Federal judge halts enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” worldwide

posted at 4:52 pm on October 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not surprising. Remember, she’s already ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. The lingering question was whether it was unconstitutional only for the named plaintiffs in the case — i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans — or whether it’s unconstitutional for everyone. Surprise: “Unconstitutional” means unconstitutional.

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the U.S. military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops…

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips’ ruling stand…

“The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country,” said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.

Decision time for The One: Does he appeal or not? If he decides not to, he’ll undercut Gates’s insistence that no action should be taken on the policy until the Pentagon completes its review of the effects on readiness. If he does appeal, he’ll antagonize the lefties (especially young voters) whom he needs to turn out next month. The obvious solution is to punt and avoid a decision until after the election, but I’m not sure liberals will let him get away with that. What if the “professional left” mobilizes and demands a decision before November 2? Prediction: Heart-ache at the Pentagon.

Exit question: Is this actually a blessing in disguise for the GOP? We may well have a Republican majority in the Senate next year, and without this decision the survival of DADT would fall mainly on them. Their inclination will be to satisfy the social-con base and vote to keep it, but that would put them on the wrong side of public opinion (including Republican opinion) and would instantly destroy any chance of rapprochement with gay voters. The judge let them off the hook by taking the issue out of their hands. Abortion redux!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!World Wide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Now thats an unintended consequence.

Interesting….

portlandon on October 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Activist judges deciding what our military does from the bench. What could go wrong?

I know: Let’s get an activist SanFran judge to decide that soldiers using ammunition is unconstitutional. Or that the war in Afghanistan must be ended.

amerpundit on October 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Umm, sorry. The training and management of the military is delegated to Congress, not to some lower court federal judge–many of whom don’t/won’t decide on the Constitutionality of issues unless it involves falling on the leftie position side of things. Funny that.

ted c on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

The GOP definitely stands to benefit from not being the one to maintain or

Oh yes. For all the reasons you mentioned and more. It’s not a policy set to go quietly into some long goodnight. Live reaction updates on another website reveal people suggesting ways that homosexual could be used for cannon fodder or human shields. This doesn’t suggest people willing to compromise peacefully on the issue.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

So what will the judge do if the military doesn’t follow her orders? Hmmm?

CH on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

great point. That is the status quo ante circa 1993….

Colin Powell? Oh, former CJCS Powell?…your thoughts sir.

ted c on October 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Don’t need no laws.
Don’t need no legislature.
Don’t need no executive office.

Judges can just wish things away or into being…

Skywise on October 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Umm, sorry. The training and management of the military is delegated to Congress, not to some lower court federal judge–many of whom don’t/won’t decide on the Constitutionality of issues unless it involves falling on the leftie position side of things. Funny that.

ted c on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

But the policy is predicated on a UCMJ which is legislation passed by congress and, presumably, subject to judicial review.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 4:59 PM

In before the social cons take over the comments with “activist judges!!!” / “will of the people!!!” caterwauling.

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve. Even if it wasn’t that pesky thing called the Constitution doesn’t let you deny civil rights just because the “will of the people” demands it.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Our courts and judges are completely out of control.

She just pulled this ruling out of her worthless ass.

Just made it up on the fly.

How are we subject to arbitrary rulings?

This is heinous and tyrannical. It will not stand.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve. Even if it wasn’t that pesky thing called the Constitution doesn’t let you deny civil rights just because the “will of the people” demands it.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I’m sure that’s what you said in 1992 too.

Skywise on October 12, 2010 at 5:02 PM

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

I haven’t read the ruling, but “ending the U.S. military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops” seems pretty clear to me.

DaveS on October 12, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Oops,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!World Wide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM
=========================================
I jumped the shark,sorry,thats US Military Personnel
that is stationed abroad,my bad:)

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 5:03 PM

I grew up with the understanding there was military law and then there was civilian law. I also have to ask, how the heck does one judge make a ruling effecting anything “worldwide?” Does this one judge have the power to ban gun ownership across the nation, let alone “worldwide?” Does she have the power to mandate other things “worldwide?”
This is insane! Freaking judges! Congress has got to reign in these judges! They are as abusive and tyrannical as any dictator there ever was!

