Finally, the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HazelGod, Sep 9, 2010.

  1. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Well, the beginning of the end, in any case.

    A federal district judge has ruled that the long-standing US military policy of "don't ask, don't tell" with regard to homosexuality violates the First Amendment rights of service personnel.

    The judge will issue an order to block further enforcement of the policy nationwide.

    Maybe there's hope for our society after all.
     
  2. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    [As he appears to be so comparatively enlightened, one wonders what he'll say about the 2nd A., if ever given the chance?]

    :tongue:

    But seriously. Sincere thanks, HG, for passing on this excellent news.
     
  3. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Not for nothing, but I thought that being in the military suspended one's civil rights.

    ETA: I clicked on the link after having posted. Kudos to the Log Cabiners for bringing this to the courts: where the fuck were the Democrats?
     
    #3 Bbucko, Sep 10, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  4. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,378
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    726
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)

    please let's not go down that road. The dems in the house voted to repeal the law. Repubs in the senate have blocked a vote.

    Thank the Log Cabiners? sure! but a cursory look at any and all republican candidate websites proves their position on gay rights in general and it is anything but friendly and welcoming
     
  5. willow78

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    There's a war on. The Log Cabiners are easing Military entry restrictions so that they can have more of other people's children to send off to slaughter.
     
  6. gymfresh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,659
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rodinia
    Verified:
    Photo
    I love how even in the progressive New York Times, commenters on this story started off with variants on "Ninth Circuit again! Goddam liberal activist judges in San Francisco. This guy is probably just another socialist nut."

    The "guy" in question was born and raised in conservative Orange County, sits in relatively conservative Riverside CA, part of the rather conservative federal Central District Court of California, and he is a she -- Virginia A. Phillips. She was appointed by Bill Clinton, but there is no evidence she is a liberal activist judge.
     
  7. gymfresh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,659
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rodinia
    Verified:
    Photo

    Maybe you made this comment tongue-in-cheek, but it's a serious and wonderful matter that our military is civilian-led and still always subject to the Constitution of the United States, including all its amendments. As such, important DOD policies and their application may properly be challenged before the federal courts.
     
  8. Dave NoCal

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,996
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    258
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sacramento (CA, US)
    My husband read a comment on this story the gist of which was to praise LCR, warn that HRC would try to take credit for the ruling, and blast HRC as the "most useless batch of queers since Roy Cohn! lol. I'm inclined to agree. All I see HRC doing is giving Obama cover for his waffling on fulfilling his campign promises to the LGBT community.
    Dave
     
  9. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Not to be all skeptical here and look a gift horse in the mouth, but . . . . is it possible there's a political motive to the Log Cabin Boys forcing the issue right now? I mean, Obama's already committed to changing the policy and has instituted a review through the Joint Chiefs on how best to implement the change, which is due to be completed by early December.

    It seems to me this allows the Cabin Boys to appear that they're actually serious about a gay rights issue over their stock portfolios (for once) while still throwing a kink in the process for the president. The ones I know are all pretty rabid Obama haters, and with the mid terms around the corner, it's just one more hot button issue to throw into the mix.

    Gymfresh, maybe you can tell us: Isn't Obama's DOJ now obligated to mount an appeal to the judge's decision, making him appear (once again) hypocritical on the issue?
     
  10. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,333
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,195
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    This lawsuit filed by the LCR's has NOTHING to do with them forcing the issue NOW or anything to do with how the LCR's feel about President Obama. It was filed in 2004:

    The Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members, filed a lawsuit in 2004 seeking an injunction to stop the ban's enforcement. Phillips will draft the injunction with input from the group within a week, and the federal government will have a week to respond.
     
  11. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Well I didn't think it was filed in the past few months naturally, and I hadn't had a chance to look into the filing or the history yet. I know it takes a while for things to work their way through the courts, which is why I prefaced my post with "IS IT POSSIBLE . . . ?" I wasn't trying to start a conspiracy theory, I was asking for responses/opinions, so thank you.

    That does seem a very long time for a civil rights case to drag on though. It would be interesting to know the history of it and what the delays were along the way.
     
  12. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Thank you. I've been sitting here shaking my head in wonderment at how this judicial matter turned into a partisan legislative/executive crossfire.
     
  13. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    This
     
  14. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    You don't think this judicial matter could possibly have any effect on the legislative process when it comes up as expected in the next congress? You don't think it has any effect on the executive, when it's the Justice Department, if I'm not mistaken, under President Obama that will have to respond? One thing we can be sure of, it will become a partisan issue.
     
    #14 maxcok, Sep 10, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  15. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Oh stop it Max. The President hasnt done SQUAT (as in, sign an executive order stopping enforcement until the study can be done). The Republicans will take back the House, the study will come out, and lame duck congressmen will refuse to do anything about the study, ie, enact repeal into law. You put way too much faith in this President
     
  16. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Hardly, and I have less faith as time goes on. You're reading too much into what I wrote there. I was outlining the process that is in place and proceeding. You know I've already explained in some detail in another thread why I think it would be politically unwise to circumvent the process and sign an executive order at this point, so I won't revisit that here. I've been involved with this issue for a very long time, and I'm more than willing to wait a few more months to see it play out. It's already cleared the House and it's waiting on the Senate. The weight of public opinion and now this decision is behind it. I still believe it will happen early next year. If it doesn't, like I said before, talk to me then.
     
  17. gymfresh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,659
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rodinia
    Verified:
    Photo

    Well, one obvious option would be to make an appeal moot by scrapping DADT. But that wastes political capital, and Obama has just come out with some proposed tax cuts to win a few more voters. Because Congress is still like herding cats, he'd have to choose between which legislation he'd really like to get done in the next few weeks.

    In theory, DOJ must defend the policy in court all the way up. How vigorously they choose to do it is another matter. But this isn't the first time DADT has been found unconstitutional. I don't recall offhand how the Clinton White House handled it. All you have to do is Google "Federal Court" and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to see the federal district courts that have chipped away at DADT. Judge Nickerson of the Eastern District of New York was one of the first.

    None of the previous rulings really went anywhere (none got through the first appeal), and I don't really expect yesterday's to, either. The difference this time is the ruling -- or more accurately, the injunction that will be forthcoming later this month -- comes at a critical decision time for the policy, whose dismantling has already been more or less announced.

    Gay marriage cases, gay adoption cases, gays in the military (DADT) cases, gay employment laws (ENDA)... it's all hitting at once. No wonder Tony Perkins seems to be in six places at once.
     
  18. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I am unaware of any federal statute (or Constitutional amendment) requiring the executive branch to defend ALL federal laws in court. If max could point me to one, that would be fantastic.
     
  19. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    I was serious, but obviously seriously wrong :wink:

    The idea that service personnel voluntarily suspended their civil rights is embedded deeply into the back of my brain, so deeply, in fact, that it must be an artifact of my childhood and something my parents said. Those John Birch Society reactionaries have been proven delusional throughout my life :rolleyes:
     
  20. Freddie36

    Freddie36 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    207
    Albums:
    6
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Netherlands, London, Paris
    As a non-American I am wondering: with the end of the DADT policy what are people supposed to tell?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted