Judge orders military to stop enforcing DADT

[DuckiesDarling]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/12/judge.dont.ask.order/


CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, effectively ending the ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' permanent injunction orders the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced" under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The judge, a Clinton appointee based in the Central District of California, previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members' Fifth Amendment rights to due process and freedom of speech, but had delayed issuing the injunction.

The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Shmaler would only say the department is "reviewing the ruling." The department has 60 days to appeal, but is not required to do so.

Air Force lawyers in a recent case argued the military -- not the courts -- was in the best position to evaluate and enforce the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

President Barack Obama is pushing for a repeal of the controversial policy. A bill currently before Congress would overturn the measure after a Pentagon review is completed in December.

More than 12,500 people have been booted from the military since "don't ask, don't tell" went into effect. Along with barring openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving, the policy prevents the military from asking them about it.

Log Cabin Republicans praised the ruling but urged "caution by servicemembers considering coming out at this time, as the Obama administration still has the option to appeal."

The group said the ruling is a victory for strong national defense.

"No longer will our military be compelled to discharge servicemembers with valuable skills and experience because of an archaic policy mandating irrational discrimination," it said in a statement following the ruling.

Servicemembers United, which describes itself as the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, also hailed the judge's ruling and urged gays who serve to be careful about coming out now.

"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said executive director Alexander Nicholson.

The government at some point in the next few weeks or months could file an appeal petition with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which is based in San Francisco, for a hearing. If the government were to lose, its next step would be to the Supreme Court.

[12voltman59]

I think the ruling is the right way to go, of course, but I would advise anyone else who feels as I do to not pop out the Champagne bottles yet to celebrate the end of this onerous policy.

It seems that those who against gay rights are more than dedicated to trying to prevent any further gains in "gay rights" and are also in favor of rolling back any gains made in the past as well.

You can be sure that the crowd opposed to ending DADT and who also don't like courts ruling in favor of extending more civil rights to just about anyone will bitch, piss and moan about this ruling being another example of judges stepping over the line and engaging in "judicial activism."

It always gets me with those who say such things---that the way our government was set up--it is the role of appeal level court judges to determine if laws enacted by the legislatures meets the test of being Constitutional or not.

They don't have any problem with judges who rule in ways that favor their views on issues with those rulings certainly being of the same legal nature as the rulings they say are examples of "liberal judicial activism," and it matters not whether the "conservative" rulings make much sense considering the way case law has evolved in those areas and also not having any problem if the rulings that go their way upset the concept of "stare decisis" and up turn years of established law.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration's Justice Department challenges the ruling even though Obama says he is in favor of abolishing DADT.

[IanBorthwick]

CLASSIC Republican duality there!

Despite this:
President Barack Obama is pushing for a repeal of the controversial policy. A bill currently before Congress would overturn the measure after a Pentagon review is completed in December.

they warn:
Log Cabin Republicans praised the ruling but urged "caution by servicemembers considering coming out at this time, as the Obama administration still has the option to appeal."

If ever you needed to see the incredibly strange way their minds work, here is a classic example. What blows my mind is the "Lincoln Logs" as they are known better(Log Cabin Republicans) make their strange appeals directly at Prides now. Their booth is lonely but it's shocking to see BLGT people actually listening to them.

[Long Duck Dong]

I have said it before and I will say it again.... I have served with some of the finest LGBT people I have ever met....... and bullets do not discriminate... people do....

[TaylorMade]

CLASSIC Republican duality there!

Despite this:

they warn:

If ever you needed to see the incredibly strange way their minds work, here is a classic example. What blows my mind is the "Lincoln Logs" as they are known better(Log Cabin Republicans) make their strange appeals directly at Prides now. Their booth is lonely but it's shocking to see BLGT people actually listening to them.

<snickers> Ian, you're so cute.


The LCR were the ones that filed the suit to begin with. Not GLAAD. Not HRC.
(http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2010/10/log-cabin-republicans-praise-injunction-against-dont-ask-dont-tell-read-the-judges-ruling.html)
And considering that Harry Reid played politics with DADT the last time by throwing in the DREAM act at the last minute, maybe it's time the appeal should be made.

How about this revolutionary thought? Maybe neither party has the interest of the LBGT community at heart.

*Taylor*

[citystyleguy]

How about this revolutionary thought? Maybe neither party has the interest of the LBGT community at heart.

*Taylor*

...both of the political arms of the government have long out-lasted any fundamental reason for existence; neither has stood for anything, nor achieved long lasting change since johnson killed the democratic party, and nixon succeeded in killing the republican party. now it is just a single-party oligarchy of the democans and the republicrats.

until the electorate wakes up, amends the constitution twice, one to eliminate the electoral college, and the other, to enfranchise representative plurality, the average american will be continued to be swindled, hoodwinked, and thieved for many more decades to come!

neither party is interested in representing any community other than its own self-serving interests, and those represented by the lobbyists!

[jeffsteph]

i am a soldier and i am all for getting rid of dadt but a civilian court ruled against dadt it should not make any difference because it should be up to a military court. civilians should keep in their place and not interfere with the practices of the military.