JellyToast on October 12, 2010 at 5:03 PM

What about the air force’s restriction that pilots can’t wear corrective lenses?

That seems to impact my civil rights too…

Coz, obviously, it’s not a health or social or any issue that the military itself should decide but some robed figure determining what’s “fair”.

Skywise on October 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military

Don’t you just love it when unelected, unaccountable judges substitute their own majestic social opinion for that of the experts and people directly affected?

TheBigOldDog on October 12, 2010 at 5:05 PM

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

malclave:Me thinks that would be the ‘Obama Effect’!!

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Oh, former CJCS Powell?…your thoughts sir.

ted c on October 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM

His head is unavalible due to being up Obama’s butt. Please leave a message.

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:06 PM

What if the “professional left” mobilizes and demands a decision before November 2?

You can’t vote present on this one, Barry. Activist judges will be the end of our civilization. This needs to be handled by the pentagon..they know what is happening with the boots on the ground, wait, what? They DON’T.
Why not put it to a vote within the military..they will be the ones most affected by the decision to ban DADT?!? What’s that, oh, we can’t even get ballots to them so they can vote in November??

HornetSting on October 12, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Dammit, gay people, have some patience. You aren’t black. Well, some of you are, but you know what I mean. MLK refused to wait more decades for what had been due for many decades past. You, when mere months away from getting your only recently expressed preference through democratic means, resort instead to questionable litigation.

California Prop 8 would almost certainly get a reversal if you waited a year or two. So why launch the childish at best, venal and anti-Christian at worst, “No H8 campaign”?

Regardless of what the forthcoming Pentagon study shows, this administration will implement an end to DADT even if Congress doesn’t go along, and Congress just might go along. So why upset folks through imposing your will from the unelected branch?

raybury on October 12, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

So glad you could join us. You have just the nicest way of saying things.

alwaysfiredup on October 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve.

Nonsense.

How many Congressmen got elected pledging to overturn DADT?

The President didn’t.

Rigged polls do not “will of the people make”.

This would be catastrophic for readiness and morale.

This inept Congress and this idiot president have provided NO LEADERSHIP and now this worthless jackass judge saddles us with this?

I hold out hope that a military coup in this country will not be necessary but I am growing pessimistic. Our civilian leadership is totally with out brain, guts or ethics.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM

So what will the judge do if the military doesn’t follow her orders? Hmmm?

CH on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

She’ll issue a ruling ordering them to “drop and give me 50.”

Merovign on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Figures, I was close, three guesses and it was his second post.

WoosterOh on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

So what will the judge do if the military doesn’t follow her orders? Hmmm?

CH on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Exactly! We need a little showdown and it’s going to take a Republican congress and President with some ginads to do it. There is no way to avoid this showdown that is coming. Either thee judges must be confronted by the legislature and president or they will anoint themselves as kings!

No freaking single individual should be allowed to just dictate a blasted thing “worldwide!” The President is Commander in Chief! The legislature makes military laws. No single unreachable man or woman should be allowed to just make an edict that undermines the entire military system.

JellyToast on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Meighan McCain wins.

portlandon on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

ANd let’s look at her expertise shall we?

Virginia A. Phillips (born 1957) is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. She is one of approximately 35 district judges serving in this district.

Phillips was born in Orange, California. She received a B.A. from the University of California, Riverside in 1979 and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1982. She was in private practice in Riverside, California from 1982 to 1991. She was a Commissioner for the Riverside County Superior Court from 1991 to 1995.

In 1995, Phillips became a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California. On January 26, 1999, Phillips was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be a district judge for the Central District, a seat vacated by William M. Byrne, Jr. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 10, 1999, and received her commission on November 15, 1999.

On September 9, 2010, Phillips ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is unconstitutional in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America.[1]

On October 12th, 2010, she issued an injunction ordering the United States military to “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.” The US Justice Department indicated that they were “reviewing the ruling.” [2][3]

That’s what constitutes the experience and expertise to determine what does and does not impact military readiness?

TheBigOldDog on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

What’s that, oh, we can’t even get ballots to them so they can vote in November??

HornetSting on October 12, 2010 at 5:06 PM

hanging chads.

