of, or written in several languages." Poliglot, it seems to me, is the perfect name for a political blog based in a city where the same set of facts can result in many totally different stories -- and where people often appear to be speaking in different languages.

In the brief six months that Poliglot has been around, we've seen the confirmation of Kagan; federal court rulings finding that Proposition 8, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and part of the Defense of Marriage Act are unconstitutional; Republicans take back the House in the mid-term elections; and the passage and signing into law of the DADT Repeal Act in the waning days of the 111th Congress.

We've also seen real signs of the polyglot nature of "the gay community," or, more commonly now, the LGBT community. It is a diverse group of people who have an end goal of equality -- but have different ways of getting there and, at times, even different definitions of success.

In the year that I've been covering this world for Metro Weekly, there have been many examples of why "Poliglot" is such an apt name for this space. The gay conservatives -- from GOProud and their media-intensive efforts to change the conversation to Log Cabin Republicans and their slow-burning lawsuit against DADT -- have shown that the LGBT community is not one community. The activists -- from Get Equal and other state or city groups across the country to the American Foundation for Equal Rights -- have shown that everyone doesn't accept the same strategy for the path forward as a group like the Human Rights Campaign or Lambda Legal does.

At the signing ceremony for the DADT Repeal Act on Dec. 22, the overwhelming number of those people within the privileged crew who found themselves invited to such a ceremony were white men. Veterans like Autumn Sandeen, a trans woman; Anthony Woods, a gay, black man who ran for Congress; and Dan Choi, a gay man whose parents are Korean immigrants, stood out. Those voices and others, also, must be included -- and heard -- in order to understand the full range of the LGBT experience.

Too often the voice of the LGBT community is not seen as it should be -- the many voices of the LGBT world.

As we move into the new year, there will be continued focus on the implementation of the DADT Repeal Act, the court cases and the administration and Congress. But, as I have strived to do in the past, this space -- and LGBT media more broadly -- needs to be about both informing the community and providing it a space for its members to share their voices.

As 2010 comes to a close, I hope that Poliglot -- and Metro Weekly generally -- will continue to provide an outlet for the many voices of the LGBT world in 2011.

* * *

Finally, though it can't be embedded, here's the best moment in "polyglot" TV! (Thanks, Nat!)

In President Barack Obama's "end of the year" news conference, he opened by discussing the successes of the lame-duck session of Congress. In part, he mentioned the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 signing:

In our ongoing struggle to perfect our union, we also overturned a 17-year-old law and a longstanding injustice by finally ending “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  As I said earlier today, this is the right thing to do for our security; it’s the right thing to do, period.

Later, Jake Tapper asked Obama a question that he earlier had asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs:

I have a couple questions about “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  First of all, congratulations.  What was your conversation like with Marine Commandant Amos when he expressed to you his concerns and yet he said that he would abide by whatever -- whatever the ruling was?  Can you understand why he had the position he did?  And then on the other hand, is it intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country but they should not be able to marry the people they love?

The marriage question is one that today's signing makes logical -- and almost unavoidable. Obama answered similarly to the answers he gave AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay earlier this fall and The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld on Tuesday, Dec. 21. Obama told Tapper:

You know, I don’t want to go into detail about conversations in the Oval Office with my service chiefs.  Jim Amos expressed the same concerns to me privately that he expressed publicly during his testimony.  He said that there could be disruptions as a consequence of this.  And what I said to him was that I was confident, looking at the history of the military with respect to racial integration, with respect to the inclusion of women in our armed forces, that that could be managed.  And that was confirmed by the attitudinal studies that was done prior to this vote.

And what he assured me of -- and what all the service chiefs have assured me of -- is that regardless of their concerns about disruptions, they were confident that they could implement this policy without it affecting our military cohesion and good discipline and readiness.  And I take them at their word.  And I’ve spoken to them since the vote took place and they have all said that we are going to implement this smartly and swiftly, and they are confident that it will not have an effect on our military effectiveness.

So I’m very heartened by that.  And I want to, again, give Bob Gates and Admiral Mullen enormous credit for having guided this process through in a way that preserves our primary responsibility to keep America safe and at the same time allows us to live up to our values.

With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I’ve spoken about this recently.  As I’ve said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving.  I struggle with this.  I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions.  And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.

At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have.  And I think -- and I think that’s the right thing to do.  But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we’re going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.

Tapper followed up:

But the military does not recognize civil unions, right?

To which Obama responded:

I understand.  And as I said, this is going to be an issue that is not unique to the military -- this is an issue that extends to all of our society, and I think we’re all going to have to have a conversation about it.

I will have more on this new reality for Obama in the future.

[Photo: Obama signs the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law on Dec. 22. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

At a little past 9 a.m. today, Dec. 22, President Barack Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law in a ceremony full of pomp and circumstance but also full of significance and sentiment.

[ADDITIONAL COVERAGE: Read Metro Weekly's report on Tuesday's enrollment ceremony and analysis of the Dec. 18 Senate vote.]

Saying that he already had discussed the implementation plan with Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the various service chiefs, Obama said the implementation would be done "swiftly and efficiently."

Talking about the importance of recruiting and enlisting the best men and women possible for the Armed Forces, Obama said, "That's why I hope those soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have been discharged under this discriminatory policy will seek to reenlist once the repeal is implemented."

At the press briefing later Wednesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the timeframe for when those out gay, lesbian and bisexual would-be servicemembers could re-enlist was a matter of "months, not years."

But the commander-in-chief, whose relationship with the LGBT community has been sometimes tense and on occasion acrimonious, returned to what even some of his fiercest critics acknowledged was a position -- at least for the day -- as the "fierce advocate" he had told the community he would be.

Telling the story of a gay servicemembmer, Andy Lee, who saved the life of a fellow soldier, Lloyd Corwin, in World War II, Obama shared just one of the countless stories of heroism to have come to light during the fight to repeal the 1993 law banning open gay, lesbian and bisexual military service.

The presidential signing ceremony for the repeal bill was held in the auditorium at the Interior Department in order to allow for a number of guests. And guests there were. Among the attendees were Grethe Cammermeyer, a former colonel on the Washington National Guard who led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and told reporters after the signing that she "felt a little bit like the grandmother of the cause."

In addition to members of Congress who were there, notable attendees included the leadership of organizations involved in repeal -- including the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Palm Center, Servicemembers United, National Stonewall Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans, Center for American Progress, OutServe and Get Equal. Other attendees included David Mixner and Paul Yandura, both at one time affiliated with President Bill Clinton, under whose watch DADT became law. Yandura was there with his domestic partner, Donald Hitchcock, who used to work for the Democratic National Committee. Longtime DNC treasurer Andy Tobias was there, as was University of Pennsylvania Law School professor and DADT expert Tobias Barrington Wolff. From the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Chad Griffin was there, along with board member and Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black.

Franklin Kameny, another World War II veteran like Lee and Corwin, had protested for open military service since his firing in the late 1950s from the Army Map Service because he was gay. He told Metro Weekly he was overjoyed to be attending because, as he said, "I didn't think I'd live to see it."

Servicemembers -- some currently serving, some retired and others who were discharged under DADT -- were ever-present, including on stage with the president, who recognized former Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva and Navy Commander Zoe Dunning (Ret.) for their service. In the audience, among many others were former Lt. Dan Choi, former Air Force Major Mike Almy, former Army Sgt. First Class Stacey Vasquez, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, Fire Controlman First Class Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen (Ret.) and former Army Second Lt. Anthony Woods. 

To them and many others, he said, "For a long time your service has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice. You've been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and isolation. And all the while, you've put your lives on the line for the freedoms and privileges of citizenship that are not fully granted to you. 

"You're not the first to have carried this burden, for while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades, this is a moment more than two centuries in the making."

As Obama reached the end of his speech, he marked a turning point in that history, saying, "For we are not a nation that says, "don't ask, don't tell.'"

The line brought the audience to its feet.

He continued, "We are a nation that says, 'Out of many, we are one.' 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."

Sitting down, he did so. He then looked up at the audience gathered together to watch this moment.

"This is done," the commander-in-chief said.

[Photo: President Obama speaks before signing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law on Dec. 22. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Read Obama's full speech, along with Vice President Joseph Biden's introduction, below the jump. The video from today, care of the White House:

[Photo: The audience and members of the media -- as well as a set of pens -- await the arrival of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on Tuesday, Dec. 21. President Barack Obama is to sign the bill into law on Wednesday, Dec. 22. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

In the Capitol Visitors Center Auditorium on Tuesday, Dec. 21, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- in one of her last acts as speaker -- brought a bit of Schoolhouse Rock to today's, at times emotional, enrollment ceremony for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

With an auditorium full of about 500 people, Pelosi -- joined on the stage by nearly a dozen fellow lawmakers and three current or former servicemembers impacted by DADT -- held up an opened folder with two legal-sized pages on it and told the cheering crowd, "This is what a bill looks like -- except it's longer than this."

Continuing, Pelosi said of the day's signing of the enrolled bill, "Once it is signed, it will go down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, where tomorrow, President Barack Obama, who has led us in this fight, will sign the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

Although the presidential signing actually is slated to take place at the Interior Department, Pelosi was, more or less, on target with her lesson to the attendees -- although she failed to mention the necessary additional signature of the president of the Senate, Vice President Joseph Biden.

Turning to the bill's impact, though, Pelosi said that repeal "will change the law, improve the policy, make life better for many Americans and make our country stronger."

Introducing the members of Congress in attendance with her, Pelosi began with the senators and then turned to the House, saying, "We are very, very proud of a person who served our country on the battlefield and served our country in the Congress, the author of the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the House, [Rep.] Patrick Murphy [(D-Pa.)]."

The mention was the first of three standing ovations for the lawmaker, who led the charge for repeal in the House since then-Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) left the House for a role in the State Department. After successfully shepherding the bill through the House, however, Murphy lost his re-election this fall and will, thus, not be returning to Congress in the new year.

Among the others on stage were Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.). The other representatives included the three out LGBT members of Congress -- Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) -- and Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Susan Davis (D-Calif.).

Both Boxer and Frank mentioned their role as the sponsor of amendments in 1993 -- discussed at Metro Weekly earlier this week -- attempting to strip DADT from the National Defense Authorization Act. Boxer said of her effort, "I got 33 votes against 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' 17 years ago." Turning to Saturday's cloture vote on the bill, she said, "This time, only 33 people said let's keep it in, and the rest said get rid of it!"

Hoyer -- who, along with Frank, were the longest-serving members of the House at the event -- started by quoting from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

The House majority leader stopped, and then explained to an audience filled with people who have faced the burden of DADT's discriminatory effects, "But what we have found throughout the history of this great nation, who held such high principles, that they were not self-executing. Self-evident, but not self-executing.

"Tomorrow, the president will sign a bill again taking a step, America will take that step, to realize what we perceived to be self-evident, but which we found was not self-executing," Hoyer continued. "Tomorrow will be a giant step forward in realizing America's promise of equality for all."

When Murphy took his turn at the podium, to another standing ovation, he talked about the history of the fight against DADT and told the story of one servicemember, stationed in Kabul, who served under DADT and in silence. Then, of the end of DADT, Murphy said -- to his third standing ovation -- "It's been a long journey, but it came to its rightful and just conclusion."

Of "the radical homosexual agenda" that Frank has been accused of promoting, he told the crowd, "Let me own up to that agenda. It's to be protected against violent crimes driven by hatred, it's to be able to get married, it's to be able to get a job and it's to be able to fight for our country."

Over jubilant applause, Frank continued, "For those who are worried about the radical homosexual agenda, let me put them on notice: Two down, two to go."

To make that so, Pelosi later took a seat at the table set up for the enrollment signing, looked at all the pens laid out before her and -- as she began signing -- said to the audience, "The president does this faster and left handed."

Then, as the time it took her to sign increased, Pelosi moved on to thanking others.

"Vice President Biden, he was so helpful with this.

"And, as Secretary Gates was mentioned.

"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen, he was so wonderful."

Then, looking out at the audience: "All of you."

Finishing at last, Pelosi looked up, presented the signed bill, and said, "Isn't this a joyful day?"

After a moment, she handed the bill to Frank, who took it and immediately walked in front of the table set out for the signing.

He handed the bill to the three servicemembers. To a thunderous, standing ovation, former Air Force Major Mike Almy, former Army Sgt. First Class Stacey Vasquez and Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach then took the bill in hand.

Obama is scheduled to sign the bill into law at 9:15 a.m. Wednesday, Dec. 22.

[Servicemembers impacted by DADT hold the enrolled Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on Tuesday, Dec. 21, immediately following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's signing of the bill. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Photo: President Barack Obama makes Congressional calls from the Oval Office on Dec. 18 before the final Senate vote repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.)]

Today at the White House briefing, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that President Barack Obama "likely" will sign the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill into law on the morning of Wednesday, Dec. 22. No official guidance has been given by the White House to the media about the event at this point.

[UPDATE @ 7:20 PM: The White House has announced, "On Wednesday, December 22, 2010, President Obama will sign the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law in a signing ceremony at the Department of the Interior." Per the news advisory, the ceremony is to take place at 9:15 a.m.]