[IanBorthwick]

i am a soldier and i am all for getting rid of dadt but a civilian court ruled against dadt it should not make any difference because it should be up to a military court. civilians should keep in their place and not interfere with the practices of the military.

Sorry to inform you, son, but you answer to the Civilian Populace. The military answers to the masses, not the other way around. My martial arts teacher made sure I understood what it was when he went into the Army and what you don't understand now.

You go into the military and you lose ALL rank in the world. You have willingly debased yourself into a system where you are ultimately responsible up the chain of command to a Civilian. We outrank you. If you don't like it, understand that we don't care and that it is not your place to say only the Military can dictate to the Military. Your commander in chief does not have to have served in the military and he is elected BY the citizens of the US. End of story.

This is not a dictatorial government where the Military is better than, or holds sway over, the citizenry. Rethink yourself, son. What you think is proper sounds like a military state or tyranny. Slippery slope at best.

[TaylorMade]

Son? The guy is 31, Ian...less than a decade your junior. Your patronizing tone is your right, but from one civilian to another, you've done nothing to earn my respect while that soldier has done plenty. Any good ideas or points you had in your post are totally lost in that nose-in-the-air-fist-up-the-ass treatment. I'll be more than glad to give him the respect that your mother obviously forgot to teach you.

<snort> Son.

*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

Holy shit...I agree with Ian....sorta.

He's right. The military answers to a civilian. But, they only answer to ONE civilian. That's it. The rest of teh civilian population doesn't mean squat to or for the military.

Now...I am unsure of teh court's standing here. Part of me thinks this is great and fantastic (I hate DADT). Another part of me, however, wonders what sort of pandora's box we open here by allowing suit to be filed in civilian court to address military policy.

What happens if some soldier who had his Wheaties pissed in decides to take the issue to the court? Does the court understand military methodology and best practices enough to make an informed decision? Somehow I don't think so. I see lives being on the line, and the unintended consequences of court decisions costing young men and women their lives.

I'm looking at this and honestly wondering if this is the right way to go. There is FAR more at stake, potentially, than DADT.

Also, Ian. The LCR recomended waiting for soldiers to have their coming out parties until everything is said and done because it understands that there is no going back. Unless they have full protection, and not just temporarily so, they need to just keep on keeping on. Until it's decided, it's best to wait. Not trusting this or any administration is the prudent course. If you'd served, you'd know this (which illustrates my earlier point).

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

we protect the civilians and look out for them.... yes we answer to civilians.....
but civilians whose idea of doing the hard yards is fish without tartar sauce... champagne with a screw top.... lol.... and all the other sarcastic remarks I can think off......

but... DADT ???? lol.... out on patrol, knee down in swamps and shit, bullets flying around your head, barely able to see........ lol your sexuality rights are the last thing on your mind.... cos you are more likely to get a bullet in ya ass than a cock.......

your sexuality and rights to express it.... do not apply to the barracks full of cadets, you are there to sleep, not fuck... if you have time to fuck, your PT instructor sucks.....

your sexuality has no place in the military, you are not there to make gf's and bf's, you are there to be a fuckin soldier....... the only load you should be worried about, is the one in your gun, not your dick.......

sexuality matters to those that are distracted, not focussed, and those people place me at risk, they place my platoon at risk.....
if you want to be bi, les or gay, do it when you are not facing a loaded gun, nor directing shell fire........ do it when you are not in the barracks, on patrol, during exercises......

sexuality matters to you, not to me, I do not care if you are bi, les, gay, asexual, what matters is can I depend on you, soldier......

there is a time and place for sexuality in the army, so yes you should have the right to be who you are..... but please, tell me..... where does your sexuality matter, in the army.....

that is my question to all the military personnel out there...... at what point, does, *you wanna fuck *, stop, and being a soldier start..........

yes I am a ex soldier.... yes I could come out as bi.... and yes, it didn't fucking matter.... cos 99&#37; of the time, getting laid was the last thing on my mind........

so when we repeal DADT, how is it gonna improve the quality of our military.... and is it...??? cos if your sexuality is your biggest concern as a soldier..... take your gilli suit, your kit and your gun..... and move a few 100 miles away from me please..... I want soldiers with their mind on the job, not their hands down their pants......

off the base, I could not care if a soldier does most of the civilian population..... its not my concern or my worry..... on base, you are a soldier.... act like one, think like one, be one and maybe less of us will die on the battlefeild

[rissababynta]

I, for one, am semi for DADT. It helps to provide some protection to homosexual soldiers. The only thing about it I don't like is how if a soldier is even suspected of being gay, it turns into some weird gay witch hunt...sometimes to the point of harassment. And God forbid they do find something out...then no matter how long you've been in, how much you've achieved and how much you've worked...it means nothing to them. They strip you of what you've earned and kick you out as if you've done NOTHING. So wrong. If they would have just done away with THAT part...I wouldn't have ever had a problem with the DADT policy.