Breaking: Log Cabin Republicans Asks Supreme Court To Toss Out 9th Circuit’s DADT Stay, Immediately Halt Discharges

In an emergency request to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision to grant a stay, thus blocking Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Log Cabin Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to toss out the stay and keep DADT from being enforced while the government appeals the decision. The option to act falls to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles the Ninth Circuit’s appeals, and who “will likely ask his eight colleagues to help him decide and order the federal government to weigh in with its views before a decision is made,” says CNN. LCR’s chief R. Clarke Cooper says, “It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court.” The group writes in its filing, called an “application,” “Unless the court of appeals stay is vacated, the respondents will be free to continue to investigate and discharge American service members for no reason other than their homosexuality, in violation of their due process and First Amendment rights.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #don'taskdon'ttell(dadt) #logcabinrepublicans stories and more


  • Michael @

    Sure, I’ll still give them credit if they succeed…

    BUT Cooper and his fellow LCR Kapos should






    be forgiven for helping drive Patrick Murphy out of office, our greatest ally in Congress in helping end the ban legislatively, by endorsing his opponent simply because he is a goddamn Republican.

    Such betrayal is JUST as great as anything I have ever criticized Obama for, and I say a plague on their houses! EVEN the pathological GOPhags didn’t do that.


  • Kev C

    Odd as it sounds, the LCR are saving Obama’s butt from appealing the Phillips’ decision. How embarrassing would it be for his DoJ to argue for the constitutionality of DADT? That day may never come if it goes to the Supreme Court.

  • WillBFair

    I don’t know if this is strategically smart. The Court is controlled by conservatives, and this could easily backfire on us.
    It’s sad that our strategy is randomly chosen by a hodge podge of groups, instead of carefully planned according to political realities. But the community is too self destructive and self righteous to take advantage of our opportunities.
    For example, Washington State has given us everything in the new domestic partnership law. They call it ‘everything but marraige’. And with public opinion on our side, many other States could have the same law. That would help get the larger public used to the idea of gay marraige.
    But the community have worked themselves into a lather simply because the public are sentimental about marraige. The public have set their jaws, and we’ll probably have to wait another generation.

  • Devon

    I definitely wasn’t one of them, but with stories like this is it really so surprising that 30% of gays voted Republican?

  • B

    No. 4 · Devon wrote, “I definitely wasn’t one of them, but with stories like this is it really so surprising that 30% of gays voted Republican?”

    …. after forgetting that just 6 years ago, the Republicans were pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

  • slobone

    Obviously Kennedy’s not going to overturn the stay, but it will be on strictly procedural grounds, not substantive. So it won’t have much effect on anything. Pretty much a waste of time all around.

  • Kev C

    @the crustybastard: Oh who cares. F’ em all. The Dems could have been heroes instead of zeros. Playing politics is for pricks, and not the good kind.

  • Joe in Savannah

    Michael (and I’m probably going to catch hell for this but….), I’m a Gay Republican. Being a Gay Republican, you are often torn as to who you should vote for, which is sad, but nobody ever said life was easy. Every time we go to the polls, gay republicans are forced to choose between who they think is best for themselves, versus who they think is best for the country. I faced this issue in ’08. My partner is in the military. So obviously DADT is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Obviously, Obama would have been the logical choice for me, because he (supposedly) wanted to repeal it. However, at the same time, McCain was the right choice for me, because I believe in fiscal conservatisim. So, do I become selfish, and vote for myself, or do I make an selfless act and support who I believe would help our country more? Its not always an easy choice. Now, I dont know Pat Murphy, or anything that he did or stood for. I have heard the name before, but other than that, thats it. But just because a candidate is gay doesn’t me we, as his fellow gays, have to support him. Supporting somebody simply because they are gay isn’t right. You dont vote for somebody because they are black, white, a woman, or a man, (theoretically), so why would you vote for somebody just because they are gay, or pander to the gays? Its a constant personal battle between you, and yourself.

