U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips has ruled that the current military ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional. The judge has said she will issue an order to stop the practice nationwide.
According to msnbc.com:
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.
In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.
The Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000 member group of predominantly gay Republicans sought the lawsuit in 2004. Judge Phillips will issue an injunction later on in the week. More than 13,500 members of the military have been drummed out since it was first enacted in 1994. It is unknown what will happen to those people.
President Clinton had hoped to permit gays in the military. As soon as he became president Congress fought him tooth and nail and a compromise of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was reached. Many gays felt Clinton had sold them out. The political reality was that had Clinton pushed his agenda through, he might have been faced with more restrictions like a bill that outlawed gays in the military.
The judge seems to be more than willing to help out Log Cabin Republicans. According to the article linked, representatives will help the judge write the injunction the injunction. is this standard?
I don’t have a dog in this fight but it seems rather … irregular for the judge to get the help of those who filed suit.
If true, then, yes, it does seem irregular. Of course, this just means that the law reverts to the previous law, which entailed asking about a service member’s sexuality.
I hadn’t thought of that. So the judge just set them back nearly 20 years?
The msnbc link is from AP if I recall. Who knows if true or not. It just seemed irregular to me.
You could argue that the Judge tossed Obama under a bus. DOJ will have to appeal it or otherwise look like they’re trying to circumvent Congress. The 9th Circus will agree with the District Judge and then it goes to the SCOTUS and THAT’ll be interesting….
I think I also agree with Cargo that if this new rule was ruled as unconstitutional barring the DOJ asking for an injunction the Services could go back to the old school questions of directly asking recuits/personnel and then putting them in jail after the fact.
This law was obscene to begin with, because it put our troops in the position of having to lie in order to serve. If gays are good enough to serve in Congress and the Senate where they make the decisions to deploy and fund our troops, they should certainly be good enough to BE deployed. I don’t care which side brought suit; DADT was unconstitutional from the get-go.
emma – can you explain how DADT put the troops in the position of having to lie??
By having to hide their sexuality.
I think it beats what the alternative was which was to outwardly like. I believe those who went in prior to 1994 were asked. (and they all said no.)
@Emma
>I don’t care which side brought suit; DADT was unconstitutional from the get-go.
Really? Can you quote the article and section of the Constitution that addresses it?
RingDangDo — How about the equal protection clause (14th Amendment)?
And how about that ban on any gays in the military? Was that Constitutional? I would say the 14th really kicks in there.
emma, the repeal of DADT will have them lie – right now, they are not asked about there sexuality, they do not have to answer. If DADT is repealed, they will be asked about their sexuality, and many of them will be in a situation that they will lie. Funny, but I do not go around with a tag on me that says that I am heterosexual – I do not boast about it, whey should a gay person have to label themselves as anything.
moon – you are correct, this could open up a big can of worms in relation to the policy of gays in the military.
Talking about who you are is not boasting. You should be allowed to have regular conversation with your colleagues about your life…be able to refer to your loved ones occasionally, without fearing that you will be dismissed from your career for it.
@Diversity Gal Thank you for clarifying what I meant, Diversity Gal. I was thinking of how heterosexual soldiers can display pictures and chat freely about their wives, girlfriends, boyfriends–whatever–while gay officers must stay silent. To me, that is forcing them to live a lie, and it’s backwards and wrong.
I don’t think Pat meant crowing…I think ‘boast’ is just a figure of speech. Let’s not hang those who are ageeing with us out to dry because they chose a different word. He is comparing DADT to an outright ban on gays in the military. I am sure that Emma also meant to include enlisted service personnel also.
Not sure where ‘gays in the military’ stands right this minute but I expect that can of worms is in the can opener as we speak.
I agree with Pat, Emma and Diversity Gal. More to be posted on this subject over the weekend.