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

DADT existed to allow gays to serve while avoiding the logistical problems with housing and such that also came from gender integration. Civilians don’t seem to understand that point. It’s about lawsuits, not rights. Gays are already able to serve.

RachDubya on October 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM

In before the social cons take over the comments with “activist judges!!!” / “will of the people!!!” caterwauling.

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve. Even if it wasn’t that pesky thing called the Constitution doesn’t let you deny civil rights just because the “will of the people” demands it.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Ignorance is a strong brew for lefties, isn’t it?

Find me in the constitution where it ever mentions sexual orientation, positively or negatively? You will find nothing. Your nonsensical blathering about “civil rights” is just a mask to hide your deep disdain for the rule of law.

You support tyrants in black robes.

BKennedy on October 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM

I hold out hope that a military coup in this country will not be necessary but I am growing pessimistic. Our civilian leadership is totally with out brain, guts or ethics.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM

or veterans. But lets stop there Donkey… this is “ban” worthy.

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Naw. It means that all military personnel who donate blood can rest assured that it won’t be screened for STDs … to make sure nobody’s feelings get hurt.

BowHuntingTexas on October 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

The military is not a democratic organization and is set up that way for a reason. The President is the CiC, and Congress sets legislative policy for the military. The military even has a separate judicial system, the UCMJ.

That being said, non-military judges can’t simply invalidate the UCMJ and military policy without loads of consequences no one can even begin to imagine. One consequence that a previous commenter pointed out is that the military must now revert, or would need to revert, to previous policy – effectively do ask, do tell and prosecute, discharge homosexuals.

Congress and the President are ultimately going to have to make a stand – one way or the other- on this since they are the ones in charge. They will have to amend the UCMJ through the legislative process and the President will have to sign off on those changes to really change anything.

All this does is add more confusion to an already precarious position for many people.

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Obama fails again. he has the Justice Dept throw the case so he doesn’t have to take the political heat. What a weiner!

huckleberryfriend on October 12, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Of much more consequence re our secure borders and immigration enforcement, Daniel Foster reports:

Judge Will Let DOJ Suit Against Arizona Proceed

October 12, 2010 11:57 A.M. By Daniel Foster
From the Courthouse News Service, a federal district judge has rejected a motion to dismiss the suit brought by the Obama Justice Department against the state of Arizona:

PHOENIX (CN) – A federal judge rejected motions in which Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu sought dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new immigration law.

The complaint filed by civil rights groups, including Friendly House and the American Civil Liberties Union, contains sufficient allegations that S.B. 1070 perceptibly impairs the ability of the organizational plaintiffs to provide the services that the organizations were formed to provide, and as a result, there can be no question that the organizations have suffered an injury in fact, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

“While Governor Brewer correctly points out that, for the most part, the organizational plaintiffs’ allegations involve threats of future harm, the threat of future harm is sufficiently imminent.”

Bolton found the civil rights groups have standing to bring the lawsuit because the “alleged harm to the organizational plaintiffs will occur if S.B. 1070 goes into effect, regardless of how it is enforced or applied.”

Bolton wrote that “race, alienage, or national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.”

onlineanalyst on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

BKennedy on October 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM

“Civil rights” would also imply that the elderly, the handicapped, the obese and people with severe health problems should be able to serve.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

This thing is so convoluted, it’s beyond the imagination. Let’s think about this. A group of Republicans ended the DADT policy that the liberals hated. A liberal is stuck in conundrum of following the Constitution and standing up to judicial encroachment in an area clearly designated to the legislative branch to manage or, allowing the Judicial Branch to overstep it’s authority and set a precedent for it’s own perpetuation of diminishing the legislature.

It couldn’t get any richer than this folks.

ButterflyDragon on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

That’s what constitutes the experience and expertise to determine what does and does not impact military readiness?

TheBigOldDog on October 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

No. It’s what constitutes the expertise to rule on matters of law. I’ve seen lots of outrage that she should issue a ruling on a matter that affects the military but, thus far, I’ve not seen anybody say why this legislative act is not subject to judicial review.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve. Even if it wasn’t that pesky thing called the Constitution doesn’t let you deny civil rights just because the “will of the people” demands it.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. If and when DADT is abolished, the first thing a military member will see is endless “training” sessions on sensitivity … and warnings about what can be said, what can’t be said, what can be done and what can’t be done. In an instant gays will have more rights than any other member of the military.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

The judge let them off the hook by taking the issue out of their hands. Abortion redux!