  • CJ

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if LGBT rights eventually comes via the Republicans. What a slap to Obama and the Democrats.

  • tjr101

    @Joe in Savannah: You support the GOP because of fiscal conservatism? That’s BS!

    Honey, the GOP hasn’t been fiscally conservative since Reagan started cutting taxes for the rich and racking up huge deficits. The Log Cabin Republicans pushed out Pat Murphy because he is a Democrat that didn’t tow their idea of “fiscal conservatism” despite the fact that he pushed for repeal of DADT in the House and other gay friendly legislation. Gay Republicans are Republicans first, screw everyone else.

    Pat Murphy wasn’t supported simply because he was gay, if that were the case we would all be supporting Ken Mehlman right now who is gay. We supported Murphy because he was for equal rights for everyone.

    You are selfish after all!

  • Trent_K

    @B: Actually, there were people in BOTH parties pushing the amendment.

  • Trent_K

    That’s actually were we’re headed. The Democrats only use the LGBTQI community for money, votes and organization, and then after we get them elected our issues are always on the back burner until the next election when they come looking for $$$. It’s a game they’ve been playing since Stonewall, and the mask has finally been lifted after they’ve had 2 years controlling both houses of congress and the WH and still couldn’t get around to passing ENDA, DADT repeal or DOMA repeal. They’re USELESS.

    That party is filled with heterosexual supremacists who really hate us.

    Time for the Democratic party to go away. It’s DONE.

  • B

    o. 12 · Trent_K wrote, “@B: Actually, there were people in BOTH parties pushing the amendment.”

    Actually, you are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the fact that nearly all Democrats opposed this amendment and nearly all Republicans voted for it.

    The Republicans thought it would help get out the conservative vote – they dropped it shortly after the 2004 election but tried again in 2006. It was endorsed by George Bush when he was running for reelection:

    Also see for the 2006 vote on such a proposed amendment: “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) and other GOP leaders had sought the vote as a way to help galvanize their party’s conservative base at a time of flagging public confidence in the Bush administration and Congress.” This article also points out that in the Senate, 2 Democrats supported the measure and 6 Republicans voted against it.
    So the overwhelming majority of Republican supported banning same-sex marriages, along with 2 Democrats.

  • Cam

    @WillBFair: said..

    For example, Washington State has given us everything in the new domestic partnership law. They call it ‘everything but marraige’. And with public opinion on our side, many other States could have the same law. That would help get the larger public used to the idea of gay marraige.
    But the community have worked themselves into a lather simply because the public are sentimental about marraige.”

    No, it is because over and over again, Separate but equal has been overturned by the courts. It is why one state now has marraige, because the court said that you could not have another institution that was marriage in all but name. I’m sorry that some people have bought into their second class status so completely, but what Washington state is telling you is “The back of the bus is just as comfortable, why are you complaining?”

  • JustWatching

    CJ : It just might be that way in the future. The times they are a-changin’

  • robert in nyc

    Its not going to happen, not with five very conservative catholic bigots on the bench, Scalia being the worst. If by a miracle it ended up there and the LCG succeeded, the GOP could NOT take credit for it since the majority of them want DADT to remain, among other things.

  • randy

    The LCRs are handling this lawsuit perfectly well, as any good attorney will tell you. It is NOT a waste of time — it is dragging Obama through the mud, putting pressure on him, and making him look like an idiot. It is costing him respect and political capital. In this last election, there was a huge drop in the number of gays voting.

    This is all important. If we want our rights, we have to be wiling to fight for them, and fight hard. I’m no republican by any means, but LCR is doing a great job. They actually got a ruling in our favor at the district court, and until the 9th Circuit stepped in, DADT was dead. That’s far more actually delivered on this issue than anyone else has given us.

