Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  the don't tell show

BREAKING: Judge Tells Pentagon To Immediately Halt DADT Discharges

U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips, overseeing the Log Cabin Republicans’ DADT lawsuit, today ordered the Department of Defense “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding. While we should expect DoJ to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit (because that is the Obama administration’s nature), it’s unquestionably a bold move, and will carry much weight when the decision is reviewed, since the Court of Appeals will consider the reasoning behind the lower court’s ruling. (The order also says LCR can request the feds pay their legal bills.) However, like we said when Phillips handed down her original ruling: that doesn’t mean The Gays should be coming out right away if they want to keep their jobs.

Reader Ryan sends in this strong wording from her order:

(1) DECLARES that the act known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense 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” Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.

(4) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans’ request to apply for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

(5) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans’ request to file a motion for costs of suit, to the extent allowed by law.

Meanwhile, today appears to be DoJ’s last day to file an appeal in the “DOMA is unconstitutional” ruling out of Massachusetts’ federal court. UPDATE: DoJ is appealing.

By:           Ryan Tedder
On:           Oct 12, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • 62 Comments
    • Ted B.
      Ted B.

      A judicial thunder clap from the Federal bench…. wow and hurrah!!
      Time for that “fierce advocate” to put-up-or-shut-up.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      “to ‘immediately to…'”

      For God’s sake, please edit your copy.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 3:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      “will carry much weight when the decision is reviewed”

      No, it won’t.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 7
      7

      Has Obama even said anything about this yet? I kept hearing about how he hadn’t for weeks, and now I don’t hear anything.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David
      Dallas David

      It’s 33 years too late for me.

      But, better late than never.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      The Democrats delivered. If that vacant seat on the District Court was filled by a Republican president, we probably wouldn’t have gotten the ruling.

      Goes to show that elections have consequences beyond what legislation a president signs, beyond what gets the talking heads on cable news yapping. Bill Clinton has redeemed himself with his appointment of Virginia Phillips. And should this reach the Supreme Court, we have a far better chance with the two new Obama appointed Justices than we would if a president McCain packed the court with more conservatives.

      Ironic how the Log Cabin Republicans got this favorable ruling despite the fact that the judge was appointed by a president whom they didn’t want to win.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Thank God for the courts. This administration and the Dems have failed miserably to advance any relevant GLBT legislation or right the long list of wrongs. Thank you Judge Phillips!

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      I’m increasingly convinced that the federal courts are the only way that DADT and DOMA will be repealed. Meanwhile, our elected officials and fierce advocate in the WH are watching from their offices.

      Assuming that SCOTUS sees these recent rulings within the next 2 years, maybe there will be enough momentum in the courts (and in political dialogue) that SCOTUS will ALSO see that LGBT discrimination is unwarranted and unconstitutional. Personally, I want to see Prop 8 to be decided by SCOTUS. It seems like the best case (with the best lawyers) for this. But, maybe in 2 years or so. We really need DOMA ruled unconstitutional. Our elected officials will unlikely touch DOMA anytime within the next 5 – 10 years in my opinion. Look at DADT. The majority of Americans want it repealed. But, it surely isn’t happening very quickly.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gary B.
      Gary B.

      Damn activist judges!

      Just kidding. Seriously though, this is a great opportunity for the Obama administration to advance our cause. I can only hope they do the right thing.

      It’s so wonderful how even though we seem to keep taking a step back, we keep also seem to keep taking two steps forward. As slow as things seem to go sometimes, they are accelerating. Change is inevitable. Next stop – legal gay marriage in all 50 states!

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      I LOVE how the judge throws the military’s own actions back in it’s face in her ruling.

      She basically says, ok, if it’s so important to get gays out because they are so horrible for the military, then why to you hold off on discharging them if they are needed in Afghanistan or Iraq?

      HA! nice! The Pentagon and politicians are not used to getting called on their hypocricy. Love it!

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      I don’t see a link to this ruling mentioned above.

      So, here it is.

      http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/Cacd/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/4f03e468a737002e8825779a00040406/$FILE/CV04-08425-VAP%28Ex%29-Opinion.pdf

      I always skip to the last 1 – 2 pages of these rulings to see how the “conclusion” is worded, etc.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • joe
      joe

      Truth is that the most homophobic people are the increasing shares of the Democratic vote: Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans. They’re a bait-and-switch party.