Meanwhile, Gibbs also said that the Departments of Defense and Justice are preparing implementation plans. Those plans must be completed, under the repeal bill's requirements, before the president, Defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will certify that the changes needed to implement repeal are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces."

Even then, though, a 60-day congressional review period must pass before 10 U.S.C 654 -- the DADT law -- will be off the books.

As such, Wednesday's likely signing will be a victory for equality, but not even an end to that battle, which is -- of course -- only one of many on the path to full equality in law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

[UPDATE @ 5:30 PM: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office confirmed the enrollment cermony for the DADT repeal bill will be held at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 21, in the Capitol Visitor Center Auditorium. According to the advisory, "Pelosi, House and Senate Democrats will join with servicemembers ... to sign legislation repealing" DADT. 

As the release notes, enrollment is the last step before the bill goes to the president for his signature.]

[Photo: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) speaks to reporters after the successful cloture vote on the bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on Dec. 18. With him, from left, are Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Center for American Progress senior vice president Winnie Stachelberg, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), former Air Force Major Mike Almy, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

After a stressful month for supporters of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," today's successful 65-31 vote for the bill aimed at repealing the law is, for them, quite sweet.

As everyone begins analyzing (or spouting off, to put it less gracefully), though, here are 13 "fun facts" about today's final roll call vote for passage of the DADT repeal bill to put it in context against the scene in 1993, when this policy became law. (And, don't worry, I'll have some more traditional analysis/spouting on Sunday!)

The facts:

• Twenty-nine senators who voted in 1993 on the bill that brought DADT to life -- the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1994* -- also voted today on the repeal bill.
• Only three senators who voted against the NDAA in 1993 also voted to end DADT today: Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Arlen Specter -- who was a Republican in 1993 -- (D-Pa.). (But, there's a caveat with Specter, explained below.)
• Five senators who voted for the NDAA in 1993, though, voted to keep DADT today: Sens. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- that stalwart defender of all that is DADT -- didn't vote for the NDAA that put DADT into place, although he voted today to keep it in place. He was joined in this feat by ... no one. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who did not cast a vote today, had -- like McCain -- voted against the NDAA conference report in 1993.
• Earlier in 1993, Boxer had attempted to remove DADT from the NDAA by replacing it with language leaving the decision about the policy "concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces" up to the president. Even on that vote, though, she only found support from a third of the Senate. Fourteen of the 32 who joined her then in attempting to strip DADT from the NDAA joined her again today in repealing the law.
• Although they voted against the conference report, both McCain and Hatch let their support for DADT to be known by voting against the Boxer amendment, as did all five of the Republicans who opposed repeal today and voted for the NDAA in 1993.
• Also voting against Boxer's amendment: Specter -- making Boxer and Feingold the only two senators to vote against DADT at every stage in its history.
• Then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and five other Democrats voted for repeal today but voted against the Boxer amendment -- and hence for DADT -- in 1993: Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) and John "Jay" Rockefeller (D-W.V.). All of them but Dorgan voted for the NDAA conference report in 1993 as well. (Dorgan was "not voting.")
• Of the Democrats who voted to repeal DADT today, 17 had voted for the original NDAA bringing DADT to life. Also in that category: then-Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). Of those 18, though, 13 -- including Lieberman and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- earlier had voted for Boxer's amendment to strip DADT from the 1993 bill. The other 11: Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
• Of the eight Republicans to vote to repeal DADT today, none were in the Senate when it was enacted.
• Only three Republicans -- one of whom later left the party -- voted for the Boxer amendment in 1993: Sens. John Chafee (R-R.I.), Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) and then-Republican James Jeffords (I-Vt.). All three represented a state where the state's other senator voted for the Boxer amendment as well.
• Every Republican to vote to repeal DADT today comes from a state where the state's other senator also voted for repeal. Of the eight Republicans to vote for repeal, six represent a state in which the other senator is a Democrat who supported repeal by voting "yes" on both failed cloture votes on the NDAA this year, voting "yes" on cloture on the stand-alone bill today and voting "yes" for final passage of the repeal bill today. The other two represent Maine -- and both voted "yes" on cloture and for final passage today.
• Only seven states had split delegations today, in which one senator voted "yes" and one voted "no": Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota. All had one Democratic senator voting "yes" and one Republican senator voting "no."

* = Of course, there were other reasons for supporting or opposing the NDAA, but -- the point remains -- the roll call vote to which I am referring was the final vote in the Senate to send the NDAA to President Bill Clinton's desk with DADT as a provision in it.

[CORRECTION: As pointed out in comments, I had incorrectly identified an extra "split delegation" state. Idaho, of course, had no senator supporting repeal. The error has been corrected.]

[Photo: Mike Almy speaks at a news conference follow the successful cloture vote on the bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

On a 65-31 vote for final passage, the stand-alone "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill that became a part of the repeal strategy less than two weeks ago will be heading to President Barack Obama's desk for his signature.

Obama -- following the successful 63-33 cloture vote a little before noon today -- issued a statement asking for Senate action, saying, "I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law."

In addition to the six Republicans who voted for cloture on the repeal bill -- Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) -- Republicans Sens. Richard Burr (N.C.) and John Ensign (Nev.) voted for the final passage of the repeal bill. Collins had co-sponsored the repeal bill.

The come-from-behind success will provide a much-needed liberal victory for Obama, although questions remain about the implementation of the repeal and the short-term implications for gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers currently subject to the law banning them from coming out.

Saying that they had been "focused" on the vote, a senior White House aide intimately familiar with the administration's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal efforts was unwilling to say whether President Obama agrees with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that DADT-releated investigations and discharges should be halted immediately.

The aide made the comments to Metro Weekly following the 63-33 successful cloture vote on the stand-alone DADT repeal bill was held a little before noon today.

Saying that "this vote today was an affirmation of a plan the president laid out in State of the Union address this year," the senior aide, who would not speak on the record as a condition of the interview, said that repeal was a topic of "the very first conversation" Obama had with the Pentagon leadership.

"That strategy paid off today in a very strong bipartisan vote."

After that vote -- and the foregone conclusion by all advocates and lawmakers that the majority vote for final passage would succeed when it is expected to be held at 3 p.m. today -- attention quickly turned to what will happen next.

The prospect of ending discharges and investigations immediately was raised by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis, who told Metro Weekly, "I think it's a practical, realistic approach that reflects where we stand today. There's this hiatus, there's this limbo, and who wants to be the last servicemember discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

As Sarvis said in a statement, "I respectfully ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to use his authority to suspend all 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' investigations during this interim period. Until the President signs the bill, until there is certification, and until the 60-day Congressional period is over, no one should be investigated or discharged under this discriminatory law."

At a news conference following the cloture vote, both Reid and Levin endorsed Sarvis's approach, with Reid affirming his support in a one-word answer when asked by a reporter if he supported ending discharges and investigations immediately: "Yes."

After the news conference, responding to a question from Metro Weekly about whether Sarvis had spoken with anyone at the Pentagon about the possibility, he said, "I've only had a preliminary conversation at the Department, and I'd rather not go into right now."

As to the White House view of ending discharges and investigations immediately, the senior aide who spoke with Metro Weekly said that the White House would be working the Pentagon "on how to implement this the right way."

The senior aide added, "But, clearly, this week when the President signs this bill ... it's very clear where this is going."

Pressed on the fact that the issue of ending investigations and discharges immediately is being raised because the DADT law remains in effect -- even after Obama would sign the bill -- until the certification process and 60-day congressional review period have happened, the senior aide would not commit either way.

"We're examining every issue here," the senior White House aide said. "The next steps are next steps and we're still working on that."

Sarvis, though, said he doesn't think the status quo makes sense after today's vote.

"Obviously, the discharges have slowed down, but that's not enough because there's still the fear of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' So, let's stop the investigations," Sarvis said. "And if we stop the investigations and we stop the discharges until we have final repeal, that's the practical approach to take now."

[UPDATE @ 5:30 PM: It should be noted that the current implementation of the policy is far more limited than it had been for most of its 17 years. As Metro Weekly reported on Oct. 21:

Discharges under the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will now take the approval of the service branch secretary, and only in consultation with the defense department general counsel and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, according to a pair of memoranda issued by senior military leadership on Thursday.

Because the discharge process has been put at such a high level, the most significant portion of SLDN's request is the call for an end to DADT-related investigations.]

On a 63-33 vote, and with six Republicans voting "yes," the U.S. Senate -- at a little before noon today -- voted for cloture on the stand-alone bill aimed at repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, overcoming the largest hurdle remaining for repeal of the 1993 law banning openly gay, lesbian and bisexual military service.

The House approved the bill overwhelmingly this past week, and President Barack Obama has expressed his strong support for the bill and said in a statement issued after the cloture vote, "It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law."

The cloture vote, which required the approval of at least 60 senators, means that only 30 hours of debate remain before DADT repeal comes up for a final vote. Usually, because the vote for final passage only requires a simple majority vote of the senators, the 30-hour requirement is waived. It was not clear, however, whether Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would allow the requirement to be waived regarding the DADT repeal bill.

[UPDATE @ 1:30 PM: The Republicans did agree to unanimous consent, so the majority vote on final passage is expected to happen about 3 p.m.]

The Republicans voting "yes" were: Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Collins had co-sponsored the repeal bill.

In a statement issued immediately after the vote, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said, "Today, America lived up to its highest ideals of freedom and equality. Congress recognized that all men and women have the right to openly serve their country. Plenty of people had already planned the funeral for this legislation. Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago."

In a statement, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson said, "This vote represents an historic step forward for this country, and it will very likely be a life-changing moment for gay and lesbian troops.

"While we still have a long road ahead, including a final passage vote, the certification process, and a yet-to-be-determined implementation period, those who defend our freedom while living in fear for their careers will finally breathe a sigh of relief tonight, and those who have fallen victim to this policy in years past will finally begin to see true closure and redemption on the horizon."

Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said in a statement, "Gay, lesbian and bisexual service members posted around the world are standing a little taller today, but they’re still very much at risk because repeal is not final." 

Sarvis went further, though, pointing to the fact that the policy remains in effect.

"I respectfully ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to use his authority to suspend all 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' investigations during this interim period. Until the President signs the bill, until there is certification, and until the 60-day Congressional period is over, no one should be investigated or discharged under this discriminatory law," he said. "Even with this historic vote, service members must continue to serve in silence until repeal is final."

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) was the only Democrat not to vote "yes," instead not casting a vote at all and issuing a statement saying that he cannot support DADT repeal at this time. Three Republicans did not vote: Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

The vote came less than 10 days after the Senate failed to achieve cloture on a motion to proceed to debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, which contained the DADT repeal provision.

It also came just moments after the Senate failed to achieve cloture on the DREAM Act, an immigration bill that had been a key goal of liberals for passage in the lame-duck session, on a 55-41 vote.

[UPDATE @ 1:30 PM: At a news conference following the vote, both Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that they supported Sarvis's recommendation that DADT discharges and investigations be put to a halt immediately.

The White House issued a statement from Obama, in which he said:

Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend.  By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known.  And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.

I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done.  It is time to close this chapter in our history.  It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.  It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly.  I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

Be sure to check back at Metro Weekly later today for more ...]

[Photo: Former Air Force Major Margaret Witt (left), Washington National Guard Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer (Ret.) and Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach in March 2010 at the annual dinner held by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

As senators speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the stand-alone "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill is looking likely to reach the necessary 60 votes to achieve cloture. The vote likely will happen about 10:45 a.m. this morning. Assuming the cloture vote passes, the vote for final passage requires only a simple majority and could come immediately -- unless opponents require the full 30 hours of allowed debate, which is usually considered a formality after cloture is achieved.

Check back here later for more ...

[Photo: Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) speaks about the effort to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at a news conference on Friday, Dec. 17. Standing behind him at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.); Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.); and servicemembers discharged under DADT, Anthony Woods and Mike Almy. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Today, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network held a news conference -- attended by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillbrand (D-N.Y.), as well as Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) -- to discuss the planned Saturday vote on cloture for the stand-alone "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill that passed the House on Dec. 15.

In addition to confirming that bill co-sponsor Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) plan to vote for cloture on Saturday, Lieberman sounded an optimistic tone, saying that "right now we're on a very encouraging path."

Referring to the prospect of senators claiming that the process is forcing them to vote "no" on cloture on Saturday, Lieberman pointed to the fact that the bill is only "four or five pages" and said, "I just don't think that it's going to be credible for anybody to say, 'For a technical, procedural reason even though I support the principle, I'm not going to vote for it.'"

Lieberman was asked about several senators whose votes have been in question recently, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) (see here) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), who could potentially vote "no" on Saturday, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has surgery on Monday for recently diagnosed prostate cancer. Lieberman did not comment directly on how Conrad or Manchin would vote but said that Wyden would be in the Senate on Saturday to support repeal.

Of note, Lieberman said that should the cloture vote succeed in reaching the required 60 votes, he "hope[s]" that "we may reason together and ... perhaps get to final passage tomorrow by the end of the day."

Gillibrand also jumped in at the end to say that the Democrats had "asked Sen. Lieberman to take the lead" because of his position "[a]s the senior member of the Armed Services Committee."