Yep exactly as abortion except for that killing thing.

/

Oh and avoid discharging soldiers people.

/

Wink

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

DADT existed to allow gays to serve while avoiding the logistical problems with housing and such that also came from gender integration. Civilians don’t seem to understand that point. It’s about lawsuits, not rights. Gays are already able to serve.

RachDubya on October 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Good point. But homosexuals apparently want to be allowed to be fabulous as well or something…

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
Phillips, Virginia A.

Born 1957 in Orange, CA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 26, 1999, to a seat vacated by William M. Byrne, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on November 10, 1999, and received commission on November 15, 1999.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 1995-1999

Education:
University of California, Riverside, B.A., 1979
University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D., 1982

Professional Career:
Private practice, Riverside, CA, 1982-1991
Commissioner, Riverside Superior Court, CA, 1991-1995

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female

http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

Clinton appointee from Berkeley, what would you expect?

CrazyGene on October 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

One consequence that a previous commenter pointed out is that the military must now revert, or would need to revert, to previous policy – effectively do ask, do tell and prosecute, discharge homosexuals.
catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:12 PM

My understanding is that the ruling was not actually issued against the DADT executive order but rather the underlying legislation that forbids homosexuals from serving in the military.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Exit answer: I question the timing.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve. Even if it wasn’t that pesky thing called the Constitution doesn’t let you deny civil rights just because the “will of the people” demands it.
Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Curious that you were openly deriding the people’s will after the people of Delaware chose O’Donnell.

Your windsock is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM

When the SHTF! in the military, the good judge can just drag her ass out of her warm, safe chambers and clean up the mess.

GarandFan on October 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

If the will of the people was against it would that matter to you? So why bring it up?

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM

We have competent leaders in the military.

When I contrast them with the utter and complete worthlessness we have in Congress, in the White House and what are laughingly referred to as our “courts”, it absolutely just makes me want to puke.

Sure, let’s f**k with the one part of the federal government that actually accomplishes a mission.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Good point. But homosexuals apparently want to be allowed to be fabulous as well or something…

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

They want the right to have a photo of their special someone just like others. Especially when war duties take them far from home and photos and letters are what keep you connected. They want the right to be able to say “I went on a date last night” the same as others do without being expelled. This seems reasonable.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Pants on the ground in the foxhole… Oh yeah, that will help military readiness.

Kuffar on October 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Prediction: Heart-ache at the Pentagon.

I don’t think that it’s hearts that will be achin’

JeffWeimer on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I’m sure our allies are looking at us and saying FINALLY

Said a recently Americanized Israeli soldier: “I had thought Israel was less tolerant than the United States, but when I enlisted, I never witnessed any morale problems caused by homosexuals and didn’t really hear any homophobic talk–nothing along the lines of ‘He shouldn’t be serving.’ There were openly gay soldiers I encountered, but no one seemed to resent it. It’s not even an issue. I don’t know why it is in America.”

Israel Defense Forces policies, including those for special units, allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation. Consul David Saranga of the Israeli Consulate in New York City stated, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time

mmnowakjr85 on October 12, 2010 at 5:19 PM

We may well have a Republican majority in the Senate next year, and without this decision the survival of DADT would fall mainly on them. Their inclination will be to satisfy the social-con base and vote to keep it,

Or they would just leave it up to the military and go with what they recommend. Let’s see let a judge decide on a military policy or the military. AP decision…go with the judge.

You know you’re a Beta male when you think someone else, anybody else really, making a decision so you don’t have too is a good thing.

Rocks on October 12, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Will military bases host Pride Parades now? Why not?

wren on October 12, 2010 at 5:20 PM

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I agree.. but what the heck are we going to do? Voting is a slow process…. eventually people AND military members are going to just say screw it.