      Now anyone that has anything good to say about Republicans as a whole, advancing equal rights for gays is just as nuts as the same for Democrats, but it’s pretty amazing to see little groups like the Log Cabin Republicans come out and actually make an advance.

      With old white people dying out and young hispanics flooding in, the Republican and Democratic party are going to look veeeeery different in 10 20 years.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      “The courts, the courts, the courts will save us.”

      You brain dead, shortsighted morons! The courts are not some monolithic, anonymous entity that just sprung from the earth. Those federal courts you praise are shaped by elected officials, and this is a perfectly good demonstration of why we must keep our eye on the ideology war. The more we fail to vote and support the right candidates, the more the other guys win, the more they appoint judges and justices who can tear our hearts out and reverse the progress this country has made rather than advance it the way Judge Phillips just did.

      You’re so busy looking at Democratic legislative accomplishments that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Michael W.:

      Really Michael? And it never occurs to you that in this instance, the courts DID come through for us while the White House put hurdles in the way.

      So continue to cry and scream all you want, but there is no way you are going to turn this into some hand holding sing along praising Obama for his help with gay rights.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_A._Phillips has a bio of the judge (a Clinton appointee). Curiously, there is a disparaging remark about the judge near the end, something added today by someone unhappy with the ruling (and that gratuitous comment will no doubt be gone shortly).

      Oct 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @Mark: What’s your baseline for “relevant”?

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman
      Michael Letterman

      This will be overturned as it should be. The district court has no jurisdiction over military policy which is set by DOJ. Furthermore just like the gays should not be forced to do the unthinkable (lead normal non perverted lives) the brave men and women of the military should not be forced to deal with the gays.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Since this decision doesn’t dovetail with his personal homophobic perspective, President Obama will simply ignore it, just like he ignored Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who held that a gay court employee could and should be permitted to put her spouse on her health insurance plan.

      And once again, the fact that a POTUS is ignoring the RULE OF LAW won’t bother anyone overmuch, because it’s just gay stuff, and who cares?

      When you ignore a court order, that’s contempt. And it’s contempt whether you’re the president or a plumber. And we all ought to admit that had George W. told a federal judge to blow it out his ass, it would have been front-page news, replete with handwringing pundits ominously discussing the looming “constitutional crisis.”

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Michael Letterman: said..

      This will be overturned as it should be. The district court has no jurisdiction over military policy which is set by DOJ. Furthermore just like the gays should not be forced to do the unthinkable (lead normal non perverted lives) the brave men and women of the military should not be forced to deal with the gays.

      _____________________________

      wow, that is actually completely wrong. If the court didn’t have jurisdiction the case would have been tossed out. The Military is occaisionally given LEEWAY by the court but it absolutly must abide by the courts rulings. Remember, several people have sued individually after being discharged under DADT and been reeinstated to the military.

      As for what the Brave men and Women of the military must be forced to deal with…funny how nobody asked them if they wanted to be kept over in Iraq and Afghanistan far longer then they were promised they had to be, and nobody asked them their opinions when people like Senator McCain was blocking an increase in their benefits, and none of them were asked their opinion when the man in charge of the entire war in Afghanistan was recently fired. No, the ONLY time anybody pretends to care what they think is when they are hoping that the soldiers opinons will back up their own bigotry.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      @Cam: Everyone knows the Obama justice department put up the weakest defense they possibly could. It was done for political cover. They knew the ruling would go against them from the beginning.

      As for today’s victory, it’s not about Obama, it’s about the Democratic party and how the presidency of Bill Clinton facilitated the ruling. It’s about how hypocritical the Log Cabinites are for supporting a party which will disparage Virginia Phillips as an “activist judge,” helping to rip apart the American social fabric.

      Someday down the road there will be another big case, perhaps in relation to civil rights, that’s decided in favor of progressive values by a federal judge who was appointed by Obama. THAT is my point here. As we speak, he’s helping to shape the present and future of the federal bench, even though that doesn’t make headline news. Then I will praise him, maybe in face of those who can’t see the hand he had in that victory.

      Elections have consequences, and they reach beyond legislative accomplishments on capitol hill. Those who worked to elect and re-elect Bill Clinton and other Dems in the 90’s, who felt stabbed in the back by DADT, now see that their hard work paid off in the end. Meanwhile the Log Cabinities will go back to foolishly empowering the Republican party and its conservative base.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Michael W.:

      Michael, I agree with much of what youa re saying, but just have two points.

      1. This lawsuit was started when Patrick Guarino was head of Log Cabin, he is the one who refused to endorse Bush because of the anti-gay direction of the campaign and took a load of crap for it. He had integrity. The person in charge of the group now The one who insists on pretentiously using his first initia (R. Clark Cooper) would NEVER have started this suit, he is a republican first in his mind and gay man somewhere down below. So I think that the current Log Cabin’s are riding on the coattails of a former head of their group who was a very good guy.

      2. Obama didn’t tell their DOJ to put on a weak defense, it’s that the policy is indefensible. And if he is doing it for political cover it would hav been a bad move, all that is going to be said is that while he didn’t really help gays, some republican group sued to get us our rights.

      You are correct that future judges are important in rulings, but if we don’t hold the Dems feet to the fire, they will toss us away and appoint anti-gay judges just to appease the GOP

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David
      Dallas David

      Good luck to the gays and lesbians in the military who get to be the first ones to test the mercy of their homophobic fellow soldiers. My guess is that it won’t be pretty.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rogi Riverstone
      Rogi Riverstone

      I think I’d feel better about the justice of this if I weren’t so sure the US has decided perpetual war is some sort of economic stimulus program. I kinda hate thinking what we’ve just “earned” in cost of human life, and these are hard times for Queer life, anyway. So, I’m glad folks might not have to be so scared of witch hunts, but I really am glad I ain’t in the military.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rogi Riverstone
      Rogi Riverstone

      @Dallas David: Dude, we’ve always been braver and put up with more crap.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim W
      Tim W

      @Michael W.: Hmmmm see that means nothing. Both the Prop 8 ruling and the DOMA ruling in MA were overturned by judges appointed by Republican presidents. And who is appealing the ruling on DOMA?? No other than Obama’s DOJ so let’s cut out the D good, R bad mantra. Of course all of us who are angry with Obama selling us down the river are all Republican racists according to Pegasus. I am lucky both of my senators have signed a letter asking the DOJ not to appeal this decision, they will get my vote and money.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Thom Freeheart
      Thom Freeheart

      Thank you, Log Cabin Republicans.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran
      Kieran

      Can you believe we have to fight a civil rights battle in order to win the right to fight and die for the American ideals of “liberty, freedom, justice, equality, etc” in Iraq and Afghanistan? It would almost be funny if it weren’t so damn sad.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 8:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_A._Phillips has her bio – she is a Clinton appointee. A disparaging remark added by a homophobe has already been deleted, with the page history suggesting that this person refrain from vandalism. As of this instant, the page is accurate.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TGC
      TGC

      And where was Gay Inc.? Was Joe Dirtyknees busy with the cocktail party circuit? I get the sense that the professional victims really don’t want DADT to end. One less thing to whine, piss and moan about.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 11:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McMike
      McMike

      @Dallas David: That reminds me of the joke about the reason why some people don’t want gays serving in the military is because they don’t want some guy with a gun going “Who did you just call a fag?”.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 12:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Michael Letterman said “This will be overturned as it should be. The district court has no jurisdiction over military policy which is set by DOJ.

      Wrong. Federal courts have jurisdiction over federal laws. The military gay ban was an act of Congress, therefore it is (was) a federal law.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 1:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Michael W.@Michael W. said, As for today’s victory, it’s not about Obama, it’s about the Democratic party and how the presidency of Bill Clinton facilitated the ruling.”

      EXACTLY!

      Without the Democratic party and Bill Clinton enacting the federal law banning gays from serving in the military, how could this Clinton appointed judge have even gotten the opportunity to hold that law unconstitutional 17 years later?

      The Log Cabin Republicans landmark should rightly go down as a Democratic party triumph.

      [img]http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/wh-double-facepalm.jpg[/img]

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hari
      Hari

      Going by the people in uniform who say that DADT is stupid, you wonder who actually supports it…

      Oct 13, 2010 at 4:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rainfish2000
      rainfish2000

      Too many brave and good citizens, Gay and Straight alike, have fought and died on too many bloody battlefields so that all people can partake of freedom. No one should belittle their ultimate sacrifice by parceling out equality as if it were their own special gift to give to a favored segment of society.

      To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg: America cannot long stand as a house divided.