The full Q-and-A portion follows below the jump.

[UPDATE @ 5:30 PM: Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) threatened on the floor of the Senate to pull his support for the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia because of the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was bringing DADT repeal and the DREAM Act for a vote.

Although Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) -- who have been the lead on opposition to DADT repeal and the START treaty, respectively, in the Senate -- distanced themselves from his comments, Corker's speech showed the length to which some Republicans are considering going to stop the DADT repeal vote from happening on Saturday. Igor Volsky from the Wonk Room has been covering this development throughout the afternoon.

More on this development from The Hill and The Washington Post's Plum Line, whose Greg Sargent reported after Corker's speech, "Corker just called back to clarify that a DADT vote won't lead his GOP colleages to oppose START permanently."]

"I'm going to file cloture on it tonight."

With those words, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that there will be a cloture vote on the stand-alone "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill. And, in what had been the topic of debate all Thursday, Reid has apparently taken the path urged by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and repeal advocates to get to the vote as soon as possible.

The good news for repeal supporters came on the heels of a good day for supporters of ending the 1993 law banning open gay, lesbian and bisexual military service -- with more Republicans appearing to line up in support of repeal -- and the day after the House passed the stand-alone bill.

The Thursday evening move, though, came only after a loss by the Majority Leader, when he pulled the omnibus spending bill after the Republicans appeared to be coalescing in opposition. As reported by The Hill, "Reid said he had the backing of nine Republicans on the measure but they defected, leaving the measure short of the support needed to move forward. He said he would work with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on a bill that can pass the chamber before time runs out Saturday."

With the omnibus bill pulled, though, Reid had time in the lame-duck Senate schedule. So, tonight, he filed cloture for both the DADT repeal measure, as well as the DREAM Act. The House passed the DREAM Act this past week and passed the stand-alone DADT repeal bill on Wednesday. The DREAM Act vote is to come, Reid said this evening, "fairly early" on Saturday, and the DADT repeal vote is to follow.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese -- who earlier in the day had publicly sought for Reid to schedule the repeal vote before Christmas -- said in a statement, "We are gratified that the Majority Leader has scheduled the cloture vote on the DADT repeal bill for Saturday. It's time that senators vote their consciences and move our military and our country forward."

The DADT repeal measure passed by the House on Dec. 15 initially had been passed as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House. A motion to proceed to debate on that bill failed on Dec. 9 because it only received 57 of the required 60 votes. Because of the process used for bringing the House-passed stand-alone repeal bill, the initial motion that stopped the NDAA this past week is not needed for the stand-alone bill.

The cloture invoked by Reid tonight is for the bill itself. A successful vote of 60 senators will signal a limited time remaining for debate, at which point a simple majority of senators will be required to pass the bill and send it to President Barack Obama's desk for passage. Additionally, because of the way in which Reid chose to bring the bill to the floor, there will not be any amendments -- which, because of the late time in the session, effectively would kill the bill.

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson said in a statement, "We are grateful to Majority Leader Reid for following through on his promise to schedule a vote on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' during the lame duck session, and we are relieved that he has now committed to doing so well before Christmas."

Looking to the vote, Solmonese echoed comments made repeatedly by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying, "This has always been an issue of integrity for our military and the brave gay and lesbian service members who serve our country every day. America is ready for a vote and there's no need for anymore waiting."

As for that vote, the count was looking good by this evening. Of the 58 Democrats, the only whose vote appears to be in question is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), who was the sole Democrat who voted against the NDAA motion to proceed on Dec. 9.

Although Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) had not voted for the NDAA motion, she also had not voted against it. Later, it was found that she had been at the dentist at the time of the debate. This week, she signed on as a co-sponsor of the stand-alone repeal bill sponsored by Lieberman.

The final Democratic question came earlier today, when it was announced that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been diagnosed with cancer and has surgery scheduled for Monday. This evening, however, it was reported that he would be present for the Saturday votes.

As for the Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the lead co-sponsor of the bill.

That -- absent Manchin's vote -- would still leave repeal supporters with only 58 votes. This morning, however, a spokesperson for Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) told ABC News, "Sen. Brown accepts the Pentagon's recommendation to repeal the policy after proper preparations have been completed. If and when a clean repeal bill comes up for a vote, he will support it." So too will Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), whose office confirmed her support for the stand-alone bill to ABC News.

That, if all present and voting, would be the 60 necessary votes. Plus, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has announced general support for repeal without specifically endorsing the stand-alone bill and the office of Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has indicated that he is "sympathetic" to repeal.

Of other potential Republican votes for repeal, GOProud board chairman Christopher Barron told Metro Weekly tonight, "We are working some folks people would expect and some folks people wouldn't expect." 

Although he wouldn't name names, among the potential pick-up votes for repeal named by others (after those already mentioned) are five retiring senators: Sens. Bob Bennett (R-Utah); Kit Bond (R-Mo.); Judd Gregg (R-N.H.); George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Of those, Voinovich -- who has split with his party on notable occasions in the past -- is the most likely supporter. The other two names mentioned as possible "gets" for repeal are the newest senator, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), whose staff has suggested that he could be supportive of repeal.

Barron said of GOProud's efforts, "We are enlisting some friends and allies with close relationships to the target members to weigh in directly. Honestly, at this point it's direct member contact that is going to be key for in-play votes."

Barron added, "We believe the Toomey announcement has the potential of prying some votes free," referring to a statement earlier today from Senator-elect Toomey (R-Pa.) announcing that he would support a stand-alone repeal bill.

Echoing that, Log Cabin Republicans executive director Clarke Cooper earlier told Metro Weekly that, in addition to the three (Collins, Brown and Murkowski), there are as many as nine other Republicans who could potentially be supportive of repeal.

On Saturday, Dec. 18, potential will be come actual, when the cloture vote -- likely the last meaninglful opportunity for legislative DADT repeal -- is called.

The Palm Center's director, Aaron Belkin, minced no words in a statement tonight about the coming vote.

"As Senators consider the forthcoming vote on the stand-alone 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal bill, what matters most is the reality that prejudice is the only justification left for a vote against repeal," he said. "The Pentagon's own research supplements more than twenty studies that show allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly does not undermine military readiness, and that fears about hypothetical problems are groundless."

Belkin concluded, "Those who reject prejudice will vote to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' and those who embrace prejudice will vote to continue this policy."

[Slightly updated on Friday to reflect the full range of Republican senators mentioned as possible repeal votes. -Chris]

President Barack Obama issued a statement this evening supporting the House vote to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" today, saying, "I applaud the House for passing, with bipartisan support, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010."

In it, he added a subtle dig at criticism regarding aspects of repeal from some of the service chiefs, most notably comments made by Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos on Dec. 14.

Obama said, "[A]ll of the Service Chiefs have said that when this law is changed, they will implement an orderly transition effectively and efficiently. As the comprehensive study by the Department of Defense clearly shows, we can move to a new policy in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and our national security."

Of the action that remains, Obama managed to avoid uttering the word "Senate" in his statement, saying only, "Moving forward with the repeal is not only the right thing to do, it will also give our military the clarity and certainty it deserves."

Obama's full statement is below the jump.

[Edited throughout with final changes at 6:45 p.m.]

On a 250-175 vote (Roll Call No. 638), and with 15 Republicans supporting the measure, the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Dec. 15 -- in a chamber temporarily presided over by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) -- passed a stand-alone bill sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.) that is aimed at the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The bill now moves on to the Senate, where the House procedure employed today will stop an initial filibuster from preventing debate -- as happened this past week in the Senate -- but its end fate remains unclear. The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe reports today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)'s office "says the Senate will vote on DADT next week." As one advocate for repeal said, however, "the moment of truth on openly gay service comes down to the Senate."

In a sign of the Defense Department's increased engagement with the legislative process on the issue, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell issued a statement shortly after the vote, saying, "Secretary Gates is pleased that the House of Representatives has voted to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law. He encourages the Senate to pass the legislation this session, enabling the Department of Defense to carefully and responsibly manage a change in this policy instead of risking an abrupt change resulting from a decision in the courts."

With the same number of Democrats opposed to the measure as there were Republicans supporting it, the House bill nonetheless passed with more Republicans supporting the measure and fewer Democrats opposing the measure than did so in May. The bill also had one more affirmative vote than when the House passed a stand-alone version of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. In that vote, 249 members voted yes, 18 of whom were Republicans.

In a joint statement issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans, Stonewall Democrats, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Servicemembers United, and Third Way, the organizations aimed at repeal said that "[t]oday's vote by the House of Representatives provides another resounding indication that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can and should be repealed legislatively this year.

They continued, "With this second vote in favor of repeal, the House joins our top military leaders, a super-majority of Americans, the President, and a 60-vote majority in the Senate in agreeing that it is time to give the Pentagon the power to carry out its carefully crafted plans for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. With the Pentagon Working Group report in hand and the Secretary of Defense pleading for Congressional action, there is no more time for excuses—the Senate must follow the lead of the House and pass the bipartisan repeal legislation championed by Senators Lieberman and Collins before the end of the 111th Congress."

In addition to Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Anh 'Joseph' Cao (R-La.), Charles Djou (R-Hawaii), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) -- who voted for the repeal amendment in May -- ten additional Republicans supported repeal today. They were Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), John Campbell (R-Calif.), Mike Castle (R-Del.) Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), David Dreier (R-Calif.), Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Todd Platts (R-Pa.) and Dave Reichart (R-Wash.).

HRC president Joe Solmonese added, in his own statement, "Today the U.S. House of Representatives said, for the second time, what military leaders, the majority of our troops and 80 percent of the American public have been saying all along – the only thing that matters on the battlefield is the ability to do the job. Momentum is solidly on the side of ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Now it is up to the Senate to consign this failed and discriminatory law to the dustbin of history."

The Palm Center's deputy executive director, Christopher Neff, meanwhile, said the House vote "means that the moment of truth on openly gay service comes down to the Senate.

"The upcoming votes on stand-alone repeal legislation are votes about whether to support prejudice or to oppose it," he continued. "The evidence is conclusive: there is no military or legal rationale for 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

Stonewall Democrats executive director Michael Mitchell said in a statement, "The Democratic-led House did their part again for DADT repeal. Now it's back to the Senate, where a recalcitrant band of GOP obstructionists threaten to strangle the will of the people and the military regarding repeal. We call on the Senate to show the same courage and conviction that the House just did – personified by Rep. Patrick Murphy – and finally discharge DADT to the trash heap of history before this Congress ends."

The questions remain whether the Senate -- led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) -- will do so, what opposition will be put up by opponents and how hard the White House will push on the Senate to do so before ending the session.

As SLDN's executive director, Aubrey Sarvis, said in a statement, "We cannot underestimate Senators John McCain and Mitch McConnell, who will do everything they can to kill repeal.

"We need to fight back on any amendments as a change to the language will cause further delay. Repeal supporters must tell their Senators to vote with Majority Leader Reid and Chairman [Carl] Levin [(D-Mich.)] on the floor."

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), on the floor just now:

"It's not that young members of the military who face death, who face the destruction their comrades, they're not the ones who are upset by this. It's our colleagues on the other side who are imputing their unease at the presence of gay and lesbian people to the young people in the military, who I think are better than that."

And the debate goes on ...

The White House -- in a statement of administration policy just issued -- "strongly supports House passage" of the standalone House "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill.

Here it is:

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 – Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
(Rep. Murphy, D-Pennsylvania, and Rep. Hoyer, D-Maryland)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965, which would repeal the statute underlying "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" after the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that implementation of the necessary policies and regulations related to the statutory repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.  Congressional enactment of this legislation would allow a repeal to be implemented under terms and a timetable that would be informed by the advice of our military leadership.

The recently-released comprehensive study by the Department of Defense shows that overwhelming majorities of our Service members are prepared to serve with Americans who are openly gay or lesbian; it concludes that overall, and with thorough preparation, there would be low risk associated with the repeal.  The existing statute weakens our national security, diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental American principles of fairness, integrity, and equality.

* * * * * * *

Moments ago, on a 230-180 vote, the House of Representatives agreed to the rule adopted this morning in the Rules Committee for debate of the standalone bill aimed at repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Debate on the measure is to begin shortly and a vote is expected later this afternoon.

The bill, which is the same as that passed by the House as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act in May, will provide for the repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 -- the DADT provision in federal law -- upon the certification of the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that repeal will not negatively impact the readiness of the armed forces.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), who led the debate of the rule resolution for the Democrats, called out Republican opposition to the closed rule, which was led by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). Pingree said of the Republican opposition to the closed rule and the legislative procedure by which the bill is being brought to the floor that when the opposition doesn't have "substance," they go to "procedure."

Already, Servicemembers United is preparing for the next step: the Senate. 

In a release this afternoon, SU announced "Operation Renewed Engagement" -- not precisely identifying when the initial engagement had ended, but nontheless moving forward -- with executive director Alex Nicholson saying in a statement, "This lobbying blitz is intended to raise visibility for the issue on Capitol Hill, get the message across to Senate offices that we have more than 60 votes for repeal, and encourage Senators to agree to stay in session until the stand-alone repeal bill gets a vote." The SU release notes that 71 offices are being targeted in the effort.

