Skip to content

John McCain and Lindsey Graham admit they didn’t know the defense bill legalized bestiality in the military

December 7, 2011

  My two Senators–Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, and Republican Kelly Ayotte–both hailed the passage of the recent defense bill; this was one of the only times–if not the only time–they voted the same way on a piece of legislation. But one would have to wonder if they would have both hailed this as a victory if they had realized that this bill lifted the ban on bestiality in the military.

  Perhaps they did not bother to read the bill before they decided to vote on it, and if this is the case it appears as if they are not alone. As can be read here and here, “Republicans” John McCain and Lindsey Graham both were asked whether they knew the defense bill, which they both voted in favor of, lifted the ban on bestiality in the military and both declared they had no clue this provision was in the bill.

  During the debate over Obamacare Nancy Pelosi once famously quipped that the bill needed to be passed so that we could see what was in it, and naturally this–rightfully so–drew the condemnation of those opposed to the bill. The Obamacare bill was passed even though nobody knew what was in the bill, and Republicans railed against how irresponsible the Congress was for voting on a bill that wasn’t read.

  And yet it appears as if the Congress has learned nothing from the Obamacare debacle; either Lindsey Graham and John McCain read the bill and agreed with the provision which lifted the ban on bestiality, or they did not read the bill and voted on it anyway. I have a hard time believing that even liberal Republicans such as Graham and McCain would have voted to lift the ban on bestiality in the military and am left to believe that they voted on this bill without reading it.

   Is it too much to ask for from our elected officials on both sides of the aisle to read what they are voting on? Apparently it is because even those that complained about the Congress voting on Obamacare without first reading it did exactly the same when they voted to legalize bestiality in the military.

  It really is time to vote all of these clowns out and start anew as soon as possible.

31 Comments leave one →
  1. lou222 permalink
    December 7, 2011 10:28 pm

    Well, what are we paying them for? Do they not have numerous “underlings” that could read the bill if they are so “busy” themselves? Does anyone read the bills anymore? I am starting to believe that alot of our Senators/Representatives just don’t have time to do their jobs. If you did the same, would you still have a job?? I think not!


    • December 7, 2011 10:36 pm

      It really is disheartening to think that these people are creating laws we must follow without even doing their homework.


  2. LD Jackson permalink
    December 7, 2011 11:19 pm

    Maybe this is a dumb question, but who wrote this piece of trash they are calling a defense bill? Someone had to know the provision about bestiality was buried in there. I would be very interested in knowing exactly who was responsible for writing and including it.


    • December 8, 2011 6:45 am

      That is a good question Larry, I would also like to know who wrote this part of the bill.


  3. December 8, 2011 12:05 am

    I had wondered how it passed with a ban on bestiality being lifted. Who ever put that in should be named. I’d like to know why that ban was lifted.


    • December 8, 2011 6:46 am

      Nobody must have read the bill because I find it hard to believe only seven people voted against it knowing this provision was in there.


    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 13, 2011 9:33 am

      The ban on bestiality was a phrase contained in section 125, which was largely concerned with sodomy – i.e., gay sex. With the end of DADT, simple housecleaning measures required the rescission of that ban. There was no express language in the new bill that said “Bestiality is okay,” nor was there language saying “The ban on bestiality is lifted.” The language read “Section 125 is rescinded,” and the understanding was that section 125 was the ban on gay sex.

      That’s how the bill could be passed with a lifting of the ban on bestiality. It’s obvious that the intention wasn’t to put sheep at risk.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!



  4. December 8, 2011 12:06 am

    the question is, who stuck that in the bill in the first place?


    • December 8, 2011 6:46 am

      I’d like to know the answer to that one as well.


  5. December 8, 2011 1:14 am

    I’m with :Larry. We need to start taking a closer look at who is writing these bills and shine the light on them as well as our elected officials. I wonder what the process is to find out who writes these terrible bills.


    • December 8, 2011 6:47 am

      Exactly John, I want to know who wrote this as well. It is about time we start holding these people accountable for their actions.


  6. December 8, 2011 2:21 am

    Geez total Wacky Wednesday post. It also legalizes sodomy… perhaps the intent.

    Guess the troops in Scotland will be happy!


    • December 8, 2011 6:48 am

      Legalizing sodomy was the intent of this provision in my book, but how it go this far?


      • December 8, 2011 9:21 pm

        Yea that is a good question. Couldn’t imagine who would be interested in promoting bestiality.


  7. December 8, 2011 10:11 am

    How does lifting the ban on beastiality even make it into a bill in the first place?