      It’s time America stopped pretending to be the land of freedom and equality for all, and actually be the land of freedom and equality for all of its citizens — without exception.

      It is shameful that we have allowed any form of discrimination to have existed for so long in our society. History will remember these ugly stains we have left on the social fabric of our country for a long, long time. Why is the USA always claiming to be the land of personal freedom, when the rest the Western World laughs at our arrogance and hypocrisy by way our disgraceful treatment of our own fellow Americans — be they racial, religious, gender related, ethnocentric or sexual minorities? Aren’t we better than that?

      President Obama’s DOJ is not legally obliged to appeal the latest Federal Court ruling striking down DADT. He was stated that he prefers that a divided Congress acts on the matter of repealing DADT, and not a federal court dismantling this obnoxious discriminatory law. But, if that same option had prevailed in the 1967, then Obama’s own parents would not have been legally recognized as married in many states in America which had interracial marriage bans when he was a child.

      The true extent of Obama’s political cowardice and personal homophobia will be revealed in the next few days or weeks as the appeals deadline approached in less than 60 days. Let’s hope he has both the heart and the guts to do the right thing and to let the federal ruling stand. If not, then Barack Obama’s shameful place in history will have been secured as an enabler of discrimination and a defender of unconscionable bigotry. What a sad legacy that would be for the first black president of the United States of America.

      [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jCT9n9hItmA/TLV9Ammy41I/AAAAAAAAAc0/FusVfJn0Z7w/s1600/Spider2a-EVANS.jpg[/img]

      Oct 13, 2010 at 5:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Beltane
      Beltane

      Interesting link below to some military personel comments on the earlier ruling. Most of the posts are very positive.

      http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1587679-Federal-judge-issues-injunction-against-gay-ban-%28DADT%29

      Oct 13, 2010 at 7:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Dallas David: said..

      “Good luck to the gays and lesbians in the military who get to be the first ones to test the mercy of their homophobic fellow soldiers. My guess is that it won’t be pretty.”
      ______________________-

      Stop buying into victimhood. I have dated several people that were in the military and all of them had one thing in common…most of the people they served with knew.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 8:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Ironic that a group of gay republicans brought the suit and yet the majority of their party wants DADT to remain in place. Its beyond me how any sane gay man or woman would want to support a party that clearly doesn’t want them or their full equality.

      I don’t have any faith in the SCOTUS to rule on DOMA or DADT favorably if it ever comes to that, now that its stacked with catholic conservatives who are the majority on the bench. They’ve already proved they don’t take into consideration “precedence” when it ruled to allow foreign entities to fund republican campaigns via the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in other words, buy elections while remaining anonymous as to the source of donations. Corruption is legal now.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 9:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doug
      Doug

      @Michael W.:
      I agree completely. We definitely want judges legislating from the Bench. Maybe we can get rid of congress completely and just have the socialist in the white house appoint all of the judges and they can make up all the rules they want. This is definitely good news for the republicans in the upcoming election though, so I thank her for that. When the dems lose the house, senate and the White House in 2012 I don’t want to hear your complaints when the republican appointees decide that abortion is a violation of the childs rights and just outlaw it. That is what your advocating …Right!

      Oct 13, 2010 at 9:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doug
      Doug

      @Doug: I see so if your “flagged by other users for being a jerk” your comments won’t be published. I should have known that this site is a group think project and dissenting or truthful information that opposes viewpoints will be censored out. Typical liberal nonsense.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doug
      Doug

      @robert in nyc: Well Robert maybe I can answer that for you. Lets see? It is great that we can have gays serve in the Military for a Country that is Bankrupt. I hate to be the one to explain this to you but gay people serving in the Military is way down on the importance list in a Country being driven to Bankruptcy by the Democrats. You might want to take the blinders off and look at the big picture of what is actually important at this time. This isn’t it.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doug
      Doug

      @robert in nyc: Robert you might want to take a look at the money being anonymously pumped into democratic elections as well. How about a little fairness here. But if you want to talk about a valid problem that is one sided feel free to bring up the Black Panther controversy, the Obama administration looking the other way when Blacks break the law. Or you could look up the Sestak update. Such as Bill Clinton back pedaling and know saying he really didn’t offer Sestak a job. Wow if thats true we are talking about election tampering within the Obama Whitehouse. That is an impeachable offense. Why isn’t this covered in the news and where is the outrage on this website.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Well Doug, I’ll never convince you but the bankruptcy you speak of was aided and abetted by the Bush administration under which 4 million jobs were lost. Bush started the stimulus package with the first bailout before he left office. I didn’t see your people complaining about that and in fact, when he left office he left the country with the biggest debt in recorded history which your party either the GOP or Civil Liberarans, not much difference there between the two, tried to blame on the current administration.

      I don’t doubt that some democrats benefited from corruption, they most certainly have (am not a democrat and certainly not a republican), but the republicans really need to take ownership of their part in bringing the country to where it is now instead of blaming the democrats for every ill in this society. Bush never cared about bipartisanship, he went ahead and did whatever he wanted with total disregard for any input from the opposition. All the GOP has done has put obstacle after obstacle in the path of progress, an m.o. to bring down this administration, no matter what it takes and with it the entire country as it sits back and allows the right wing nutjobs of the O’Donnell, Paladino and Bachman ilk to get elected to office. The fact that you don’t think DADT is a priority speaks volumes. I suppose you’re quite happy to sit back and enjoy the inequality you now enjoy. Amazing how some gays love and support their oppressors which is what DADT, DOMA are all about. Even if the country were booming, you’d still have the same attitude.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      “The White House and it’s knee jerk defenders claim that It’s Dpeartment of Justice always HAS to defend any law. Actually, that is a complete lie..

      Bush refused to defend ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta,
      Clinton refused to defend Dickerson v. United States.,
      George HW Bush refused to defend Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission., Ronald Reagan refused to defend INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha.,

      Additionally, all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

      ‘So traditionally the President only defends heinous cases when he wants to.’

      So Enthusiasm gap? Uh….YEAH!””

      Oct 13, 2010 at 11:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David
      Dallas David

      ?No. 21 · Dallas David: Good luck to the gays and lesbians in the military who get to be the first ones to test the mercy of their homophobic fellow soldiers. My guess is that it won’t be pretty.

      No. 23 · Rogi Riverstone @Dallas David: Dude, we’ve always been braver and put up with more crap.

      No. 29 · McMike @Dallas David: That reminds me of the joke about the reason why some people don’t want gays serving in the military is because they don’t want some guy with a gun going “Who did you just call a fag?”.

      No. 35 · Cam @Dallas David: said..”Good luck to the gays and lesbians in the military who get to be the first ones to test the mercy of their homophobic fellow soldiers. My guess is that it won’t be pretty.”
      ______________________
      -Stop buying into victimhood. I have dated several people that were in the military and all of them had one thing in common…most of the people they served with knew.
      =========================

      Recalling the abuse heaped upon black servicemen in the early days of military integration, and seeing no reason to suspect that another round of melding outcasts into the mainstream won’t produce similar reactions, There’s no doubt in my mind that there will be some tragedies perpetrated by anti-gay extremists before everyone finally gets along.

      There’s no getting around it, I suppose. It’ll be a while before the necessary protections are in place, and a few well-publicized atrocities will probably occurr before military leadership takes this seriously.

      So . . . my hearts go out to these guys. It isn’t going to be easy for them. But, it has to be done.
      ??

      Oct 13, 2010 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maj D Copson, USMC (ret)
      Maj D Copson, USMC (ret)

      Now, at a time when our military is as heavily engaged as it has been for more than forty years, at a time when individual troops are ordered to repeated deployments to the war zones, now in a time of military uncertainty and maximum commitment, is the wrong time for our politicians to advocate for a social
      engineering experiment by endorsing an end to the current don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

      Neither the president nor an overwhelming preponderance of those in Congress have served a single day in our country’s military. For them now to pander to a vocal minority seeking a liberal interpretation of society’s rules is disturbing and quite revealing as to the total lack of any consideration of the residual effects of their actions. To politicize our military in a time of war is as incredibly contemptible as it is indisputably ignorant of the military as an institution, a separate and distinct body tasked with the most crucial tasks of
      defending our nation in a time of war.

      To our politicians I say: Tinker with the civilian world if you must; do not impose your liberal agenda on America’s military for the purpose of vote gathering.

      Are there gays in our military? Certainly and always has been. “Don’t ask, don’t
      tell!”