The bill in the Senate, led by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) already has 46 co-sponsors, one of whom -- Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is a Republican.

The Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James Amos, made it clear when testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Dec. 3 that he opposed the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He also, however, said, "Could we implement repeal at this time? The answer is yes. ... We are Marines."

Today, however, Amos appeared to think less of the ability of the Marines to implement a repeal of the 1993 military policy banning open gay and lesbian service, focusing on the "distraction" it might cause and suggesting that DADT repeal could lead to a loss of life.

The comments led Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, to say in a statement that "General Amos needs to fall in line and salute or resign now."

As Kevin Baron from Stars and Stripes reported, Amos took questions from reporters at the Pentagon today, saying, "Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives. That's the currency of this fight.

"I take that very, very seriously," Amos said, according to Baron's report. "I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."

Aaron Belkin, the director of the Palm Center, told Metro Weekly, "Among those U.S. Marines who know a gay or lesbian peer in their unit, 88.1 percent say that the unit functions effectively. Gen. Amos is cherry-picking the data to support his 20th century views, and everyone knows it."

Belkin added, "Gen. Amos admitted [in his testimony on Dec. 3] that he is the only Service Chief who did not take the time to ask his colleagues in foreign militaries whether allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly undermines combat effectiveness."

Human Rights Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz echoed that point, saying in a statement, "The experience of all foreign militaries has been that the integration of gays and lesbians is accomplished successfully when it is done quickly and with the full support of military leaders. We're still hoping that General Amos heeds these lessons."

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, meanwhile, said in a statement that Amos's "commentary is moving from the realm of reasonable disagreement in the provision of professional military advice to hysteria-inducing absurdity on this topic that reflects very poorly on DOD and on the administration."

SLDN's Sarvis went on in his statement to say of Amos's comments, "He had his say before the Senate and House.  General Amos needs to stop lobbying against his Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. If he cannot do that, the President should ask for his resignation."

Sainz, as in his earlier comments, took a less stark tone, saying in a statement, "General Amos should be listening to his two bosses, the defense secretary and the joint chiefs chairman. Both have made it clear that a gradual and orderly process carried about by the Pentagon as a result of legislative repeal is a far better alternative than a judge’s decision that could bring about repeal overnight."

Amos's comments come as efforts for passage of standalone DADT repeal legislation got a boost with the announcement today that Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) was introducing a House version of the legislation introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) late this past week.

Spokespeople for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen -- both of whom have said they support legislative repeal of DADT this year -- did not respond to requests from Metro Weekly for comment on the commandant's concerns.

At the White House briefing today, however, when asked by The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld about the comments, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs would not respond directly, instead only pointing to the support for repeal from Obama, Gates and Mullen and the majority support for repeal in the Senate. A spokesman for President Barack Obama would not provide further comment beyond that offered by Gibbs at the briefing.

[Photo: Gen. James Amos testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on Dec. 3. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky reports the news that "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced that Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) will introduce a stand-alone ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"] repeal bill that he will co-sponsor and bring to the House floor in short order."

The bill is identical to S. 4023 -- the standalone DADT repeal bill introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- which, if passed without amendment, would prevent the need for a conference committee to sort out the differences between the two bills in the lame-duck session.

A spokeswoman from Murphy's office would only say that Hoyer was addressing the issue currently and that Murphy's office would commenting shortly.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said in a statement, "The swift introduction of an identical repeal bill in the House shows that continued efforts to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' this year are still very much alive and the process is moving forward."

Murphy -- the lead on DADT repeal in the House this past year -- is in his final days in Congress, having lost re-election to former Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) in November. Despite the loss, Murphy is pushing forward on the signature issue that led to his strong support from the LGBT community.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "We applaud  House Speaker Pelosi, Reps. Hoyer and Murphy for their extraordinary leadership in the waning hours of the lame-duck session."

Sarvis went on, though, with a caution, saying, "Let’s be clear: we’ll still need 60 votes in the Senate.  This 'privileged House bill will need to pass the full House and then move to the Senate.  While we avoid a cloture vote to proceed and save time on the Senate floor, we’ll still need 60 votes to complete the bill and send it directly to the President’s desk."

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "With the leadership of Rep. Murphy and Leader Hoyer, support for DADT repeal in Congress is at an all-time high. It is up to Congress to act this year to send this failed and discriminatory law to the dustbin of history."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) previously issued a statement saying that "an army of allies stands ready in the House to pass a standalone repeal of the discriminatory policy once the Senate acts." Now, however, it appears that the House will be moving first, a possibility previewed on Monday night by Politico's Josh Gerstein.

The late-breaking action in the lame-duck session comes on the heel's of the Senate's failure to proceed to debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, which had -- in the version passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House -- contained the DADT repeal language that is now being introduced as a standalone bill.

[UPDATE: Of the standalone DADT repeal bill being introduced today in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told Metro Weekly, "There would be no point doing this if there wasn't a real chance to get this done in the Senate."

Saying that the effort unveiled by Hoyer today happened only in conjunction with "conversations with the Senate," Frank said that a "number of Republicans have hidden behind procedure on this" -- but that "[t]hose [issues] appear to be getting resolved.

Saying that he was confident in the House's ability to pass the standalone repeal bill, he added of the Senate chances for passage, "I'd say there's a better than even chance."]

[UPDATE @ 12:15 PM: Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, issued the following statement, "The path to success is clear."

He went on to explain, in LCR's view, what is known and unknown at this time.

"We know that we have the votes to ensure bipartisan repeal.  We know that our military is ready and able to implement open service, and that both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have asked Congress to act," he said. "What we don't know is whether there is sufficient will among the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate to make repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' a priority."]

This morning, lawyers for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking the reinstatement of three servicemembers ousted under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," including former Air Force Major Mike Almy.

The lawsuit claims that the DADT-related discharges of the Almy, former Air Force Staff Sgt. Anthony Loverde and former Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason D. Knight were unconstituational violations of both due process and equal protection, as well as the First Amendment. These claims are the same, generally, as those raised in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States case.

In addition to those claims, SLDN -- along with lawyers from biglaw firm Morrison and Foerster -- raises the argument that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was violated when Almy's personal emails were searched and information found from that search was the basis of his discharge.

Almy testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March on the same day that former Lt. Dan Choi first handcuffed himself to the White House fence. Choi was discharged over the summer, and Almy -- today -- has asked the courts to let him back in.

SLDN has, with today's filing, made clear that it intends to follow through with its threat to increase the level of litigation aimed at ending DADT should Congress fail to act to repeal the 1993 law.

Executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "This filing is a shot across the bow as we prepare to pursue and sustain an aggressive far reaching litigation strategy if the Senate fails to act this month to repeal the law. 

"This dispute can be resolved by Congress or by the courts," he said. "With this filing we put Congress on notice that a cadre of service members and our national legal team stand ready to litigate strategically around the country."

The lead lawyer on the case, Andrew Woodmansee, is with Morrison and Foerster, and his bio includes significant work for the LGBT community:

In addition to his intellectual property practice, Mr. Woodmansee maintains an active pro bono practice, serving as trial and appellate counsel in several high-profile civil rights and First Amendment cases. He represents the plaintiffs in Barnes-Wallace, et al. v. Boy Scouts of America, et al., 551 F.3d 891 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, 2010 WL 1740539 (May 3, 2010). In that case, he won two summary judgment rulings in 2003 and 2004 on behalf of his clients, an agnostic couple and a lesbian couple, as well as their Scouting-age boys. The Court ruled that the City of San Diego's free leases of 18 acres in Balboa Park and one acre in Mission Bay Park to the Boy Scouts violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the No Aid and No Preference Clauses of the California Constitution. In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that his clients have standing to pursue their claims, and it certified three questions of state law to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the Boy Scouts' appeal on the standing issue.

He also serves as lead counsel in Fehrenbach v. Department of the Air Force, et al. (D. Idaho), challenging the Air Force's efforts to discharge his client, Lt. Col. Victor J. Fehrenbach, under the law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Mr. Woodmansee also has briefed cases before a number of appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, as well as the California Supreme Court.

Read the complaint: Almy Complaint.pdf

[UPDATE @ 6:40 PM: The APA does not apply to "military authority exercised in the field in time of war or in occupied territory," according to Sec. 551(1)(G). This exception could prove relevant in this case. Here is the relevant part of today's Complaint:

Airmen in Iraq were forced to use government-provided computers and email accounts for personal correspondence.  Specifically, AFI 33-119 authorized service members to use their government email accounts for personal correspondence for “morale, health, and welfare purposes.”  Mr. Almy therefore used his Air Force email account for personal emails.  Shortly after Mr. Almy left Iraq in January 2005, during a purportedly “routine” search of his computer files, another member of the Air Force found personal emails in a separate folder labeled “Friends,” including at least one email from Mr. Almy to another man discussing same-sex conduct.

Because the emails that led to Almy's discharge were sent while he was deployed in Iraq, I asked Woodmansee whether that exception applied. Woodmansee replied, "I suppose the government could argue that (G) provides an exclusion in this case, but I do not believe it does." He did not explain further, but among the arguments for it not being applicable here is that it could be argued that the search was a personnel issue and not an exercise of "military authority."]

[Photo: SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis, left, with Mike Almy, second from left, and others at the SLDN rally for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal on Friday. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Photo: Michelle Benecke -- a co-founder of SLDN -- rallies the crowd to urge congressional action still this year. (Photo by Dylan Comstock.)]

One day after the Senate failed to proceed to debate on the bill containing a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a dedicated crowd joined members of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on the crisp December day to urge the Senate to stay in session until the 1993 military law is repealed. 

[For Metro Weekly's video from today's rally and an interview with SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis, see below the jump.]

Michelle Benecke, a co-founder of SLDN, told the crowd, "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is a big lie. Members of Congress should stay in session to repeal it."

"If we miss this window," she said, "it will be years before legislation could make its way make to the floor."

The vehicle to do so -- S. 4022 -- was introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and initially co-sponsored Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.). The office of one of the co-sponsors confirmed that the bill contains the same language as the amendment included in the National Defense Authorization Act. Additional co-sponsors have since joined the effort, and Lieberman said on Thursday that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised to bring the bill to a vote in this year's lame-duck session.

The process for doing so, however, is rife with complications. As the Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Fred Sainz told Metro Weekly this morning, though, "There's no doubt that this process is complex but this can get done. It should get done. It will simply require the dedication and creativity of all parties."

The bill would need to be passed in both chambers of Congress, which could happen rather quickly under House rules but would require some precious lame-duck floor time in the Senate. As Udall said on Thursday, though, "I'm willing to stay through the holidays to debate it as a stand-alone measure."

At today's SLDN rally, which appeared to be co-sponsored by nearly as many organizations as there were attendees, all eyes (and cameras) were on veterans -- from former Air Force Major Mike Almy, who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year about his DADT discharge, to former Army Sgt. Pepe Johnson.

Almy focused on Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who voted against the motion to proceed to debate on the National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday. From Dayton, Ohio, Almy said that Voinovich -- who did not run for re-election and is in his last days as a senator -- must stay until repeal is completed in order to ensure that his legacy is one of fairness.

Johnson, meanwhile, slammed his home-state senator as well. A proud West Virginian, Johnson told Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) -- the sole Democrat to vote against the motion to proceed on Thursday -- how he felt about Thursday's vote.

"I was embarrassed because Joe Manchin decided to be a lone ranger -- and vote against the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' He said he'd only been in office for three weeks so he didn't have a chance to hear from the people of WV" he said. "You have heard from the people of West Virginia. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Sen. Goodwin, Sen. Rockefeller -- they all voted in favor of repeal. You've heard from the troops. There's a study."

"We're just as capable, and we care as much about this country as everyone else," Johnson said. "We're not here with some kind of agenda -- except for maybe that 'freedom' agenda.

"That's why we serve. That's why we want to wear the uniform. Because this is our country."

[UPDATE @ 5 PM: Near the end of the day, several organizations supporting DADT repeal issued a statement supportive of and hopeful about the Lieberman effort:

Today, Servicemembers United, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Third Way, Log Cabin Republicans, and Stonewall Democrats released the following joint statement on continued efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before the end of the year:

"Despite the unfortunate result of the Senate's cloture vote on the defense authorization bill, there  are other viable legislative options to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' before Congress adjourns, and a solid 60-vote Senate majority still in favor of repeal. With commitments on record from the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House to move this new bill, as well as Secretary Gates' urgent and renewed request that repeal happen in this Congress, we are confident repeal can still happen this year."]

[Photo, above right: The speakers at today's SLDN rally. Photo, below: The crowd gathers at today's rally to end DADT. (Photos by Dylan Comstock.)]

[Photo, above left: Former Sgt. Pepe Johnson speaks at today's DADT repeal rally. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Every vote matters. Today, it came down to three votes.

Each vote today rather perfectly fits with criticism being levied behind the scenes right now as people regroup and begin pushing for a stand-alone bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Although there is a desire to move on, there also is a need to look at what went wrong before advocates try this again. Moreover, none of this is to say that the advocates or others -- including the media, for that matter -- don't deserve criticism.

