injunction objections

DADT Lawsuit: Yes, Obama’s Lawyers Want To Keep the Policy Alive And Well

The Department of Justice filed an objection in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, asking Judge Virginia Phillips to block the plaintiffs’ request for “worldwide, military-wide injunction” halting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’s further use. DoJ wants any injunction to be limited only to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, effectively keeping DADT alive except for the soldiers who sued the government. How come? Because a worldwide injunction would mean the feds would, according to DoJ logic, have to continue defending DADT in other courts. And UGH THAT WOULD BE SO ANNOYING. Knowing how everyone was going to respond (anger, frustration, drinking games involving the words “Obama” and “typical”), White House press secretary Robert Gibbs insisted in an email:

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy. The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold. The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal. And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal. The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

LCR head R. Clarke Cooper issued the requisite response: “We are not surprised by this but we are extremely disappointed with the Obama administration. Many times on the campaign trail, President Obama said he would support the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Now that it’s time to step up to the plate, he isn’t even in the ballpark.”

And just when we got done wondering aloud “Can The White House Still Win After the Senate’s DADT Fail? Yes: Don’t Appeal Federal Ruling.” Battling the rights of gay soldiers in court, evidently, is all part of Barack Obama and the Human Rights Campaign’s secret “road map” to equality, evidently.

Aiight folks, you know what to do.

LCR To Ask Judge: Could You, Like, Stop All Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Dismissals, Pronto?

Get Queerty Daily

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


  • LOrion

    No, we don’t ‘know what to do.’ What do you suggest???
    Oh, I will be sending $$ to GetEqual after first of month.
    I have joined ONE NATION WORKING TOGETHER…can’t make
    march in WASH DC 10210, but James Hoffa will as will contingents
    from Get Equal, HRC, NGTLF and PFLAG among others,


  • LOrion

    What’s with the continuing BS about ‘Legislative’… HOGWASH, we know that won’t happen. and Now Obama has no more excuses about not signing an immediate
    STOP-LOSS… as this is a civilian controlled military and they must do as he orders.

  • MR

    What needs to happen, and I realize it never will, is for all of the homosexuals in the armed services to say, in unity, if you don’t want us, we don’t want you. The politicos play this game as if there are a couple hundred men and women who are playing the don’t ask, don’t tell game. Show them how much our military would be depleted if the gays walked out.

  • Kieran

    Altogether now: YES WE CAN’T!

  • kevin

    I’ve been among the less critical of Obama re: gay rights issues than many here. With this decision, though, I’m officially and permanently off the “Change Express.” The Administration was not obliged to appeal. They did their duty in court. They should have used it to say, “Well, I guess we need to start integrating gays into full equality in the military.”

    Let the troglodytes try to file an appeal. By the time their standing was even acknowledged the whole process would have been a “fait accompli.”

    This is disappointing, disgusting and disheartening.

  • Michael

    So, if I follow the logic, a murderer’s lawyer might defend by saying: “Your Honor, my client had to kill in order to keep the spirit of the deceased alive.”

  • tristram

    Kerry Eleveld, appearing as a guest on Rachel Maddow’s show earlier this week, said that the Justice Dept was sure to appeal the injunction but that this would not be indicative of an intent to appeal the decision itself. Apparently this buys the Administration 60 days before it has to decide whether or not to appeal the actual decision – taking it past the elections and end of the (in)famous Pentagon study.

    If this is accurate, the move makes a certain amount of sense in that it gives the Senate another chance to pass the defense authorization/DADT repeal bill (which I consider preferable to depending on a court-ordered resolution) before Obama has to file (or decline to file) an appeal of the District Court decision. There are some plausible scenarios under which the Senate might pass the repeal bill once the elections are over.

  • Devon

    Getting fucked by the president isn’t nearly as fun as Marilyn Monroe made it seem.

  • misanthrope

    Where’s your fierce advocate now?

  • Brutus

    Holding it unconstitutional reduces the amount of authority the President and Congress have over the military and national security policy. As is obvious from his furtherance of GWB’s draconian antiterrorist measures, that’s not something Barry wants. So it makes sense to defend the *constitutionality* of DADT, and then repeal it through the normal political process of legislation. Just because a law is bad does not necessarily mean it is unconstitutional; and things that would be or are unconstitutional in the civilian context are not necessarily unconstitutional in the military context.

  • CJ

    It’s increasingly apparent that Dick Cheney would do more for the LGBT as president than Obama will ever do. Obama has had 2 years to be an advocate. But, it’s been 2 years of screwing the LGBT community while taking their money.

  • Pat Duffy

    I’m afraid my fear that Obama was just one more politico that says one thing to get our vote then acts differently when elected was right. I WILL NOT Vote for him next election. I’ll vote for his opponent in the Primary and IF he is reconfirmed, I’ll Vote Green….
    Done with the Political Prickteases….

  • Jared Alessandroni

    @Pat Duffy, I totally hear you – that being said, if you vote for a Green and we end up with the dems losing to the next George Bush, that will be indefensible, too. I really wish there were a way to make Obama suffer politically without helping out the Republicans.

  • Cam

    Actions speak louder than words. There is NO excuse for appealing a ruling that Obama is claiming to agree with. The only reason to appeal is because he hates gays and wants to keep us out of the service.

  • Mike in Asheville

    Perhaps there is something to be learned from the Tea Party movement. Year after year supporting Repugnantans, only to see government spending increase and a failing economy, conservatives, the loony to the sincere, are bailing on the GOP and forcing new voices into the mix.

    Yes to it be nice if the loonies didn’t have such a voice but their voices are being heard.