      You can read my complete article here:

      http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5815772/dont_ask_dont_tell_and_the_foll
      y_of.html?cat=9

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Maj. D. Copson, are you for eventually overturning DADT? I suspect you’re not. That said, I didn’t hear the likes of people like you complaining about openly gay men and women serving alongside our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily the British military which allows gay men and women to serve openly along with the majority of western nations. I didn’t hear any bleating from the top brass about cohesion problems or what the negative implications were and are either. I would have thought that if it was such a problem, our top brass would have refused to accept any military support from a close ally. Please provide documentary evidence of the British model and how our troops fighting alongside them have been affected in a negative way and how it has caused serious issues with cohesion? The British government or military has reported any negative effects since the law to allow their gay people to serve openly. In fact, the top brass there encourages gay people to serve. You must be proud when you endorse dishonesty by forcing gay men and women to lie about who they are, yet they’re good enough to shed their blood and die for their country. This is nothing more than veiled homophobia on your part and I’d respect you more if you were honest. You will deny it of course, homophobes always do when confronted with the truth. You sir are a bigot.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Correction to my previous comment. I meant to have said…”The British government or military have not reported any negative effects since the law there to allow gay men and women to serve openly went into effect almost ten years ago.”

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sean
      Sean

      I don’t understand why this is an issue. ACCORDING THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION (THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT) HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO APPEAL ANY RULING ON ESTABLISHED CONGRESSIONAL LAW UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULES IT.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maj D Copson, USMC (ret)
      Maj D Copson, USMC (ret)

      Robert in NYC: What a bunch of illogical poppycock. And, your name calling is the predictable response of an ultra-liberal. Anyone who disagrees with aliberal, wespecially a gay liberal, is a bigot – must be according to you. My guess is you never served your country in the military for a single day? While I spent 20+years in service, you probably sat on yr liberal a** in the bastion of liberals, NYC, promoting the gay agenda.

      The current policy allows gays to serve in the military, but – and I’m sorry for this – they just can’t have gay pride events in uniform. Now isn’t that a shame?

      Now, get back to planning next year’s gay pride festival and stop bothering me! You’ll never understand our military.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Hmmm, Copson, you condescedning phoney right wing bastard. You’re such a coward, you can’t even respond to my questions in an honest manner. Instead, you avoid answering altogether by responding in the usual republican manner by calling me a liberal, as if that hurts me. You avoid answering my questions because you can’t even provide the preponderance of the evidence to prove that allowing gays to serve openly in the military impedes the cohesion of its operations and morale. Where’s your proof, pal? In your world, gays would never be allowed to serve, let alone exist. The fact that they are while the rest of the military knows should cause their straight counterparts to withdraw from active duty altogether if its causing so much moral decay and decline and unit incoehsion in the field of battle. I guess you’re the sort who would rather die than allow a gay soldier to save your life, what a waste of energy that would be. Your stereotyping of an entire group of people is typical and displays your stunning ignorance using Gay Pride marches as a smear. What would you know about that, taking your cue in parrot fashion from Paladino? You know absolutely NOTHING about us. Just exactly what are you doing anyway trolling gay blogsites? Not the behavior of a well adjusted straight male. Prurient interest no doubt.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Hmmm, Copson, you condescedning phoney right wing bastard. You’re such a coward, you can’t even respond to my questions in an honest manner. Instead, you avoid answering altogether by responding in the usual republican manner by calling me a liberal, as if that hurts me. You avoid answering my questions because you can’t even provide the preponderance of the evidence to prove that allowing gays to serve openly in the military impedes the cohesion of its operations and morale. Where’s your proof, pal? In your world, gays would never be allowed to serve, let alone exist. The fact that they are while the rest of the military knows should cause their straight counterparts to withdraw from active duty altogether if its causing so much moral decay and decline and unit incohesion in the field of battle. I guess you’re the sort who would rather die than allow a gay soldier to save your life, what a waste of energy that would be. Your stereotyping of an entire group of people is typical and displays your stunning ignorance using Gay Pride marches as a smear. What would you know about that, taking your cue in parrot fashion from Paladino? You know absolutely NOTHING about us. Just exactly what are you doing anyway trolling gay blogsites? Not the behavior of a well adjusted straight male. Prurient interest no doubt.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 3:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Maj D Copson, USMC (ret):

      The typical burned out old bigot using the same tired old excuses.

      Your article means nothing, your opinion means nothing, everything is irrelevent when held up against civil rights. And here is a thought, perhaps the military wouldn’t STILL be involved overseas if they weren’t spending all their time seeking out and kicking out GAy Arab Linguists and experts in their fields. Around 15,000 people have been kicked out under DADT since it’s inception, do you think that MAYBE some may have been helpful?