Each of the three votes that led to the 57-40 failing of the motion to proceed on the National Defense Authorization Act today, though, can serve as a tidy description of a failing of one of the main players today.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) managed to find a way to hold the must-win vote to proceed to debate on the NDAA with a member of his caucus absent who later came to the floor to say that she would have voted yes on the vote had she been in attendance. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) -- who had voting against proceeding to debate on the bill in September -- was, per Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), at the dentist at the time of the vote.

If Reid was looking to see any close vote pass -- let alone a must-win, lame-duck, time-sensitive vote -- one would hope that he would have made sure that all of his party's yes votes were available to vote. The move, though, is just emblematic of the procedural criticism that has been thrown at him since the September vote -- which also failed. Most observers of the process knew that a vote held prior to the consideration of the tax-cut bill this week was a doomed cause. Nonetheless, Reid moved to reconsider the bill today -- although he has since pushed out his reasoning of why he took the vote when he did. He did so, according to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), without even informing her -- the primary Republican who supports repeal -- that he was going to do so.

Collins -- who was the sole Republican in committee to vote to include DADT repeal in the NDAA -- meanwhile, failed to get the support of even one Republican to support the procedural vote today. Despite breaking with her party on the vote, she was not able to bring along Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who announced on Wednesday that she supports repeal, stood on the floor conferring with Collins in the last moments of the vote and had not voted either way in the initial round of voting on the motion.

If and when Collins decided to vote for the motion to proceed -- if she wanted it to be seen as more than show -- she should have done so in a meaningful way that would have gotten additional Republican support. And yet, she was unable to get Murkowski's support -- despite whatever last-minute discussion happened on the floor. There were others, from the brand-new Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) to repeal supporter Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) to the retiring Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), whose votes were considered possibilities but that she also was not able to secure.

Finally, President Barack Obama managed to lose the vote of one of the newest Democratic members of Congress, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), on what is supposed to be one of the White House's lame-duck priorities. The White House has said that Obama reached out to senators from both parties, so one has to presume that Manchin was one of those senators Obama contacted -- although the White House did not respond to an inquiry asking about Obama's efforts to secure Manchin's vote.

What's more, Manchin pretty well threw Obama under the bus as he left the Senate today, saying that "some believe that President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, if he so chooses, has the authority to suspend discharges under DADT." Obama has had to deal with troubling senators of his own party throughout his time as president, but -- as with the loss of Lincoln and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) in September -- presidential leadership on an issue is always going to be questioned when Democrats stray from the party on must-win votes.

If the effort that Lieberman and Collins announced to put forth a stand-alone DADT repeal bill in this Congress still is to succeed, these failings from supporters of repeal -- among Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House -- could be the key to ending three votes -- or more -- up.

President Barack Obama released a statement following the Senate's failure to proceed to debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, which contained the language aimed at repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Saying that he is "extremely disappointed that yet another filibuster has prevented the Senate" from considering the NDAA, he blamed the failure on "a minority of Senators" who he said "are standing in the way of the funding upon which our troops, veterans and military families depend."

Of DADT specifically, he said it "violates fundamental American principles of fairness, integrity and equality." This is about as close as one can come to saying that it is unconstitutional without explicitly doing so.

Finally, he thanks the four senators at the center of the negotiations/breakdown thereof for their work -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- and "urge[s] the Senate to revisit these important issues during the lame duck session"

Obama's full statement is below the jump.

[UPDATE @ 7:00 PM: Speaker Nancy Pelosi jumps in, supporting the Lieberman/Collins standalone bill, which has Reid's support:

Since the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has broad support among Senators, our troops, and the American people, it is my hope that that the Senate will move forward with an alternative legislative method. The bipartisan proposal from Senators Lieberman and Collins provides renewed hope that progress is still possible in the Senate; an army of allies stands ready in the House to pass a standalone repeal of the discriminatory policy once the Senate acts.

Her full statement can be found here.]

[UPDATE @ 7:10 PM: White House spokesman Shin Inouye clarifies what "revisit these important issues" means, writing to Metro Weekly, "The President is committed to working with Congress to achieve a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. The White House is willing to explore all legislative options to reach this goal during the lame duck session."]

Following a showdown in the well of the U.S. Senate between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the vote to proceed to debate on the National Defense Authorization Act -- the bill that contains the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal amendment -- failed to secure the 60 votes needed for passage of the procedural vote. Passage only would have led to debate on the bill, not passage of the bill itself.

Even that, though, was too much for the partisan squabble that made its way to the chamber Thursday afternoon and ended in a 57-40 vote, three votes shy of those needed for debate.

With Reid praising Collins's work and saying that she should not be criticized, the majority leader attacked other Republicans for "stalling" consideration of the defense bill. Collins, who eventually voted yes to proceed, was not joined by any of her Republican colleagues, including Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- who have said that they support repeal. Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) also voted no. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) was, apparently, at the dentist's office, and unable to vote. She came to the floor after the vote, saying, "would like to have been recorded as voting yes. ... Had I been here, I would have voted yes."

Quickly, however, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), joined by Collins, held a news conference to announce an effort for a stand-alone bill, which Lieberman said should have more than 60 votes.

That effort, due to the timing, was just taking shape and would be difficult despite the support of Reid and others. As Lieberman said, "We're not kidding ourselves; this will not be easy." In addition, the House would have to take action to pass the stand-alone bill, and it was not immediately clear if this possibility had been discussed with the House leadership, which supports repeal.

The NDAA vote, however, was a big loss for advocates fighting all year to get the measure to repeal DADT through Congress.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, "Today leaders of both parties let down the U.S. military and the American people. Instead of doing what is right, 'the world's greatest deliberative body' devolved into shameful schoolyard spats that put petty partisan politics above the needs of our women and men in uniform.    

"This fight is too important to give up despite this setback and we will continue fighting in this lame duck session. It's not over."

The Palm Center's deputy executive director, Christopher Neff, agreed, saying in a statement, "There is no legal or military rationale for the current law, only prejudice. It is now up to our civil leaders to consider every available legislative, executive and judicial option to move beyond 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson discussed the option being sought by Lieberman in a statement, saying, "Since the votes are there in isolation, the Senate should still consider a stand-alone bill to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law before adjourning for the winter holidays."

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said of Lieberman's proposal, "We need to be on the bill that moves, period. We support Sen. Lieberman's plan to move a standalone bill. 

"We also believe another viable option is the Continuing Resolution (CR) coming over from the U.S. House of Representatives," he said in the statement. "The Senate and the President must remain in session and in Washington to find another path for repeal to get done in the lame-duck."

HRC, which announced support for the stand-alone bill, also raised the possibility of a stop-loss order.

"The Senate's apparent refusal to act on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal makes Presidential action imperative in order for him to fulfill his state of the union promise," Solmonese said. "The only measure of success is an end to the discharges and anything less is unacceptable."

The HRC release notes, "Under his powers to ensure national security following the September 11 attacks, the President has the ability to issue stop-loss orders preventing certain service members from discharge. Pending an enduring solution to this unjust and discriminatory law, the President can and should suspend DADT-related discharges under the stop-loss provision."

Minutes after the vote Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) went to the floor to criticize the Senate's failure to move forward on the defense bill today and to echo Lieberman's recommendation, saying of DADT repeal, "I'm willing to stay through the holidays to debate it as a stand-alone measure."

"The best way to change the policy" is through Congress," he said. "The vote that we just had means that we won't have a debate on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

Nicholson agreed, "This was a major failure on the part of the Senate to simply do its job and pass an annual defense authorization bill. Politics prevailed over responsibility today, and now more than one million American servicemembers, including tens of thousands of gay and lesbian troops, are worse off as a result."

At today's White House press briefing -- awaiting word from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on the status of the National Defense Authorization Act vote -- spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked multiple questions about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. First, Gibbs was asked if the NDAA still could be considered and passed with DADT repeal included in the lame-duck session of Congress.

Gibbs responded, "I think it can and I think in as you mentioned, Jonathan, there are a number of individual senators that have come out in support of ending an unjust policy. As I said yesterday, the president has made calls to Democrats and Republicans on both 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the DREAM Act ...."

Gibbs later was asked about what would happen if DADT repeal is not accomplished in this Congress.

Gibbs replied, "Our efforts our focused [on legislative repeal] through Congress."

Referncing Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gibbs added, "There's no better advocate than Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen in believing how much this needs to get done this year.

"The president strongly believes that one of two things are going to happen: Either Congress is going to decide this legislatively, or the courts are going to decide this. And, uh, the policy is going to come to an end. Congress has to ask themselves how they want to end this -- what role they want to play in ensuring that it's done in an orderly way."

This morning, the Senate was to vote on three measures, including the reconsideration of the National Defense Authorization Act with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal measure. After voting on the first two, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) came to the floor to announce a pause for a "little bit" on the NDAA vote. 

Reid first said that it was his hope that the Senate "can very quickly lay down the tax bill." Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) then added, "It's my understanding it's complete and ready. And, actually -- we could move to that very soon, in the next hour or so."

This is essential to meet the unified Republican demand that the tax-cut package be worked out prior to any GOP support for proceeding on any other legislation.

Referencing earlier comments today from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Reid then went on, saying, "[Levin] gave a speech here today saying that if we don't get on the defense bill today, then we won't get it done this year. So, in the next little bit, I'm going to make a decision whether I'm going to move to reconsider the vote on that bill. And I want everyone to know that's what I'm going to do.

"I appreciate everyone's help on this including Senator Levin, Senator [Joseph] Lieberman [(I-Conn.)], Senator [Susan] Collins [(R-Maine)] who has worked with me trying to see some way to get this completed -- but I'll make this decision in the next little bit."

Levin earlier had said, per Politico's Josh Gerstein:

"If we don't proceed on this bill this week, then invoking cloture sometime next week, even if we can do it, would be a symbolic victory," Levin said, arguing that there would not be sufficient time to conference the measure with the House before both bodies adjourn for the year. "The onlt way that this will be real and that the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' assuming we continue to keep it in the bill, will be real is if we proceed to the bill this week. We cannot and should not delay this vote any longer."

This prompted a response from the Human Rights Campaign's Fred Sainz, who wrote to Metro Weekly, "If senators move forward with a vote on NDAA before a deal has been solidified, the vote will fail and all key players will share the responsibility."

Apparently, Reid decided, at least, to hold off for a "little bit," though it is not clear if that bit will be enough time to reach a deal that will garner Collins's vote.

Moreover, Log Cabin Republicans' executive director Clarke Cooper said, [I]t is up to the Majority Leader to make that possible by dealing with the tax issue and moving swiftly to a debate on defense authorization," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.  "Senator Susan Collins has presented the majority leader with a plan that is entirely reasonable, accepting the Majority Leader's suggested number of amendments and simply asking for four days time to debate this complicated and consequential bill.  There has been no response from the majority leader. "

Using the following statement put out this evening by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), here is some analysis of how I see today's National Defense Authorization consideration/"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal developments.

Hint: The repeal train was constantly teetering from side to side and likely almost fell off the tracks a few times, were it not for Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and a potentially repeal-saving blink from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Read in between each line, and you see a picture of today painted pretty clearly:

SENATOR COLLINS’ STATEMENT ON DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL NEGOTIATIONS
 
WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senator Susan Collins, who supports repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” [Noted.] released this statement tonight.

“Senator Joe Lieberman and I continue to negotiate in good faith with the Majority Leader [Collins is pretty directly claiming Lieberman as being on "her side" in this, which appears fitting in light of Lieberman's strong defense of her earlier today.] to try and come up with a fair process under which the important Defense Authorization bill could be considered in the limited time remaining in this session. [Important. Limited.] Without a fair process, the motion to proceed to the bill would likely fail in the U.S. Senate. [By acting in a way in which she gets to define the terms, however, she's pushing Reid.]

"Senator Lieberman and I requested a meeting with Senator Harry Reid last week [Both of them. She's making it clear that she believes she has been looking to reach a deal for a while.] during which we outlined a specific plan for allowing debate and amendments similar to how the Senate has considered the authorization bill in the past.
 
"It wasn’t until 1:35 pm today that I received a legitimate offer from Senator Reid [Slam. Without noting Reid's morning call for a "likely" vote this evening, she implies that any "bad faith" here came from him. Her qualifier of "legitimate," however, does soften the blow of that. Also, there are several sentences here that could prompt a response from Reid; this is the most clear of those.], which I consider a good starting point. [Negotiations are ongoing.] We made a counter offer which would provide sufficient time for debate, and includes protections to help ensure that Republicans would be able to offer a limited but fair number of amendments that are relevant to this legislation. [She did -- "15 guaranteed votes on amendments (10 for Republicans, and 5 for Democrats), and somewhere around four days to debate the bill" -- and he has it.]