    • December 8, 2011 9:18 pm

      That it the $1,000,000 question that nobody seems to have an answer for.


  8. bunkerville permalink
    December 8, 2011 2:41 pm

    As we are learning as with Obamacare… drip, drip drip out come the details. More to follow as I am sure. It was bad enough that may be able to lock us up, but lets not stop there.


    • December 8, 2011 9:20 pm

      Yep, they just let the bad news trickle out slowly hoping that the vast majority of Americans don’t see the whole of what is going on. Is it any wonder they want to crackdown on the internet?


  9. toldya permalink
    December 9, 2011 7:23 am

    Not to mention a provision to allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil, without charges or trial. This is a little more disconcerting to me than a couple sheep lovers. Seriously, how many troops will engage in critter lovin’ just because it’s now legal?


    • lou222 permalink
      December 9, 2011 7:39 am

      Toldya, this is a total mess, isn’t it? We have seen “off” administrations before and have disagreed with some of their tactics, but this one sure takes the cake. I guess nothing they do anymore amazes me. They are, however, messing with people that are not going to put up with this arresting and detaining stuff. Not sure where this might end, but it is not looking good.


    • December 9, 2011 8:27 pm

      I guess after months in the desert camels start to look pretty good. I wrote about the US being defined as a battlefield and it is quite disturbing to say the least.


  10. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    December 12, 2011 11:46 am

    According to the article, this fellow Perkins, one of the ultra-rightwing people in charge of the Family Research Council, lifting the ban may have been unintentional.

    There’s every indication the Congress wanted to lift the ban on “unnatural copulation” because it’s hard to say what’s natural, given that homosexual sex occurs in a number of non-human species.

    I think they should reinstate the ban on bestiality if it’s a problem; otherwise, simply turn over those caught engaged in it to local authorities.

    However, before anyone gets too worked up over this, I think a reality check is in order – just how big a problem is this? Just like all the phony commotion over tightening the photo ID restrictions on in-person voting, I don’t think this is the kind of thing on which we should be spending time, effort and money if it’s not a problem in the first place – and don’t think for a moment that the existence of UCMJ Section 125 actually deterred anyone in the military from committing acts of bestiality.

    If it’s not a problem, don’t get all worked up over it. Only an idiot thinks that the purpose of the bill was to eliminate the ban, or even that there’s this big group of animal abusers out there hoping that Section 125 would be repealed so they could have their way with hamsters.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!



    • December 12, 2011 10:11 pm

      I agree that bestiality in the military is not a widespread problem that we should be worried about or spend much time on, my problem with this is the fact that we still have elected officials who are not reading the bills they are voting on.


  11. December 12, 2011 6:07 pm

    Well, if it makes you feel any better, I hear that PETA is annoyed by this, too.

    It makes sense though. Now that DADT is repealed, they really have to repeal the sodomy crime, which was in Article 125 of the UCMJ. Now, this here new defense bill is another whopper, over 900 plus pages. So, you are right. They are still not reading their own bleeping bills.

    The part of the bill dealing with this issue says “Art 125 is repealed,” without going into further detail. So whoever penned this portion didn’t notice the little phrase “or with an animal” tucked in Art. 125. Whoops. To be fair, without military law experience, it’s very easy to miss.

    Meanwhile, all the covert sheep lovers in military service can rejoice. Kidding.



    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 12, 2011 9:19 pm

      Excellent analysis and conclusion.

      I say watch the pet stores – if there’s an abnormal spike in the sale of hamsters, we’ve got a problem.

      Otherwise, let sleeping, um, well, just leave it alone. Or next time a defense bill comes up, insert . . . slip in . . . okay, amend it to say “We still love animals, therefore you still cannot.”

      Take good care and may God bless us all!



    • December 12, 2011 10:16 pm

      I agree with you about repealing the sodomy laws, with DADT repealed this had to be done. That is why I didn’t mention it in my post, but it is obvious that people didn’t read the bill in this case and that is what I have a problem with.


      • lou222 permalink
        December 12, 2011 10:30 pm

        We are paying their salaries for what purpose? I guess it needs to be spelled out to them, that reading a bill BEFORE voting on it is a requirement of getting a pay check. Anyone on this blog (minus the trolls) would do a better job at being a Representative or a Senator than most (not all) that are in those positions. The excuse of “no time”, is getting old. I guess I would like a run down on what they actually DO while they are at “work”. Most jobs have a job discription of what all is expected of them, do they have the same thing?