    The appeal to the Supreme Court is well written, and it is forcing the issue. Even if we lose, we bloody the noses of our opponents and force them to defend their bigoted views. It twists them in knots to rule against us, as the 9th circuit did. I highly doubt that court expected LCR to appeal the decision, and if the Supreme Court overrules them, it’s a huge embarrassment. They will have to be much more careful when the making their final ruling.

    And if the Supreme Court upholds the stay? We are in no worse position than before. But it does send a signal to the DOJ and Obama that we are NOT going to back down and make discrimination easy for them. Every time the DOJ files a brief against us, Obama gains more enemies and loses face. Make him suffer for doing this.

    Even if we ultimately lose, we are in no worse position, and we have a great court record of a fight. DADT is gone, and it’s only a matter of time. Obama’s legacy will only be that he kept delaying it for us.

  • B

    No. 16 · Rick Gold wrote, “@Michael @ Yup, because forgiveness is SUCH an awful thing.”

    The Republicans targeted gays in order to get the wingnut vote. Any party that targets a minority for political gain deserves no support for a very long time, and maybe never. If you want an extreme example of what happens when a political party targets an unpopular minority, just look at Germany in the early 1930s and the decade or so afterwards.

    It’s not a question of “forgiveness” on a personal level, but of making the cost of such behavior so high that nobody will ever have to say in retrospect, “never again.”

  • Riker

    @B: Oh my, you appear to have broken Godwin’s law! You lose.

  • B

    No. 21 · Riker wrote, “@B: Oh my, you appear to have broken Godwin’s law! You lose.”

    On the contrary, I was merely pointing out that those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. “Goodwin’s law” is about something else – gratuitous references to Hitler that represent mere hyperbole.

    While it is considered flawed by some, you might want to look at
    Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”. I heard this particular author once on NPR and he wasn’t so much blaming ordinary Germans as claiming that you needed two things to create a holocaust – widespread prejudice against a group of people and a government willing to exploit that. He claimed that the hatred in Germany against Jews was not really much different that the hatred against American Indians in the 1800s, but the difference was that the Nazi government actively exploited that hatred whereas the American government didn’t (they just wanted the natural resources where the Indians happened to be living and had no qualms about a land grab).

    If Goldhagen is correct (and there is some debate about whether he is), then an important role of government is to reduce hatred against minorities – then if you elect a repressive government, one of the preconditions for a tragedy will be missing.

    So, from that perspective, there is a good reason to really dump hard on the Republicans for their attempts to target gays – or any minority.

  • Pete

    Nice picture…i was under the impression that the main faggot-argument for fags in the military was something like: “Ohhh sexuality has nothing to do with their duty as soldiers…”

    But anyone that knows the history of homosexuality knows that is all a bunch of crap for the stupid straights to swallow right?

  • robert in nyc

    No. 19, Randy…. I just heard this morning that Robert Gates would like to see DADT passed before the change of command in the military takes place, but doubts it will happen. Even if it did, the GOP certainly can’t take any credit for it because the majority of them don’t want it repealed, whereas the majority of the democrats do. I’m not condoning what Harry Reid did, but really, Bush didn’t champion its repeal, no key republican did, certainly not Boehner, McConnell or McCain. In fact no republican administration has championed any bill favoring LGBT people, if they have, can you name one? How can any sane gay man or woman consistently support a party that clearly doesn’t want them or their equality and runs election campaigns denigrating and dehumanizing LGBT people or resorts to using wedge issues to stir up hatred against one group of people just to rouse the right wing religious wackos to come out and vote for them? Its beyond sick and gays who aren’t republicans who voted for them or stayed home out or anger are just as bad, voting against themselves and in doing so dealt a huge setback on the path to equality. I don’t want to hear them whining when nothing gets done in the next two years and beyond with the GOP in control. No DADT or DOMA repeal, no ENDA enacted (republicans are opposed to that). Nice work, dumb, ill-informed, selfish electorate.

  • DR

    This is really the only game in town.