      They’ve been in Afghanistan for 10 years and still haven’t even been able to train up a native Police force for the capital city….gee, maybe a few more Pashto speakers would have helped huh?

      Oct 13, 2010 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Sean wrote: ACCORDING THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION (THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT) HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO APPEAL ANY RULING…

      That is weapons-grade bullshit.

      No party has any obligation to appeal any decision. Appeals are 100% discretionary.

      What’s more, the administration is not even asserting a legal obligation to defend the law in the first place, (much less asserting any legal obligation to appeal). Even they say they’re doing it on the basis of “tradition.”

      Tradition is not a legal obligation. It’s certainly not a Constitutional obligation.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 7:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sean
      Sean

      @the crustybastard: It is not bullshit. What is your qualification for determining that it is bullshit? Are you a 2nd year law student? I’m guessing no.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Sean:

      It doesn’t take a 2L to read the Constitution.

      Had you actually read it, you’d find that the Constitution creates no legal obligation for the President to appeal the decision of any court that holds a law unconstitutional.

      You say it does, but instead of supporting your assertion with a citation, you deflect by attempting to disparage me personally. It’s quite simple: step up or shut up. Support your claim, or concede it’s bullshit.

      But you won’t, because you can’t.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 1:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sean
      Sean

      @the crustybastard: Ugh you’re so exhausting. I laid it out in the other thread. I also just emailed 2 of my professors. I’ll just post what they write back when they respond and this will all be over.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 2:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Sean: Dear Professor Obama. Don’t bother answering cause Sean knows it’s already over. He has now resorted to screaming fuck you and ugh to all those speaking out.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 2:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sean
      Sean

      @ewe:

      From the Washington Post:

      “The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military.

      “I think this is the answer,” Dellinger said, noting that it would be politically untenable to allow a single district judge to set law for the country in a case that the Supreme Court has not heard.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101306588.html

      Oct 14, 2010 at 2:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Sean: “I think this is the answer,” Dellinger said, noting that it would be politically untenable to allow a single district judge to set law for the country in a case that the Supreme Court has not heard.”

      Read more: http://www.queerty.com/breaking-judge-tells-pentagon-to-immediately-halt-dadt-discharges-20101012/#ixzz12JWHmkNu

      The Supreme Court does not have to hear this at all and the single district judge’s ruling stands.

      The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law

      Read more: http://www.queerty.com/breaking-judge-tells-pentagon-to-immediately-halt-dadt-discharges-20101012/#ixzz12JWp1DfO

      Generally? Lots of room to debate Sean.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 2:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David
      Dallas David

      @Maj D Copson, USMC (ret):
      The military will say in time of war, “Oh no, we can’t make these changes now because we’ve got too much on our plate as it is.”
      But then the military will say in time of peace, “There’s no need to make this change; we have enough people as it is.”

      If the military had been honest about this issue all along, this would have been resolved decades ago.

      When they kicked me out in 1977 (peacetime) they justified their action by saying “I posed a security risk because I could be blackmailed by someone threatening to reveal my sexual orientation.” I pointed out that everyone knew; but they just didn’t want to see things in a rational way, and out I went.

      Screw your damn war; we shouldn’t be over there anyway. It’s just a war to preserve access to cheap oil for Exxon. And it’s cost thousands of US troop’s lives, hundreds of thousands of Arab lives, brought shame and disrepute on the reputation of the USA in the eyes of the folks in the middle east, and now this GD war is used as an excuse by the military leaders to defer a basic human right to gay & lesbian military people?

      I don’t think so.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 3:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Sean:

      You’ve laid out no case. You just keep repeating the same argument that they have a legal obligation without providing a citation to the law you believe creates this legal obligation.

      “I also just emailed 2 of my professors. I’ll just post what they write back when they respond and this will all be over.”

      So you took a cheap shot at me for being a law student, and it turns out you’re the mere student? LOL.

      It will all be over if you emailed your professors, “ACCORDING THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION (THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT) HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO APPEAL ANY RULING…”

      You should stick with the all-caps too. It really helps your credibility.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 3:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      No. 58, Dallas David……Well said and thank you for saying it.

      Oct 14, 2010 at 8:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.