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:20 PM

In an instant gays will have more rights than any other member of the military.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

That’s always the case. Just like Muslim leaders should be able to offend people by building a 13-story mosque at GZ, but a Florida pastor burning Bibles should be shut down.

would instantly destroy any chance of rapprochement with gay voters

We’re not going to pick up enough gay voters to offset voters who vote on social issues.

amerpundit on October 12, 2010 at 5:21 PM

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

They will be protected from any sort of hurt feelings or harsh duty (lest they write their Congressmen or get one of the thousands of gay grievance groups out there to swing into action), they will receive promotion quotas, they will attempt to force an “acceptance” on troops, they will have pride days, cake cuttings, hours of training on why we have to accept this idiocy.

For what? So an irrelevant small group can undermine readiness and morale even more, after a decade of war.

Our current civilian leadership and those in our courts crawled out of sewers, it is official today.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM

So, after 17 years, DADT is ruled unconstitutional…now? Not 5 or 10 or 16 1/2 years ago, but…now. OK. Got it…

joejm65 on October 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Segregating living spaces on Navy ships is going to get mighty interesting.

So what do we do with the bisexuals?

Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

The “will of the people” is to allow gays to serve. Even if it wasn’t that pesky thing called the Constitution doesn’t let you deny civil rights just because the “will of the people” demands it.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Proof?

HornetSting on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

In an instant gays will have more rights than any other member of the military.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

What rights are those, specifically? It appears that this ruiling allows them to serve without hiding their sexual orientation – something heterosexuals already enjoy.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

They want the right to have a photo of their special someone just like others. Especially when war duties take them far from home and photos and letters are what keep you connected. They want the right to be able to say “I went on a date last night” the same as others do without being expelled. This seems reasonable.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I spent 22 years in military service and am unaware of any legislation or law which forbids anyone from carrying a picture of their significant other on their person or talking about their personal life if they so chose.

Hetero military personal would not be allowed to talk about illegal acts anymore than homosexuals would without facing negative consequences if anyone pursued it.

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

An interesting aside. Unlike the judge in the Prop 8 case Judge Phillips is apparently not homosexual.

Mason on October 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Segregating living spaces on Navy ships is going to get mighty interesting.

So what do we do with the bisexuals?

Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

more blankets as walls? People sleeping in the galley?

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

They want the right to have a photo of their special someone just like others. Especially when war duties take them far from home and photos and letters are what keep you connected.
dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM

They’re not allowed to get letters or possess photos? Really? Which is not the same thing as posting them up on a bulletin board with a big heart drawn around them for everyone to see.

Buy Danish on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Newsflash! One fruitcake judge changes the world’s social policy—unexpected surge in military enlistments by Polygamist seen as next constitutional challenge.

Rovin on October 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM

I can’t wait to police the inevitable fraternization.

pmm on October 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM

November is coming! There are several Judges on my ballot. Vote carefully everybody!

Making good decisions about local Judges now, may reduce problems in the future.

wren on October 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Ah, I see someone who actually knows w.t.f. they’re talking about answered my question. Is it too much to ask (no pun intended) that we stick to the facts and not just make stuff up out of whole cloth?

Buy Danish on October 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM

more blankets as walls? People sleeping in the galley?
upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I don’t know.

Men
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Bisexuals

Living quarters are at a premium as it is. I recall the day our ship got a dozen female sailors for the first time, it took some serious juggling to get them their own quarters and find room for the men they displaced.

Maybe the gay men can share space with the women, though I foresee a jump in the number of men joining the Navy who suddenly decide that they are going to be gay for the duration of their enlistment.

Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Buy Danish on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Yes, because it is all about them.

I like DADT because I think everyone should observe it, gay or straight.

Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t want to know, go to work, get the mission accomplished and STFU.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

What rights are those, specifically? It appears that this ruiling allows them to serve without hiding their sexual orientation – something heterosexuals already enjoy.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

The right to accuse someone of saying or doing something that offends you. It’s a power that women and minorities hold as well. It’s not often used but when it is, it has devasting consequences and kills morale. It’s not always used legitimately either.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

That Separation of Powers, who needs it anyway?/ federal judge

txmomof6 on October 12, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I’m getting really sick of hearing about gay folks this and gay folks that and gay folks the other. For heaven sake just go on with your lives and quit the headlines search and endless court cases. Fine, be who and what you want, I couldn’t care less but I’m getting tired of hearing about it. Surely there are other things to talk about. I suppose it’s the media as much as anything else. sigh!

jeanie on October 12, 2010 at 5:32 PM

They’re not allowed to get letters or possess photos? Really? Which is not the same thing as posting them up on a bulletin board with a big heart drawn around them for everyone to see.