"I am encouraged that the Majority Leader decided to postpone the vote he had scheduled for tonight. [This is true. Had he not, and had she held by her pledge to vote no, the odds are fairly certain that DADT repeal would be dead for the year. It would have set up a partisan vote, and Reid could have then attempted to use that to move on to a stripped-down NDAA. That would have caused an uproar, no doubt, but a losing vote tonight would have been a killer.] I urged him to do this so that we could consider the tax legislation first, which I believe could be on the floor as early as tomorrow and completed quickly.  At that point, I believe we could move immediately to the Defense Authorization bill under a fair agreement, and I would vote to do so. [This is could be essential for there being enough time left for the debate on the NDAA that Collins is requesting. It also appears to be the key to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)'s vote as well.] I would hope he carefully considers our proposal.  I believe we have outlined a very clear path forward for the Majority Leader to take that would allow this very important debate to occur." [It's this, as with the above statement about the "fair process," where one could question Collins's motives. Does she personally want all 10 GOP amendments to the NDAA, etc., or is she pushing a partisan agenda regarding the NDAA in spite of her personal support for DADT repeal? That's not to make a judgment on whether she or Reid is the one being more partisan; it's just the obvious counter-point to the direction of the statement issued by Collins.]
 
###

The bottom line for today is that neither side blew up negotiations, Collins laid her demand on the table, and repeal prospects likely improved heading into Thursday.

[NOTE: Kudos to TPM's Brian Beutler -- to whose work several of the links in this piece are directed -- for great reporting today on the DADT scene.]

On the floor of the Senate just now, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, "I am working with Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin & others to try and come up with some way to move forward on the defense bill, but, we'll see if that can be done."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the "tip of the spear" -- per Log Cabin Republicans' Clarke Cooper -- for Republican support for the National Defense Authorization Act, about which Reid was speaking and which contains the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal amendment.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) has been one of the key supporters of repeal, as has Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This morning, Reid said he would hold a vote this evening on a motion to reconsider the NDAA. Just now, however, he said it will likely be hours before the Senate even can vote on the DREAM Act, a bill the vote for which is supposed to come before a vote can be held on the NDAA.

The time may be good for the negotiations on the NDAA, which have been rough today, as Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo recently reported.

Most observers believe that all of the Democrats will vote yes on the motion to proceed, although the votes of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) have been in question and their offices are yet to confirm what their vote would be on the motion today. Meanwhile, even that only would give 58 votes, so the Republican votes of Sens. Collins, Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) could be key. All three have now said they support DADT repeal, but all three likewise have give procedural caveats as to when they would vote to consider repeal.

If Collins comes on board, other Republican votes could appear, too, including fellow Maine senator Sen. Olympia Snowe. Other possible Republicans are Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), as well as retiring Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

UPDATE @ 5:35 PM: The Daily Caller's Chris Moody reports, "Collins just said she will support DADT repeal, but only if Senate resolves tax rate extension first." Likewise, The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe: "Sen. Collins tells reporters she's NOT voting tonight to move forward on [NDAA] DADT if it comes up."

Well, that's not good. It comes back to the tax-cut issue, which I raised throughout the day. So, the question now is if Reid tries to get Collins back on board for tonight, pulls the vote -- which he only said was "likely" -- or holds what appears to be an almost definitely unsuccessful vote.

UPDATE @ 6:10 PM: CNN's Evan Glass: "Harry Reid will postpone tonight's vote on DADT repeal; negotiations w[ith] wavering Republicans continue."

So, that's a night. No vote.

"Staffers" quoted anonymously by various news outlets about the chances of passage for any consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act prompted a critical reaction from one of the prominent supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).

After a report from National Journal -- referenced earlier at Metro Weekly -- this morning noted that "several congressional aides" said the National Defense Authorization Act containing DADT repeal "appears likely to be successfully filibustered," Lieberman issued a statement stating, "Senator [Susan] Collins [(R-Maine)] has been working in good faith to achieve an agreement on the process to move forward with the defense bill that contains the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I categorically reject reports by uninformed staffers who have suggested otherwise."

While not disputing that, Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, told Metro Weekly, "I've communicated with twenty Republican Senate offices today. All were surprised about the announcement for a cloture vote this evening and all were understandably interested to see if the Majority Leader would make room for Republican amendments on the NDAA."

Cooper later confirmed that his assessment included communication with the offices of Sens. Collins and Scott Brown (R-Mass.), both of whom have expressed support for the repeal of DADT.

Lieberman, who has been saying for weeks that he believes the votes for repeal exist, said of Collins's work on the issue, "As she always does, Senator Collins is working diligently and across party lines to find solutions to the challenges that confront our country. I call on those responsible for such baseless allegations to stop immediately and instead work to get to an agreement to bring this critical bill to the floor for Senate action."

Cooper "concur[red]" with Lieberman's assessment, adding, "Sen. Collins has been and remains the tip of the spear for pro-repeal Republicans."

[UPDATE @ 3:25/3:35 PM: National Journal's Marc Ambinder reports: "A few GOPers have privately indicated that they'll vote to open debate ... so long as another GOPer goes first." Among those could be Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who The Daily Caller's Chris Moody reports is considering voting to proceed to debate on the NDAA. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent, meanwhile, confirmed from her spokeswoman that Murkowski now supports DADT repeal.

Murkowski's statement:

After reviewing the DOD report and the testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee by Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, I have concluded that it is time to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law. ...

However, my support for moving the Defense Authorization bill forward, which includes a repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, will depend on whether the majority allows for an open and fair amendment process. This is a weighty, policy-laden bill that normally takes several weeks to debate and amend. If the majority attempts to push it through allowing little or no debate or votes on amendments, I will be inclined to oppose those efforts.

Murkowski's full statement can be found below the jump.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones's David Corn reports that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at today's White House briefing that the Senate is "very, very close" to repealing DADT.]

Of the statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he is "likely" to bring up the NDAA -- including DADT repeal -- for a vote this evening, Lieberman said in the statement, "We are making progress toward an agreement to move forward on the defense bill that includes the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and I remain confident that we can reach an agreement, which is necessary before any vote on the motion to reconsider is taken. I am working closely with Senator Reid and Senator Collins and other members who want to reach a fair and reasonable agreement to move the defense authorization bill that that is so essential to the needs of our troops, veterans, and their families.

He concluded, "It is now more clear than ever that we have 60 or more votes in support of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' so it is vitally important to reach agreement on the right process to move forward."

Regarding that process, Cooper told Metro Weekly that "[t]alk ranges from 7 to 12 up to 15 amendments for our [Republican] side."

The secondary issue, referenced earlier at Metro Weekly, is the fact that the tax-cut package -- despite the agreement from the President on the deal that would extend all the tax cuts -- has not been passed and that Republicans said they would not move forward on either legislation until the tax-cut issue was resolved.

Cooper noted about that, "Many offices, including [Scott] Brown, noted the need to complete the tax relief legislation prior to work on the NDAA."

A call seeking comment from Collins's press secretary was not immediately returned.

[Photo: Adm. Robert Papp, Jr., the head of the U.S. Coast Guard, meeting with Sen. Susan Collins. (Photo from Collins's Web site.)]

[Further Update: Lieberman Slams "Uninformed Staffers" Commenting on NDAA/DADT Talks, LCR's Cooper Talks About GOP Reaction Today.]

[UPDATED @ 12:50 P.M.]

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) announced what was reported as a possibility on Tuesday night -- that a vote on the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision aimed at repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is likely this evening.

[UPDATE: White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly, "The President has been reaching out to Senators from both sides of the aisle to reiterate his desire to see Congress pass the National Defense Authorization Act, including a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', during the lame duck."]

One advocate, however, already this morning is throwing out a warning to Reid. Servicemembers United's Alex Nicholson said Reid must be reasonable with the NDAA amendment process or "he will be intentionally throwing the vote."

Robert Raben, a former Clinton Justice Department official who now runs a lobbying firm, was incredulous. He told Metro Weekly, "In what fictional universe is moving forward as those of us who want to lift the ban have insisted upon to be greeted with anything but 'at last, thank you'?"

Because the vote to proceed to debating the NDAA failed in September, Reid voted against it for procedural purposes so that he later could bring the bill back as a motion to reconsider. He said this morning that he is on the path to doing so tonight.

On the floor today, Reid said, "I'm likely going to move to my motion to reconsider on the defense authorization act this evening. Allowing, as I will indicate at that time, time for amendments to that piece of legislation."

Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said in a statement this morning, "Reid is actively reaching out to his Republican colleagues to reach an agreement on how to proceed. We also know from Hill sources the President is actively working today's vote with key Republican senators. Today the Senate has an opportunity to make the nation's defense funding and our service members a higher priority than tax cuts for millionaires."

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, was more cautious. "If Senator Reid is planning to bring up the vote on the defense bill today, we certainly hope that he has confirmed that our Republican votes are ready to proceed based on the tax cut deal," he said. "We have not yet received confirmation on that one way or the other."

The Palm Center's deputy executive director, Christopher Neff, stressed in a statement the importance of presidential leadership.

"This has been a roller-coaster year for the debate over gays in the military," Neff said. "The President set a course for repeal during his State of the Union address and this Senate vote may be the steepest hurdle of this 17-year fight. This is the President's vote and his leadership can make the difference today."

It is not clear at this time whether Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) or Scott Brown (R-Mass.) will vote for the reconsideration. Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper said in a statement that "[t]here is strong bipartisan support for passing the National Defense Authorization Act and ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' if Republicans are given a fair say in the final version of the defense bill."

The National Journal, however, reports: "That bill appears likely to be successfully filibustered by Senate Republicans, however, several congressional aides said. GOP moderates have insisted on an open amendment process, which Reid appears unlikely to grant. Defeat of the bill could open the door to move a 'stripped down,' version of the measure without the repeal of the law on gays in the military, said one source familiar with talks on the bill."

Of those issues, Nicholson told Metro Weekly, "If Senator Reid has received confirmation that Republican supporters of repeal are satisfied with the tax cuts deal, then the issue becomes the number of amendments and amount of floor time that Senator Reid is offering on the bill. As of this morning, it is our understanding that he is still lowballing his offer and presumably hoping that we will just blame 'the Republicans.'  If he does not move his offer into the realm of reasonableness, then he will be intentionally throwing the vote when he brings it up."

Raben, however, shot back. "People should spend more time getting us over the finish line, and less questioning the motives of our very few champions," he told Metro Weekly.

In addition to the amendment process, questions remain about whether Republicans will vote to proceed on any legislation other than tax cuts. Despite the White House deal on them, the Senate has not yet voted on the package and all 42 Republicans told Reid they would not proceed on any legislation until the tax-cut issue was resolved.

Video of Reid, c/o the Wonk Room:

A strong -- and lengthy -- statement from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis this morning, calling on the Senate to stay in session until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed -- an idea supported by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Sarvis said in the statement, "With increased pressure - a raised voice - and help from our allies at this key moment, I believe the Senate will stay in session. We will hit 60 votes." The organization, as part of that raised voice, is calling for a pro-repeal rally "outside the Senate this Friday."

From the release:

• WHAT: MISSION INCOMPLETE: NO SENATE VACATION UNTIL THE TASK IS FINISHED
• WHO: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and anyone else who supports repeal
• WHERE: Constitution Ave. and Delaware Ave., NE, Upper Senate Park, North of U.S. Capitol
• WHEN: Friday, December 10, 2010, noon ET

Sarvis:

"We call upon the Senate and the President to remain in session and in Washington until the National Defense Authorization Act is passed – which includes the repeal of 'Don’t Ask.'  The Senate is scheduled to break for holiday vacation; we can’t let them leave. We must show our rage for repeal and insist the Senate stay in Washington until they have finished the job. We implore all who support repeal to join us outside the Senate this Friday. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, 'If not now, when?'

The full statement is below the jump.

Meanwhile, Igor Volsky at the Wonk Room reports that West Virginia's new senator, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.V.) "is now hinting that he would vote against lifting the ban in the lame duck session."

President Barack Obama today announced he had reached a "framework" with Republicans regarding tax cuts, unemployment insurance and other related provisions, which could allow for other bills -- including "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal -- to move forward in the lame-duck session of Congress. A senior administration official said, however, that the tax-cut deal did not provide for any specific guarantees about any legislation other than that tax-cut package itself.

This past week, all 42 Republican senators had sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) telling him, "[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

This unified front raised significant questions about the opportunity to pass other lame-duck priorities for Democrats, including the New START treaty, the National Defense Authorization Act that includes DADT repeal language and the DREAM Act.

Senior administration officials discussed the tax-cut framework with reporters this evening. Asked by Metro Weekly whether these other lame-duck legislative proposals possibly being considered were raised in the course of the negotiations on the tax-cut measure, a senior administration official said, "This was a deal simply to resolve the tax issue."

As such, it remains unclear whether Democrats will be able to get the necessary support from Republicans to proceed to debate the NDAA in the lame-duck session.

The senior administration official added, though, "It should not impact the other priorities the president has for the lame-duck, including START; the DREAM Act; and the defense bill, including 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal.

"The president still strongly supports those things and is going to try to accomplish them in the Senate."

Prior to the deal being announced, White House spokesman Shin Inouye had echoed that comment, writing, "The White House remains fully committed to passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, including the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, during the lame duck. This is a priority for the President, and are we confident that the Congress will be able to address this issue this year."