    Gays and lesbians are not the only ones being disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. Anger is what started the Tea Party movement; anger can be the catalyst for a renewed liberal/independent movement too.

    To be more inclusive, though I love the idea of the Fabulous Party, there is more apt for success name. The right “sound bite” name can start the wedge. Ideas???

  • Cam

    @Mike in Asheville:

    I guess we could call it the brunch movement?

  • DR

    I somehow doubt that Obama and his cronies will have the balls Schwarzenegger and Brown had and refuse to appeal.

    Just another nail in the coffin that will be mid-term elections in November and his re-election. Looks like we’ll have a lot more Republicans in Washington over the next couple of years.

    Que sera, sera. The Dems earned the electorate not voting for them.

  • blackie

    There is nothing to be learned from the Tea party movement. They are republicans trying to “rebrand” themselves. TRUST ME ON THAT ONE.

    I too am very disheartned this was appealed. I gave $$ to Obama’s campaign and WILL NOT give it to him next time. I say let every glbt voter STOP giving to his campaign.

  • J. Clarence

    I’m a strong supporter of the president, but I honestly have no idea why he is doing this and can seriously not come up with even the lamest justification/excuse to rationalize it in my mind.

    Giving his critics the benefit of the doubt, say even if he isn’t really an mediocre advocate–let us even postulate that he secretly hates gay people–I still don’t understand from a simple political perspective why a Democratic president is making this issue remain an issue for so long.

    With the enthusiasm siding with the Republicans, why this close to an election the president is doing so much to depress and anger his base of supporters is a fact that continues to astonish me.

    Arguing that it is just formalities is pretty pathetic, as no one honestly cares, history isn’t going to look back on nicely because he was all for formalities. And if the argument is that the Congress is currently debating the issue, and therefor an judicial injunction would interfere with that, to just put a pause on the issue now he could just setup a moratorium until the study is released in December.

    Why the president and his advisers think it is a good idea to waste the court’s time, put the lives and careers of skilled officers at risk, and anger his base is beyond me, and probably beyond reason too.

  • greenmanTN

    While I firmly believe that DADT is a harmful, discriminatory policy, I have also come to believe that gay servicemembers (and their currently serving military allies) need to step up and do their part to fight it. As it stands now it is mostly activists outside the military system working to change it and the military is resistant to change, particularly from outside. “Gays in the military” remain a largely theoretical group; we know they exist but not how many there are, how high in command they reach, or how effectively they serve. This invisibility allows DADT supporters to portray them as sexual predators, limp-wristed RuPaul Rangers, or any other stereotype they care to trot out. The drive to repeal DADT cannot be left only to outsiders; if gays currently serving in the military really want it to change they may need to risk their own jobs to make that happen, perhaps by coming out as a group. The current discussion of DADT repeal is mostly framed in terms of imaginary new recruits. Only currently serving gay men and women can change that focus to what could be LOST if it doesn’t change.

  • James UK

    In the other DADT lawsuit, Major Witt just won. The judge ordered her reinstatement.

  • greenmanTN

    To paraphrase Sarah Palin (ugh), “So, Queerty, how’s that bitchin’ and complainin’ about your allies workin’ out for ya?”

    It’s pretty clear you want to be provocateurs but instead you’re just pissing people off. Over the years I’ve seen various self-appointed or media-appointed spokespersons for the gay community trotted out on TV, from actors like Chad Allen (far too nice and conciliatory) to Joe Solomnese (pursed lips and no spine), and IMO by far the best is Dan Savage. One reason he IS the best is because he’s not afraid to offend; he’ll tell you you’re an idiot to your face then lay out exactly WHY you’re an idiot. When the representatives of the homophobic Right or Religious Right trot out their stupidity he laughs in their faces then dismantles their argument. It’s the laughter that hurts them most and one of Savage’s best weapons. Another weapon in Savage’s arsenal is that he’s not afraid or ashamed to talk about sex. The Right occasionally brings up gay sex with the intent to embarrass or shame, but Savage by laughing again and says (figuratively) “OK, let’s talk about butt-fucking then, since you’re so interested.”

    Not that he’s perfect, just much better than the ‘official’ spokespersons appointed by Gay, Inc.

    After the several high-profile suicides of young people in Minnesota and the steady stream of news stories about gay youth (or those perceived as gay) suicides all across the country, WHO is going to criticize an effort to reach and empower gay youth, using PC perfection as a basis?! Queerty, apparently. You might want to re-think that.

  • matt

    Surprise surprise, Surprise – NOT… is what we should of realized this guy would do! About time the GLBT commuity realized the Democrats are not doing anything but taking our mondy and providing empty lip service.

    About time we told the Democrats and Obama thay can take the fisting themselves!

  • jason

    President Obama’s commitment is as firm as diarrhea.

  • B

    No. 3 · MR wrote, “What needs to happen, and I realize it never will, is for all of the homosexuals in the armed services to say, in unity, if you don’t want us, we don’t want you.”

    The reason it will “never work” is that someone is the risk that everyone won’t go along with it. I put “never work” in quotes because there is a way to handle that issue using a web site (you need a high level of trust in it, of course): you let people sign up to out themselves to the military, but you do not release the information unless a critical number sign up – enough to get the desired effect. That protects the guys who stick their necks out, or at least mitigates their risks.

    All the personal information needs to be encrypted, of course, with the key destroyed if enough people do not sign up. To further obfuscate it, you let both gay and straight military personnel sign up and enter their sexual orientation (so you can’t just find who signed up as a way of deciding who is gay or not).

    There are some technical details you want to get right as well, but those are too complex to go into in a short comment.

Comments are closed.