U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips (Central District of California) ruled yesterday that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibiting openly gay service members is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendment in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America.
She went even further, saying that the policy has had a "direct and deletrious effect" on the armed services during a time of U.S. involvement in several difficult wars (the plaintiffs in the case estimate that more than 13,500 otherwise qualified gay and lesbian servicemen and women have been dismissed under the policy since it went into effect in 1994).
Have U.S. courts finally had enough of good old-fashioned American homophobia?
In almost every recent important case involving LGBT rights, state and federal courts have ruled in favor of individual freedom and against blanket discrimination. In many cases those rulings have been at odds with the will of the voters (see California's Prop 8) and with the ability of lawmakers to stand up for those same principles (see marriage equality standstills in almost every state where the issue has made it to the statehouse). In this case, the ruling may also be at odds with the Pentagon: President Obama, who opposes the DADT policy, has granted the Pentagon time to conduct studies on the military's readiness for a repeal. Military leaders seem to have mixed feelings about both the policy itself and a potential repeal; the government presented no witnesses in its defense in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America.
Why not? Repealing DADT has been a stated priority for President Obama as both a campaign promise and in his first State of the Union address, but (surprise, surprise) action has been slow in Congress, where Obama has said he believes the matter ought to be resolved. The House voted to repeal the act in May as part of its FY 2011 Defense Authorization bill , but it's still tied up in the Senate. Will the Senate pass its Defense Authorization bill before the November elections? With Phillips' ruling, the Clinton-era policy will have the president, the Justice Department, and the Senate in a bind with those elections on the horizon:
Phillips gave the Justice Department a two-week window of opportunity to appeal her ruling. If there is no appeal, then Phillips' injunction against the policy will stand, and the right will surely rail against California's "activist judges" -- as they did in U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban -- and use the issue as a wedge to send voters to the polls. If the Justice Department does appeal, the Senate will either be deciding the issue in the lead-up to an important election or waiting until after, when the party split on the Hill may look very different. Either way, expect this one to get messy.
The Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT groups applauded Phillips' ruling. Here's the HRC's official statement:
“This federal court affirmed what the vast majority of the American people know to be true – that it’s time for the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law to be sent to the dustbin of history. With this legal victory in hand, Congress is in a perfect position to strengthen our national security by ending a law that has discharged thousands of capable service members. With House passage already secured, the Senate can and should vote in the next few weeks to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and allow every qualified man and woman the chance to serve with honor.”
I'll be following the story over the next days, weeks, and months.
For the latest Sex & Relationships headlines, please subscribe to this column (above) and follow @Sexaminer on Twitter.
Comments
>> I'll be following the story over the next days, weeks, and months. <<
I'll be following your coverage.
It is VERY telling that AFTER we went to combat in 2001/2002, discharges of gay troops went down by 50%.
Only AFTER those gay troops finished their tours of duty would the military kick them out.
Use them up, then toss them away, right folks???
Homophobia is very 20th century.
Onward to full civil and full marriage equality rights in the 21st century.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Red Studio Farm, Washington, Connecticut, USA.
You people have obviously never been to battle with the enemy; it just doesn't work, just like having women on the front lines doesn't work. Men don't need the distractions caused by these issues when they're doing the business of killing the enemy in war while attempting to survive themselves. It will make our military weak and cause internal conflicts. Don't you understand? You take a shower next to your battle buddy, this isn't the Hilton. You already have to worry that an enemy mortar is going to hit your shower, or the always-entertaining enemy rocket attack. You shouldn't have to also worry about your battle buddy checking out your package while your in the shower, it's open-bay people!
Re: "You people have obviously never been to battle with the enemy; it just doesn't work"
This commenter might find it interesting to learn that the plaintiffs presented Nathaniel Frank, author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America" as a witness, testifying specifically about the successful integration of openly gay personnel into the military of other countries. The defense presented no witnesses, to counter this or other arguments raised in the case.
Set your own homophobia aside and look at the facts here: Tens of thousands of qualified servicemen and women have been fired under a policy that is clearly unconstitutional, and and at great detriment to both the U.S. armed services and our national security: We're talking about high ranking officers, fighter jet pilots, language experts, the whole gamut, all of them people who had been serving honorably before they were outed or chose to out themselves rather than live under this ridiculous policy, one of the ugliest remnants of Clinton's admittedly messy presidency.
Believe it or not, gay men have been serving alongside your heterosexual warriors since the dawn of time, and serving admirably. I'd counter that if a soldier is that considered about his ability to shower in an open bay shower with gay soldiers (or about his ability to serve on the frontlines with women) without the distractions you suggest, then he probably doesn't have what it takes to be a soldier in the first place.
If gay and lesbian women want to serve to protect our country, why on earth should we be stopping them? Your arguments hold no water, I'm afraid.
E. Bliss
As an addendum to previous comment... Alexander Nicholson, one of the injured parties named in this case, is a former U.S. Army Human Intelligence Collector who is fluent in multiple languages, including Arabic, and who was discharged under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law just six months after 9/11. Read that again, because it's not a cliche, it's a real person, and it's one of the people this case was built around: We let one of the Army's top Arabic-speaking intelligence collectors go six months into our "war on terror" and our pursuit of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network, just because he happened to be gay? There's just no way to measure how much has been lost under this policy (or its predecessors), but there's a starting point for you. If you're as concerned about making our military weak as you suggest in your comment, then I think you have to take a hard look at the facts in this case and in Judge Phillips' ruling.
E. Bliss
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!