Buy Danish on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

And yet heterosexuals are permitted to openly receive such things, speak about them, and yes – publicly display photos from a sweetheart.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

“We all live in A Yellow Submarine, a Pink Jelly Bean, A Yellow Submarine!” /////////

I totally agree. Hubby was a Marine who went all over with the navy and told me the stories on how the bunks would fold up and such. Water rationing.. so on. A woman who wants to go in the navy… is navy IMHO. I am happy I did my Army time and got out.

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM

The right to accuse someone of saying or doing something that offends you. It’s a power that women and minorities hold as well. It’s not often used but when it is, it has devasting consequences and kills morale. It’s not always used legitimately either.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Are you confusing the right to say somebody offends you with the right to claim illegal discrimination?

And the fact that it can be used illegitimately doesn’t mean that it can’t be used legitimately. In fact, it underscores the idea that there is a legitimate use of it at least from time to time.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM

What rights are those, specifically? It appears that this ruiling allows them to serve without hiding their sexual orientation – something heterosexuals already enjoy.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I agree with you to a certain extent, but the vast majority of heterosexuals don’t use heterosexuality to define “who” they are. It just is.

Personally, I have no problem gay people. I just have a problem when someone has to keep informing me they’re gay every 5 minutes and then gripe because people are calling them gay and trying to pigeonhole them into a stereotype.

Why can’t you be gay and just not shout it from the rooftops? I don’t introduce myself to people and tell them how hetero I am. I don’t throw a hetero bumper sticker on my car to draw attention to my sexuality.

Gays have very legitimate concerns about rights that I agree with it. But constantly bashing someone over the head is usually not the way to go about getting change. It’s just going to create resentment.

ButterflyDragon on October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

is navy crazy IMHO.
upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM

ftfm

upinak on October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Exactly and everyone knows a woman or a minority who is a bad performer, who eludes the consequences of being a no-load, by claiming discrimination. People make entire careers out of it.

Now we can add gays as another sacred cow.

Just what we need, another protected class.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM

And yet heterosexuals are permitted to openly receive such things, speak about them, and yes – publicly display photos from a sweetheart.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM

And yet heterosexuals aren’t permitted to openly receive such things, speak about them and yes, publicly display photos from a sweetheart – if that heterosexual military member is married and his ‘sweetheart’ isn’t his wife or he would be prosecuted for adultery.

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Exactly and everyone knows a woman or a minority who is a bad performer, who eludes the consequences of being a no-load, by claiming discrimination. People make entire careers out of it.

Now we can add gays as another sacred cow.

Just what we need, another protected class.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Then reform that system to make it harder to abuse and ensure consequences for those that attempt to do so – don’t attempt to prevent others from making legitimate use of it.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Curious that you were openly deriding the people’s will after the people of Delaware chose O’Donnell.
Your windsock is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.
Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM

The “will of the people” here is actually irrelevant, because as I stated, the government doesn’t get to pass laws which are unconstitutional.

As to why I mentioned the “will” being that a majority of Americans support repealing DADT: one of the favorite refrains from the social cons, whenever something like this happens to give gays equality with heterosexuals, is that it’s “activist judges” acting against “the will of the people”. I was emphasizing that even if one wanted to try that tactic here, it would fail, because even a majority of Republicans are in support of allowing gays to serve openly.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Just what we need, another protected class.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM

No one is asking for “protected class” status. Being able to be discharged because you’re “found out” to be gay…and simply that…is inherently wrong and needs fixing.

JetBoy on October 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Won’t it be a joy to see the first military float honoring gay pride day. Oh, and can’t wait for the first transvestite to demand to wear a female uniform.