    LCR has been fighting this for 6 years now. Where’s the HRC? The ACLU? Lambda Legal? Oh, right, nowhere to be found.

    And let’s talk a minute about the Democratic attempt to repeal DADT.

    It started as a full out-and-out legislative repeal. Then whatever behind the scenes nonsense happened, and it was reduced to an amendment which could be reinstated at any time, if it ever moves since it would be at the mercy of too many people who don’t really want to see DADT go away.

    Then Harry Reid grows a pair at the last minute and decides to add amendments dealing with illegal immigrants and federal funding for abortion, neither of which should have been there, effectively killing the deal. The final nail in the coffin? Oh, right, the Republicans can’t add anything, way to cost us votes.

    This whole process was nothing but gamesmanship with GLB soldiers as the pawns. This lawsuit is the only thing I believe will get DADT repealed, I wouldn’t trust the legislature to do it any time in the immediate future.

  • robert in nyc

    Really, DR. No. 25? Do you really think five very conservative, antigay catholic bigots on the bench would overturn the stay? I don’t.

  • Trent_K

    @B: No, I was pointing out the reality of the situation. It’s not my fault if your partisan cheerleaders don’t like it.

  • Trent_K

    @robert in nyc:
    It wouldn’t have gotten that far if this bigoted administration hadn’t appealed it.

  • DR

    @robert in nyc:


    We probably have Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Breyer based on their prior voting history.

    We don’t have Scalia, Thomas, and probably won’t have Roberts or Alito.

    I would be very surprised if Sotomayor didn’t vote to repeal DADT.

    Kagan is the swing vote on this one.

    LCR has done more to get rid of this than the Dems ever did.

  • Jerry

    Patrick Murphy isn’t gay. Too many of you need to start paying attention to the world outside of your front door?

  • robert in nyc

    DR…..the Supreme Court will not rule to repeal DADT. The new Marine commander announced that he will not support it. The Pentagon and the republican party will use that as cover to not support repeal.

    Trent_K, even if the LCG’s action were successful and I hope it is, the GOP can’t take any of the credit, lets be clear about that. As for your statement in regard to this “bigoted administration”, I hope you include the GOP. When did it include repeal of DADT in its campaign agenda? It doesn’t even support repeal of DOMA and enactment of ENDA. Why would anyone in their right mind vote out of misplaced anger for a republican who hasn’t championed anything for gay people? They haven’t even authored one bill out of their own volition. At least the democrats are gay friendlier, I just don’t see any of that on the right.

    FYI, I’m not a democrat but a GREEN. I vote very selectively for democrats in a midterm and general elections who support my views and values. I have no choice because the Green party doesn’t stand a chance, just like the civil libertarians, to make any inroads in our political system. Staying home or voting for the other side is destructive and harms LGBT people. Since we don’t have a third major party unlike our European counterparts, I support a party that is gay friendlier even though I know it may not get everything I want. Voting for the opposition is voting against yourself.

  • DR

    @robert in nyc:

    That’s a nice rebuttal, but it seems to be based on your own personal opinion as opposed to any real understanding of the makeup of the court, which considering your initial statements, surprises me very little.

  • B

    No. 27 · Trent_K wrote, “@B: No, I was pointing out the reality of the situation. It’s not my fault if your partisan cheerleaders don’t like it.” On the contrary, you made a misleading statement and I made a quantitative one. I can see why you don’t want to talk about that though: in the 2006 vote, 2 Democrats in the Senate supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and 6 Republicans opposed it. So, the vast majority of Senate Democrats opposed the proposed amendment while the vast majority of Senate Republicans supported it. In common everyday word usage, you would say that Democrats opposed the measure and Republicans supported it – it’s not like both parties were split nearly 50/50.

    Calling people who state the facts “partisan cheerleaders” is the sort of behavior typical of a political hack with an agenda (I suspect a Republican one in your case).

Comments are closed.