15 'Democrats' voted against repeal of DADT in the House

It's amazing that they even think in this day and age that they did the right thing, so I wondered what exactly was their reasoning.

If not... I'll try to dig it up later.

Oh and they are homophobes, or homophobe enablers. To me, that is without question.

Boren (OK)

Bright (AL)

Childers (MS)

Critz (PA)

Davis (AL)

Davis (TN)

Marshall (GA)

McIntyre (NC)

Ortiz (TX)

Peterson (MN)

Rahall (WV)

Ross (AR)

Skelton (MO)

Tanner (TN)

Taylor (MS)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml

all duly noted.

That's all I'm saying.

Seriously, it's like having a Republican represent us.

I know Bright and Skelton are gone in the 112th.

Boran from OK is just a big fat jerk.

(Not that I'd ever serve in the military) But, whether we like it or not, politicians ARE supposed to vote for the will of the people they represent (even if their viewpoints are skewed/bigoted, etc.) I'm not saying that's what happened with these reps but sometimes, I know it's rare, sometimes politicians actually represent the people in their district and what those people want.

or making molesting children okay.

Voting against gay rights is in this same ballpark, in my opinion. These are our fellow citizens and our brothers and sisters as children of God and the Universe.

Flimsy defense or not, it's still true. As I stated in my post, I doubt that's what drove those votes but if it is what drove them, then I'd be okay with that vote, no matter how wrong-headed that it is. I think the reason our government is in the state that it's in is that there are too many politicians voting with their own interests in mind and not that of their constituents. I don't care what vote it was, if a politician actually voted for what the PEOPLE wanted, I'd be shocked but pleased (even if it was something as sick as anti-gay rights, slavery, child molestation) because they'd be doing their damned jobs.

The problem is voting for the interests of the wealthy and powerful above the people not standing up for basic principles.

And lets say that a Dem is representing people whose ideals are anti-gay rights... as much as I hate it, then that politician is voting for the people. Though the outcome (and bigoted thinking is outdated) he/she is still representing the people, something most politicians don't do these days (and haven't in a long while). That's why I was saying, if a Dem really voted with his constituents ideals in mind, I would applaud that, because it just doesn't happen anymore.

I mean, the majority of the people in the US, don't have issue with gays marrying or serving in the military. So, based on that, there shouldn't be discrimination against me anymore but there are still pockets where voting against gay people get you reelected. It's a sad commentary, not only on people's mindsets but in cowardice too.

Voting against civil rights is never the right thing to do. I don't give a shit who is in your district.

a very conservative area of the state. Most likely, his constituents consider his vote a good one.

But for anyone to actually vote their constituents thoughts in this day and age is a miracle. I just wish it were a positive instead of a negative.

so I couldn't vote