And how about those folks with just good ol plain gender confusion. Aren’t really sure who they are deep deep down. Don’t they have a place too? Can’t they serve their country too. I’m sure military history is full untold stories of brave gender confused heroes who have had to hide their gender confusion! They need to stand up now and be counted and serve openly with pride. It’s time for them to shout out “I’m genderly confused and I’m a patriot who wants to be allowed to serve openly in our military with pride!”

And last but not least, how about those, uh, animals lovers?
Maybe the army will finally have a good excuse to bring the cavalry back once and for all! I can see them riding from behind with pride waving that rainbow flag as they charge into battle with a groan!

What a freaking joke this whole thing is becoming!

JellyToast on October 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

So if DADT is banned, this means the US military reverts tot he previous policy of actively seeking out homosexuals for discharge… right?

malclave on October 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Until the tyrant gets another case before her, then she is going to declare homosexual banned from serving to be unConstitutional.

I hate this government, we can’t when we want, and when we can must we don’t want.

Tim Burton on October 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

I spent 22 years in military service and am unaware of any legislation or law which forbids anyone from carrying a picture of their significant other on their person or talking about their personal life if they so chose.

Hetero military personal would not be allowed to talk about illegal acts anymore than homosexuals would without facing negative consequences if anyone pursued it.

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

This seems … well .. flatly disingenuous. They are effective forbidden from discussing their private life in any way which might expose them as a homosexual. If heterosexuals were held to the same standard I would be fine with that. But they aren’t and it’s more than a little absurd to suggest they are treated equally.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I was emphasizing that even if one wanted to try that tactic here, it would fail, because even a majority of Republicans are in support of allowing gays to serve openly.

Vyce on October 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Interesting. Cite your source, please.

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Are you confusing the right to say somebody offends you with the right to claim illegal discrimination?

And the fact that it can be used illegitimately doesn’t mean that it can’t be used legitimately. In fact, it underscores the idea that there is a legitimate use of it at least from time to time.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Have you ever been in the military? This isn’t just your local business where someone complains to the boss that Joe Blow is an ass-hole to him. When someone lodges a complaint, and in todays world offending someone is a major crime, the accused is done. The offendee may even claim harrassment where none exists. In short I’m telling you it’s a career killer in the military.

I’m telling you the deadliest weapon in the US military can be the claim of “he or she offended me”.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

And yet heterosexuals aren’t permitted to openly receive such things, speak about them and yes, publicly display photos from a sweetheart – if that heterosexual military member is married and his ‘sweetheart’ isn’t his wife or he would be prosecuted for adultery.

catmman on October 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Apples meet oranges. Besides – gays not being allowed to marry nicely means that none of them will ever be up for adultery charges.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

I wonder if we could get this judge issue a worldwide ban on Jersey Shore.

ctmom on October 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

No one is asking for “protected class” status. Being able to be discharged because you’re “found out” to be gay…and simply that…is inherently wrong and needs fixing.

JetBoy on October 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

I know … but in todays politically correct world gays are a “protected class” and would be treated as such in the military. Minorities and women are already “protected classes”. The sensitivity training is endless.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Lord have mercy on us all. Thats all I got.

fourdeucer on October 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Does this judge realize that she is endangering our troops in muslim countries and contributing to the recruitment of more terrorists worldwide wherever we have troops stationed?

fossten on October 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I’m telling you the deadliest weapon in the US military can be the claim of “he or she offended me”.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I don’t doubt it. This is why I said such a system should be reformed to reduce and prevent abuse as much as possible – you don’t reform it by preventing others access to it if such access it legitimate.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Then reform that system to make it harder to abuse and ensure consequences for those that attempt to do so – don’t attempt to prevent others from making legitimate use of it.

dieudonne on October 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM

LMAO….no really, may I introduce you to the ACLU and the entire democratic party.

HornetSting on October 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM

No one is asking for “protected class” status

Are you trying to be amusing?

Yes, I’m sure the million gay rights group will stand down if this ruling becomes practice.

They are as self-perpetuating and money grubbing as any other “civil rights” group.

They feed on discord, they encourage conflict and they want nothing more than to have an endless cycle of demonstrations, protests, force acceptance, etc.

When have gay groups ever stopped demanding anything? They go from one thing to the next. This is a career for these people.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7