[Photo: President Obama at a news conference on Sept. 10, 2010. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Here's the FAQ about today's two-hour oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is now under way before the three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I am live-tweeting here.

[UPDATE: Below, post-argument and cleaned up, is the summary.]

Standing Argument By Proponents

Charles Cooper, who had led the trial team of the proponents before the trial court, argued today for the proponents. He argued that the proponents had standing to bring the appeal by stating that state law had given proponents standing to defend their proposition.

Smith pointed out that Strauss -- the earlier California case -- dealt with proponents as agents of the proposition. Here, though, they are acting as agents of the state. Smith: "We're in a different situation here."

Earlier, Cooper said, "I don't have a case for allowing a proponent Article III standing."

Not good.

Standing Argument By Imperial County

Worse.

Robert Tyler, the lawyer from Advocates for Faith and Freedom, was not even certain whether the clerk in Imperial County was elected or appointed. The question being debated is whether the deputy county clerk has the ability represent county and bring action to defend state law.

Smith asks: If the AG represents the clerks, how could the clerks have standing themselves? Tyler could only respond that they should have standing because no other gov't party will defend Proposition 8.

Standing Opposition Argument By Plaintiffs

David Boies represents the plaintiffs.

Smith asks Boies if governor and attorney general "nullified, in effect" the decision of the voters by not defending the case. Boies says they're not nullifying it. Smith: Why? Boies: "No, because they are enforcing it right now."

Reinhardt, though, says, "Where the governor is not supposed to have a veto ... [this] does not seem to [fit] with the initiative system."

Boies counters: "The fact that there's no one to defend doesn't give standing."

Smith asks, "If they don't defend it, are they, in fact, not defending the statute?" Boies replies, "That's a state issue" to be decided by state courts and is not sufficient to create standing.

Reinhardt suggests the Ninth Circuit could send a certified question to the California Supreme Court about whether California law grants proponents standing to defend the enacted initiative, saying, "I don't see what we lose by [certifying the question]."

Boies said that even if California law gives standing to proponents, that doesn't necessarily give Article III federal court standing because federal standing is different than state law. Boies also points out the California Supreme Court could have issued a mandate to Gov. Schwarzenegger and A.G. Brown to defend Proposition 8. When given the opportunity to do so, they didn't.

Constitutional Defense By Proponents

"This is nothing like the racial restrictions in Loving where there was no rational basis whatsoever that could be perceive," Cooper said.

But Hawkins goes right to the meat, "If California voters approved a racial segregation proposition, would it be unconstitutional?" Cooper concedes that "it would be."

The test that applies, Cooper says, is rational basis for sexual orientation. He adds, "We believe there clearly is a rational basis."

Cooper begins talking about the "accidental procreation" or "irresponsible procreation" argument, which more or less says that same-sex couples don't need marriage -- or, at least, that the state needn't support it -- because procreation is always intentional.

Reinhardt replies skeptically, "That sounds like a good argument against divorce. But [what's that got to do with gay couples]?"

Then, Smith jumps in, asking what the rational basis is for the marriage exclusion if California is giving "homosexual couples" everything else? Cooper replies, "It's the institution. The word is the institution. ... The name of marriage is effectively the institution."

Cooper is now trying to explain a difference between Proposition 8 and Colorado's Amendment 2 that was struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, saying Amendment 2 was very broad and that's why it was struck down. Proposition 8, he says, is narrow.

Cooper, in response to a question about Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case about same-sex marriage that was dismissed by the Supreme Court "for want of a substantial federal question," says, "I believe that Baker is binding on this court." Baker has debatable precedential value, but everyone agrees -- even Cooper -- that this isn't Baker because Proposition 8 took away a right after the California Supreme Court said it was protected.

Reinhardt notes, "They took things away in Romer[, too.]" #Prop8

Smith is asking about whether a state that doesn't have domestic partner benefits has a stronger argument for rational basis, returning to his earlier line of questioning. Cooper says it's the opposite. Says California has done what it can without "redefining marriage."

Finally, asked about heightened scrutiny, Cooper says he believes that his case can be won even under heightened scrutiny.

Constitutional Argument By Plaintiffs

Ted Olson spoke for the plaintiffs, saying that the Supreme Court has recognized "the fundamental right of its citizens to marry" -- without talking about men and women. Olson says the court has, when discussing marriage, spoken about two particular individuals. In Loving, he says, "it was marriage."

Reinhardt is talking about "gay marriage." Olson isn't having it, and says, "I wouldn't, Judge Reinhardt, call it gay marriage."

Reinhardt, though, is trying to figure out whether the court needs to reach the equal protection argument, or whether they can resolve the case under Romer.

Olson says that "You can't take away that right -- which is not just a right of same-sex couples but is a right of all persons."  He states plainly that Proposition 8 is discrimination based on both sex and based on sexual orientation.

Olson hits hard at the proponents' argument that Proposition 8 is based on an alleged justification that otherwise children would begin hearing about sexuality matters too soon, saying, "That is nonsense." He later suggested that if that were a legitimate idea, then children would need to be prohibited from watching TV or talking to other children.

Hawkins asks about whether the "accidental procreation" argument can be a rational basis for Proposition 8. Olson replied, "Same-sex marriage is no going to having any effect at all on [straight couples] deciding to have children."

Getting into the level of scrutiny that Proposition 8 should receive, Olson pushes into immutability, history of discrimination -- i.e., heightened scrutiny -- then goes back to explaining why the plaintiffs' view is that the law fails even under rational basis.

Smith volunteers to suggest ideas of rational bases, including "responsible procreation" and that children thrive best being raised by mother and a father.

Olson says that simply doesn't fit with the facts at trial. He added that the child-rearing argument is invalid because allowing same-sex marriage doesn't change the circumstances.

Olson says the Hernandez, Levinson, Witt cases outdate High Tech Gays case, in which the aforementioned gays lost. Then, Reinhardt told him that Levinson -- about the benefits to be given a federal court employee -- wasn't a case but instead an administrative proceeding, to which Olson quickly replied, "I thought the wisdom in that case was secure your honor." #Prop8

Reinhardt went on to suggest that a ruling limited to the Proposition 8 circumstances -- the repeal of an existing right -- could be crafted in this case.

Olson concurred, "You could decide this on the narrow, Romer grounds." He adds, though: "I don't think there's anything in Supreme Court jurisprudence that doesn't allow you to look at the broader context."

Olson concluded by explaining, "The rational basis question has to go to the basis of the exclusion, ... [and] that's where the rational basis argument falls down."

Constitutional Argument By San Francisco

Therese Stewart is up for the San Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Stewart states that California family law treats gay and straight couples the same and says that the only basis for what proponents argue is that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow "taints marriage."

Stewart says the context of the measure and campaign "was bias," noting -- citing cases -- that "[p]rejudice ... is not always borne of hatred. It may be a simple want of careful reflection."

Stewart ends big, telling the court, "Equal protection doesn't allow the state to enact a measure based on a belief that some people are unworthy."

The topic of same-sex marriage -- particularly, marriage in California -- has popped into the public's eye with regularity over the past two-and-a-half years. On Monday -- with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the challenge to the state's Proposition 8 -- the attention will again turn to the West Coast and marriage.

So, what do you need to know to get through Monday?

Here they are: The top 10 questions for Monday's oral arguments.

1. What is the background here?

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that California's Constitution prohibited the state from discriminating against same-sex couples in the state's marriage laws. By mid-June, couples began marrying -- although the future of same-sex marriage in the state already was headed to the November ballot.

Then, after about 18,000 same-sex couples had married in the state, on Nov. 4, 2008, the voters of the state of California elected Barack Obama president -- but also voted to pass Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to add, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This created an upending of an otherwise joyous night for progressives, which was borne out by protests across the state -- and country -- in the weeks that followed.

With the vote, though, the marriages came to a halt. An attempt to have the initiative thrown out under state law, brought by the organizations who had supported the original lawsuit, was unsuccessful. The May 2009 ruling of the California Supreme Court upholding the amendment as valid, however, galvanized, once again, opponents of Proposition 8.

2. What's so special about this case?

The same day that the California Supreme Court ruled, word came that, very quietly, the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with help from the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, had a few days earlier filed the lawsuit in federal court that all of the LGBT legal organizations had been avoiding: a direct, federal challenge to a state ban on marriage equality.

The challenge was not just any challenge, of course. It was not only that two of the leading national law firms were serving as the lawyers for plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo -- because big law firms had been helping the LGBT legal groups with cases for years. It was, instead, the lead lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies, who made the headlines. The sparring partners in Bush v. Gore had come together to press the case for marriage equality.

The organization formed to bring the challenge -- the American Foundation for Equal Rights -- was an unknown entity until the day of the filing, and its leader, Chad Griffin, had -- also quietly -- pulled together the support of his PR firm, the Olson/Boies team and some Hollywood heavyweights gay and straight, including Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and director Rob Reiner.

The headlines continued, but the case also moved forward quickly, and a three-week trial was held in January 2010, with closing arguments held in June.

3. So, what happened?

An Aug. 4, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker held that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process of law, which protects "fundamental" rights -- including marriage.

Regarding equal protection, he found that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He concluded, "Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Regarding due process, he noted that marriage has been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental right that he found was defined as "the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household." He went on to discuss past marriage restrictions, including racial ones, then concluded, "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

Concluding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional on both of those grounds, he also later refused to stay his ruling -- or keep it from being enforced -- while the proponents of the measure attempted to appeal his decision. He did, however, give them a brief period of time to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit, which the Ninth Circuit granted. The parties and other groups and individuals interested in the case filed briefs giving the court their views, and argument was scheduled for Monday, Dec. 6, 2010.

4. And, Monday is?

At 10 a.m. Pacific Time on Monday (1 p.m. on the East Coast) the three Ninth Circuit judges who were randomly assigned to hear the case will conduct two hours of arguments -- to be televised live on C-SPAN and elsewhere -- about the issues in the case.

The judges themselves have been noteworthy, with the proponents asking for Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee known for being one of the most unabashedly liberal of judges in the appellate courts, to recuse himself because of his wife's leadership of the ACLU of California and involvement in discussions about whether to bring the case -- a request he quickly turned down. The other two judges are Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, President Clinton's first nominee to the Ninth Circuit, and Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative Bush appointee who attended Brigham Young University for both undergraduate and law school education and previously served as the head of the Idaho Republican Party.

The first hour of oral arguments, in which the judges will ask the attorneys questions at will, is to be focused on the issue of standing and will give half of the proponents' time to the lawyers for Imperial County to argue that they should have been allowed to intervene in the case to defend Proposition 8. The second hour is to be focused on the merits of the case, with the attorney representing San Francisco County to be given 10 minutes to argue against the constitutionality of the measure along with the AFER team.

Michael Iacovone and Mike Blasenstein were not happy when they found out that David Wojnarowicz's video, "A Fire in the Belly," had been removed from the National Portrait Gallery's Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture exhibit after a conservative news publication reported on the exhibit and conservative figures objected to Wojnarowicz's video.

So, despite museum rules that clearly prohibit taking video or photographs in the museum, the pair went to the museum on Saturday, Dec. 4, to protest the removal of the video by creating their own video.

Blasenstein stood with an iPad around his neck that had the video playing on it. Iacovone videotaped Blasenstein, who -- in addition to the video -- had fliers available for museum patrons seeking an explanation of what the pair was doing.

From the video taken by the pair, museum security at first allowed Blasenstein to be there but discouraged museum patrons from taking the fliers. At one point, security makes it clear that they are aware the Iacovone is recording Blasenstein. It is only at that point that security appears to start taking action to stop the pair. Iacovone was told to stop filming and refused. Both were eventually detained. The video stops at that point.

According to a news release from the pair, though, they eventually were released but "permanently banned from all Smithsonian properties." It was not immediately clear the reason for Blasenstein being detained.

National Portrait Gallery Protest from Michael Dax Iacovone on Vimeo.

In the release from the pair, which Metro Weekly received on Sunday, Dec. 5, Blasenstein said, "I was dumbstruck that this kind of thing could happen in 2010. I'd never heard of David Wojnarowicz before, but the more I learned about him, the more I realized that the same forces trying to suppress his work and cut his funding when he was alive were still trying to silence him today.

"Suddenly I realized that 'Silence = Death' wasn’t some retro relic, but something that made it possible for me as a gay man to enjoy whatever acceptance and protections I have today. I wanted to make sure that this man who died 18 years ago wasn’t swept from view again—especially from an exhibition professing to honor the marginalized."

Metro Weekly has requested additional information on the incident from the National Portrait Gallery press office.

[Photo: Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) at Friday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A meeting at the White House to discuss the strategy for repeal of the 1993 law was held later in the day on Friday. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Following today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing discussing, in part, the lame-duck consideration of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal legislation, the White House held an off-the-record meeting with organizations pushing for DADT repeal regarding repeal and the National Defense Authorization Act to which it is attached.

White House spokesman Shin Inouye confirmed the meeting with Metro Weekly, writing, "Today, the White House met with various stakeholders to discuss the passage of the NDAA, including DADT, during the lame duck."

Two people who attended the meeting but asked to remain anonymous because of the off-the-record nature of the meeting told Metro Weekly that those organizations that were represented included Center for American Progress, Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans, National Black Justice Coalition, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, OutServe, People for the American Way, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Servicemembers United, Stonewall Democrats and Third Way. [Politico's Josh Gerstein, who first reported the news, also reported that representatives from OutServe and the Palm Center attended the meeting, a fact confimed to Metro Weekly by a third attendee.] As such, it would make it the largest of several such White House meetings held about DADT repeal this year.

The two attendees of the meeting said that the White House was represented at the meeting by Christopher Kang, White House legislative affairs; Christina Tchen, director of the public engagement office; Brian Bond, deputy director of public engagement; and representatives from the Domestic Policy Council and White House Counsel's Office.

Echoing and expanding on President Barack Obama's comments made after the report was released on Tuesday, Inouye wrote, "The meeting follows the release of the Defense Department Working Group report and the congressional testimony of 10 top military leaders this week. The testimony from those witnesses makes clear that now, more than ever, Congress can and must take action during the lame duck session to give the military the flexibility it needs to end DADT in a way that does not jeopardize military readiness."

One of the attendees said that the attendees were told that "this was in fact a priority for the president and that [the New] START [treaty] and DADT [repeal] can both be passed in the lame-duck.

"Early next week, they are going to engage the progressive community in calls for the senators," the attendee said they were told, referencing the Organizing for America and Democratic National Committee outreach described on Wednesday to Metro Weekly.

A second attendee looked at the Senate action this week, saying, "We had a very, very good series of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, dominated by a really strong message from the Pentagon that we can repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and we can implement in a timeframe that makes sense.

"While today's hearing pointed to the fact that the are different opinions [of this issue], at the end of the day, the message was, 'We can do this.'"

Of the White House's view after those hearings, that second attendee said, "With all the competing legislative issues and a shrinking calendar, they were very positive about NDAA and DADT repeal, and they are committed to getting it done."

Regarding the timing, however, the first attendee said that the pending impeachment proceedings for U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana and resolution of the tax-cut issues raised in a letter sent to Reid from and signed by all 42 Republican senators earlier this week "need to be done" before the Senate will proceed. "So we're looking at the next week," the first attendee said.

As for that timing, which differs from the timing discussed by SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis after the hearing, the second attendee said that discussion about running out of time was slightly overstated at this point.

"Eventually, yes, we'll run out of time. But we're not there yet, and we won't be there if the vote isn't held next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday," the second attendee said. "The important thing is that we win the vote when it's held because there's no second chance.

"We want to hold the vote when will be able to win the vote."

The first attendee said that Tchen stressed the White House's commitment to passage of repeal language by stating that "if they weren't serious about this they wouldn't have put [Defense Secretary] Gates and [Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike] Mullen out there."

The second attendee, asked if this appeared to be a meeting to mollify organizations as a prelude to bad news about the repeal legislation, said, "I know it wasn't. I've been mollified before, and this wasn't mollification."

The first attendee, however, did say, of the path forward, "All roads keep leading back to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [(D-Nev.)]. If he chooses to lay out a fair path, the votes should be there. If he chooses to be a jerk about it, the game's over."

[Photo: Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) talk to Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the first of two days of hearings held Dec. 2 and 3 about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Although Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said today that he was not sure where the negotiations stand between party leaders on Senate consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, he said that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was "respectfully" wrong earlier in the day when he had said that "41 of [his] colleagues" would join him in "not agree[ing] to have this bill go forward."

The NDAA contains an amendment aimed at repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and McCain had further demonstrated his oft-stated opposition to the repeal in the second day of hearings into the Pentagon working group's report about implementing such a repeal. The bill, which needs 60 votes to be debated because of a Republican filibuster threat, failed to meet that threshold in September.

Lieberman told reporters after the hearing that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- who only briefly attended Friday's hearing -- "has said again, notwithstanding the letter that was sent out by the members of the Republican caucus, that so long as she feels there has been a fair process and debate of the defense bill, and it hasn't been cut off prematurely, that she'll vote to bring up the bill."

[UPDATE: Collins said in a statement this afternoon, "After hearing powerful testimony from Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, and reviewing the results of the Pentagon report, I remain convinced that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy," implemented under President Clinton, should be repealed. And, I agree with Secretary Gates that the issue should be decided by Congress, not the courts."

She predicated her support upon resolution of the tax cut issue, however, saying in the statement, "Once the tax issue is resolved, I have made it clear that if the Majority Leader brings the Defense Authorization bill to the floor with sufficient time allowed for debate and amendments, I would vote to proceed to the bill."]

Within hours of the end of those hearings -- chaired by repeal supporter Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- Lieberman gained some support when Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) -- who voted against adding the DADT repeal amendment into the NDAA earlier this year -- issued a statement saying, "Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary's recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed."

It was not clear, however, if Brown would vote to proceed to debate on the NDAA, which is the first hurdle repeal faces in the lame-duck session of Congress now underway.

In addition to Collins, Lieberman said that he had spoken with other Republicans about repeal and that, "It's on that basis that I say that I'm convinced that we have more than 60 votes to take up the bill -- with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- so long as a core group of Republicans are convinced that the Democratic leadership will not jam the bill through, but allow a reasonable time for fair and open debate."

Asked to name the other Republicans with whom he had spoken, Lieberman said, "You have asked, but I am not telling."

Senators will have to tell soon enough, though, if Servicemembers Defense Legal Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis is correct that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will move to reconsider the defense bill "early next week."

[Collins said in her statement, "As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I voted, last May, to include in the Defense Authorization bill language repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, subject to certification by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there would not be a negative impact on combat effectiveness and military readiness.  It is especially reassuring to learn from the Pentagon report that, after extensive interviews and feedback from service members, nearly 70 percent say that having a gay service member in their unit would have a "positive, mixed, or no effect" on the unit's effectiveness."]

Earlier this week, some questions were raised about a petition request sent out by Organizing for America -- the former Obama for America entity -- regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. In large part, the questions related to the fact that: (1) beyond "signing" the petition, there was no action step to help repeal, and (2) the petition request eventually landed repeal supporters at a donation request page.

In part, the email read:

Last time, we were just two votes shy of passing repeal in the Senate. And now the lawmakers who have been dragging their feet have no excuses left.

Neither do we. On this issue, our voices may not get more powerful than they are today -- after the military has weighed in, when the media is paying close attention, just before the Senate starts its debate.

Let's ensure the Senate passes repeal -- and sends it to President Obama's desk -- before the end of the year.

Please add your name to the President's call to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" now.

On Wednesday, Metro Weekly took a few minutes to talk with Jamie Citron, the director of the LGBT leadership council at the Democratic National Committee, about the email and OFA and DNC efforts to support DADT repeal.

Citron said that OFA email was "the newest round of an email we've been circulating for a while" -- starting over the summer -- and was part of what he called a "multi-pronged effort ... starting, actually, the week of Thanksgiving to organize our grassroots efforts around repeal."

Already, he said, many of the "people who already have expressed a passion" for supporting repeal received an email about a "letter to the editor" tool that he called "a one-stop shop" to write and send letters to local publications in support of repeal.

Secondly, he said, "OFA is currently in the process of organizing Days of Action [for phone banks] for Monday [Dec. 6] and Wednesday [Dec. 8] of next week." Calling the petition part of a process of "list culling ... to find out who was really passionate on the issue," Citron said that "[t]hose volunteers will be calling our broader base." He also noted that all such list-culling efforts eventually end at a donation page.

At the phone banks, Citron explained, volunteers would be calling OFA-identified supporters in their own state and asking them to call their senators, starting with "other supporters that we have identified" through previous OFA/DNC efforts to identify DADT repeal supporters and then branching out to the "broader base."

Pointing to this Daily Kos post regarding calls being made tonight, Citron said, "There are others taking place across the country. We started organizing before Thanksgiving, in many cases by the state directors [of OFA]."

Third, he said, is the potential for office visits to key senators' offices.

Of the future use of the list of OFA/DNC supporters who are "passionate" about LGBT issues, Citron said, "We’re going to be using that list in different strategic ways; the bigger that list the better we can use that list."

Asked about the numbers of people involved in these OFA efforts, Citron only would say that the list of people who received the "letter to the editor" tool email was "robust." As for Day of Action, Citron followed up via email, writing, "While a firm goal is not set, they expect to organize hundreds of phone banks with individual calls numbering in the tens of thousands."

Those responses likely will not satisfy critics of the DNC's LGBT efforts -- particularly the admission that the DNC/OFA did not ramp up its repeal advocacy until the week of Thanksgiving -- but all efforts, even from the DNC, likely will be seen as helpful pieces of the puzzle to achieving repeal passage in the lame-duck session.

[Photo: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the committee hearing on Dec. 2. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

The Senate hearings held today and Friday looking into the Pentagon working group's report about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal implementation were certain to be a window to the military and a picture of the Senate. After today's hearing, though, the view and pictures were all the more clear.

My report on the hearings, "Military v. McCain," begins:

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who in February told the Senate Armed Services Committee that his personal opinion was that ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' should be repealed, on Thursday, Dec. 2, added to that response, telling the senators, ''I did not know it as a fact; now I do. What was then my personal opinion is now my professional view.''

Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were testifying before the committee on the first day of hearings into the Pentagon working group's report on DADT repeal implementation. The co-chairs of the working group, Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, testified as well on Thursday.

For more of Ward Morrison's excellent photos from today, check out this photo gallery, "Senate Hearing on Pentagon DADT Report."

[Photo: Adm. Mike Mullen, Defense Sec. Robert Gates, Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham testify. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Meanwhile, Igor Volsky at Wonk Room pulled together the following clip of some of the back and forth of which Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was a part today:

In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), all 42 Republican senators have written, "[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

That, of course, would include the motion to proceed on the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal language in the version passed earlier this year by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The united GOP senators went on:

With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network reacted strongly and quickly to the news, with executive director Aubrey Sarvis saying in a statement that "Senate Majority Leader Reid must call the defense bill back up next week.

"The Republican caucus that has expressed strong support for a vote on extending the Bush era tax cuts should be as equally unified in support of a vote in the lame-duck session on the nation’s defense bill, the very bill which provides for our security and the well being of service members who defend us every day," he said in the statement. "It's past time for those Republican senators who say they support a vote on the defense bill and repeal to show it with a vote, and not by words alone." 

Sarvis concluded:

After twenty-three months of excuses and delays in this Congress, it’s time to vote.  If Republicans or Democrats use ‘procedure’ and the tax bill as excuses for not voting that is the very same as voting no.  A no vote when Reid calls the repeal vote will not only put senators on the wrong side of history, it will also put them in opposition to the overwhelming majority of those who serve in our armed forces and the most senior members of our military.

Providing a big-picture view of what this move from the GOP means for the lame-duck session of Congess, Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler bluntly sums up the situation as thus:

Dems are clearly in a vice. They can't move anything until those priorities are sorted out. And they won't be sorted out quickly unless Dems basically cave. And if they don't cave, then maybe they win a few concessions from the GOP on tax cuts, and appropriations, but the clock runs out on everything else: judges, DADT, DREAM, and, apparently, START.

[UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan is just as blunt, but in describing his view of the Republican Party since Obama's election:

This is not conservatism, properly understood, a disposition that respects the institutions and traditions of government, that can give as well as take, that seeks the national interest before partisan concerns, and that respects both the other branches of government and seeks to work with them. These people are not conservatives in this core civilized sense; they are partisan vandals.]

While Reid and the rest of the Democrats decide how to respond to the latest GOP gambit, hearings regarding the Pentagon report on DADT repeal implementation are slated to begin in the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday morning, Dec. 2 and continue through Dec. 3.

Read the GOP senators' letter: GOP Tax Letter.pdf

Once I got home this evening, I began digging in to the nitty-gritty details of the 256-page Pentagon working group report on implementing a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

There is a lot of information here, and I hope to have the time to report on more of what I'm finding before Thursday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. 

But, for now, here's two related pieces of info that I found notable:

• 38.5 percent of the respondents to the survey said that they have worked in a unit with "a leader [the respondent] believed to be homosexual." Yes, more than a third of current servicemembers believe they've had a gay boss. This seems to be a significant statistic. And, of those who believe that, and where the respondent said that others also believed the leader was gay or lesbian, an overwhelming majority -- 69.9 percent -- rated that unit's morale as "very good" or "good."
• On the flip side of that issue, there's the Marine Corps. While the response from the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard and Navy was that the unit with a gay or lesbian leader had "very good" morale according to between 24.2 percent to 27.1 percent of the of the respondents from each branch, the Marine Corps response was significantly lower at 18.4 percent. The combined "very good" and "good" responses from the Marines was 58.4 percent. The combined numbers for the other branches ranged from 67.8 percent to 70.5 percent.

[Read Metro Weekly's full coverage of the report.]

While doing so, a kind soul indirectly reminded me that it was not yet posted at Metro Weekly. Apologies! Here it is, via Scribd, below the jump. Additionally, and also below the jump, please find available via Scribd the "Support Plan for Implementation" that also was presented by the Pentagon on Tuesday.