      • December 14, 2011 7:19 am

        It really doesn’t seem like too much to ask for to have our reps know what they are voting for, does it?


  12. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    December 13, 2011 9:58 am

    It’s a disappointing reality that legislators cannot read every piece of legislation they’re presented with. Look at the Morril Act, the legislation that established the land-grant colleges ( Landmark legislation on a single page. I doubt we’ll see it happen often in our time.

    Legislation today is conceived at one level and then written by teams of lawyers whose job it is not only to dot every i and cross every t, they must also incorporate it into existing law. If you read modern legislation, a massive portion of it is devoted to this second task – “Section 4, subsection C, clause ii is amended to insert the word “not” after the first occurrence of the word “is.”

    You’re saying that legislators should personally read every piece off legislation presented, not only those on which they vote “yes.” Obviously, that means not only flipping through the pages and reading legislation as we would a book, but also hauling out all the other laws referenced and making those cross-referential checks. There simply isn’t enough time in the day, and no, that’s NOT a good reason to cut down on the amount of legislation they consider (which is simply giving up).

    That’s why we hire staffs. And that’s why we have the committee system in both houses of Congress. Long ago, those who founded our country realized the impossibility of having every legislator read every piece of proposed legislation, so they created committees – not only to craft legislation and to consider legislation presented, but also to make recommendations to the full body.

    Admittedly, someone on a member’s staff should have said “Uh, Senator, about this rescission of section 125, this may prove embarrassing, but section 125 also bans bestiality. You may want to consider retaining that ban.” Ideally, it should have been caught by the staff of the committees that reported the bill out.

    Nevertheless, there are scores of organizations out here that do read through the legislation and make the cross-referential checks looking for things like this, so that they can score a “gotcha” moment, which is all this is.As time goes on, the legislation will only get more complex and voluminous, and it is simply unrealistic to expect each Member to read, analyse and absorb every piece of legislation presented.

    Take good care and may God bless us all.



    • December 14, 2011 7:23 am

      I actually agree with what you wrote, I understand that the reps don’t personally read every word of every page and that is what staffers are for. Somebody read this provision and nobody thought it worthy to mention.


    • Kate permalink
      December 16, 2011 10:29 am

      Actually when man decides to be God determining in his own mind what is right and wrong society and that nation will break down. Do you think things in this country are getting better or worse. When we are desensitized morally to what is right and wrong and there is absolute right and wrong we have a conscience which means with knowledge. With knowledge of what…right and wrong sin. This is not brain chemicals that we have evolved into moral humans we are given our consciences from God who is the absolut authority on right and wrong.When a society declines by turning to what is wrong according to God we are on a slippery slope of decline. So sodomy is ok, then sodomy with animals, then children when does it stop,abortion deciding who gets to live and who gets to die,in Germany before Hitler the people appproved abortion for children menatally handicapped and then the euthenizing the elderly. They had clinics set up using gas and then when Hilter came to power Natzis soldiers killed jews by shooting. Many of them broke down mentally and killed themselves over the guilt. Hitler broke down those clinic gas chambers and brought them in so they could exterminate the jewish people. Six million jews were murdered because God was no longer the absolute authority and people refused to stand up for what is absolute right and wrong.And people say it would not happen today? Do you know how many babies are being murdered today all over the world and in some countries a race of women ther eis not enough woman for men in certain countries read about India,China. Check out how much money these abortion clinics make and search what these babies look like before they are exterminated in the womb and those that come out. Talk with the women that have had them and the guilt and shame! WAKE UP AND TAKE A STAND AND TURN BACK TO GOD! We need a leader that stands on the absolute authority of the Word OF GOD. We society are on a very slippery slope turning from God. Many countries that are a part of the United nations are countries whos beliefs approve of abuse of children and women and check out the United Nations wanting to make treaties taking parental rights away in our country !!! There is a global agenda and the bible tells us all about it.The answere is always the same repenting of our sin against God and turning the the Lord Jesus Christ and believing on his name and his dying on the cross for all our sins. He came for the lost and the broken sinner in need of a Savior. That is each and every one of us. But this also means a heart change and turning from what God calls wrong and sin. By faith we are saved not works or being “good people” God will not compare us with others but will judge us according to his standard. There is one Holy, Pure and Righteous,and sinless this is God alone and he came Jesus to take our punishment that when we believe we are covered in his righteousness not our own and we can stand unashamed before God acceptable in his sight through Jesus Christ our Lord who took that punishment on the cross willingly and is risen and oming again. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosover believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life in him.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: