"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Must Stop Now, Federal Judge Rules

Will this stop Carl Paladino from attending military parades?

A good ruling, but the entire thing is headed towards a conservatively activist bench that’s gone so far as to rule corporations have “freedom of speech.” I can’t see this ending well on appeal, but maybe it won’t be appealed.

FTW!

In every war, from the Civil War, two world wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and in Afghanistan and Iraq, gay Americans have served their country and shed blood for their country. On 911 they perished at the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center, and one of the people who tried to wrestle the hijackers in the plane that went down over Pennsylvania was gay. From the beaches of Normandy to the hills of Saigon, to the ruins at Ground Zero and to streets of Baghdad the sacrifice gay members of the military silently made to their country lies hidden, except to their closest friends and family members.

Gay Americans are our sisters, brothers, friends, aunts, uncles, and neighbors. They are doctors, teachers, lawyers, judges, policemen, firemen, construction workers, chemists, accountants, athletes, and assembly line workers. They are and always have been willing to die on the battlefields our country fought on because they loved their country but it seems our country prefers to treat them as though they were dangerous aliens from another planet rather than see them as patriots who love their country who deserve to be treated just like we ourselves would like to be treated – with dignity and respect, not with hatred or discrimination. Is that too much to ask for?

Extremely well written and presented. You are absolutely correct in your comments.

The administration has a great opportunity here, they can say that they don’t see a point in appealing the ruling which allows them to repeal the policy without having to directly stand up for it. This would allow the repeal to go forward with minimum uproar and BS.
Of course the usual suspect will be yelling about it but that’s not exactly a demographic that is going to be swayed regardless.

Heck, he is too busy distributing beastiality videos and racist e-mails and taking care of his wife, mistress and a daughter from each. It’s hard being a family values type and preaching the immorality of gays. It takes chutzpah to read a speech prepared for you by the group you are speaking to. Seeing those gays in speedos and grinding away is too much for his sense of morality.

mjkoch, nicely said.

In a related matter, which may indicate a DOJ appeal, the administration appeals a DOMA ruling.

Sorry for the link to Politico.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1010/Obama_admin_appeals_DOMA_ruling.html

This is going to be a bigger disaster than allowing blacks and women to serve openly in the military. Why couldn’t they have drawn the lines at Italians?

I think only Republican right wingers should serve in the military. They are always so gung ho and we know none of them are homosexuals. Also, minorities would be spared the need to serve.

apr2563, it amazes me that we’re in the 21st century and we STILL have to pick out groups of people to try to deny basic rights to. It’s not only morally wrong, it’s sickening. My own humble opinion is that most of the people who look down on another group are so morally bankrupt and socially backward that they’ll wonder why heaven is on fire when they die.

Oops. Forgot I was an atheist there for a minute. That’s the bad thing about being a non-believer. We miss out on all the Biblical justifications for things we don’t like or that p!ss us off.

This does not address, as far as I can tell, policy written by the Military. DADT is so bad because it was enacted in statute. However, military code still says that Gays and Lesbians are not allowed to serve. It doesn’t seem like this ruling addresses military policy, just DADT. Does anyone know this for sure?

It seems that even if DADT is still unconstitutional, the military still has to re-write its policy, which it could drag its feet on until January at least when a review is completed, unless the President compels them to do otherwise.

Obama’s going to appeal because the Republicans will roast him for permitting a judicial activist to overturn an unpopular law and force it upon the military that is in the midst of a review. In fact, it would probably be easier to Obama not get totally screwed if the military was actually not working with him on a DADT repeal. Actually, it would just plain be easier if the military review were to come out before the 60 days are up and he can then use it to justify his action on the ruling (appeal or not).
.
That said, Obama’s not going to signal an appeal before the midterms to minimize risk of offending anyone thereby guaranteeing he offends everyone.
.
Silly American politics.

I’m guessing the 10 U.S.C. § 654 referred to in the ruling is the actual code prohibiting gays from serving in the military, but I have no clue. I have a hard time reconciling that DADT was repealed without the broader rule being eliminated in the process, unless the judge’s purview was restricted to solely DADT because that was what was challenged.

One more blow against the counterproductive stupidity that is DADT.

Unless I’m misreading the ruling, the judge is calling the entire underlying principle of DADT unconstitutional. It seems to me that when she wrote:
“Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense 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” Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment” that she was calling the entire process and reasoning behind it illegal.

I stand corrected. 10 U.S.C. § 654 is pretty much DADT. Now, what’s notable about this section is that it includes:
.
“(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. ”
.
Which you could argue is Congressionally sponsored discrimination as applies to armed forces which would be how you distinguish DADT from the military policy of the US military – effectively making your jurisdiction over Congress, not the military. I have no clue whether that was at all mentioned in the ruling.

…the sacrifice gay members of the military silently made to their country lies hidden, except to their closest friends and family members.
~
The sacrifices they made are not hidden, just the fact that they were gay.

Hear, hear.
.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal,” not “all men (except homosexuals) are created equal.”
.
There simply is no constitutional reason to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens. All arguments to the contrary are based on religious or cultural reasons — NOT constitutional or legal ones.
.
Homosexual Americans deserve the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other Americans. Because this is America, the land of the free. Not the land of “free for me, but not for thee.”

I just scanned the ruling (mind you, this may be a woefully inaccurate assessment as my ability to scan things is rather flimsy at best) and my impression is that the ruling specifically targets First Amendment violations which refers more to the issue of the fact that DADT can be enforced on communication or association that would implicate you of being a homosexual more than it is about the fundamental question of whether the military can eject you for being a homosexual.

A lawless, Clinton appointed (duuuuuuuuhhhh), America hating, Constitution hating, U.S. military hating, so-called “judge” asserts that the law enacted by Congress is “unconstitutional”! Better yet, she actually thinks that she has jurisdiction over the entire United States military (worldwide!)

That lawless lunatic should be immediately impeached and sent to a small, dark prison cell as a sworn enemy of the United States of America, the United States Constitution and the rule of law.

Perrywhite,
The Declaration of Independence has no bearing on constitutional matters. The DOI and US Constitution are, obviously, two very distinct documents, the former a mere expression of principles aimed at the English throne, the latter a binding governing document for the United States. Within the Constitution there are many clauses that explicitly demarcate various rights and not all are enjoyed equally. Can a naturalized US citizen who was born in Canada, for example, hold the Office of the Presidency? No. Can an 18 year old US-born citizen run for Congress? No. And let us not forget that the original Constitution included the 3/5 Compromise, sanctioned the practice of slavery, and forbade women from voting. Clearly the Constitution is not a document with a clean record of supporting equality across the board. With that said, I’m not yet convinced that homosexuals are legally treated as second-class citizens. Can they vote? Yes. Hold office? Yes. Own property? Yes. Engage in open relationships? Yes. What rights are they denied? Marriage? A very debatable point as there is no document declaring marriage to be a right nor is there outrage at other limitations on marriage, i.e. minors, polygamy, etc. Clearly regulation of marriage is acceptable, just where to draw the line between inclusion and exclusion is a matter of opinion. I’d say the only legitimate legal grievance is DADT. It is denying the ability to serve one’s country to a large segment of the population, and as such, seems illegitimate. There are valid claims of social and cultural “discrimination,” but I don’t see legally valid claims aside from DADT.

“Clearly regulation of marriage is acceptable”
.
See I don’t see that. Do you mean legally or culturally?
.
As you frame your argument in Constitutional terms I assume you mean legally.
.
Can you flesh that out?

So when you’ve banished yourself as described, what should the judge do?

Can you flesh that out?
~
Soytenly.
~
When I said that “regulation of marriage is acceptable” I suppose I mean both culturally and statutorily.
~
Before I get attacked for equating homosexuality with something I am not, let me just point out that the following points are for legal/logical argumentation only and not to be interpreted as actual comparisons. Marriage is currently a regulated privilege with certain limitations. Marriage is only legally sanctioned, and widely acceptable, between consenting adults. However practical, however reasonable, this legal restriction regulates that marriage not be sanctioned between minors of certain ages and adults. Marriage is further regulated to limit the realm of union to two individuals, thus nullifying polygamy regardless of consent. So, legally and culturally, we’re kosher with the government regulating and limiting marriage to two, consenting adults. It would therefore stand to reason that the government could legally and acceptably take regulation one step further and limit marriage to one man, one women without violating any principle previously intact. Perhaps morally, restricting homosexuals from marrying one another is different than restricting unions in excess of two, i.e polygamy. Legally, though, where is the distinction?

neorationalist86:
.
“Perhaps morally, restricting homosexuals from marrying one another is different than restricting unions in excess of two, i.e polygamy. Legally, though, where is the distinction?”
.
Morally speaking, restricting same sex couples from marrying one another is no different than restricting unions between opposite sex couples of different races.
.
Legally, though, where is the distinction between prohibiting same sex couples from marrying, and prohibiting Jewish men from marrying Catholic women?
.
“Marriage is currently a regulated privilege with certain limitations.”
.
Marriage is currently a freedom which must be curtailed only under the most compelling of state interests, into which the sex of the partners does not fall.
.
When individual freedom is restricted for some without a compelling state interest or due process, it’s contrary to the principles of equality and liberty enumerated in the Constitution, and, not surprisingly, it’s unconstitutional.
.
The right to marry is actually a combination of the enumerated right to due process (14th), and the enumerated right to be protected from the arbitrary encroachment of the state upon personal liberties (9th).
.
Surely you understand the argument for marriage equality from an individual liberties perspective, don’t you neorationalist86?

Exiled, I believe that marriage was enacted in this country for the purpose of protecting the individuals within the vow. Well I suppose it came to blacks can’t marry whites etc. but, was that the original intent and are those still accepted today and should they be?

Thanks Stuart. While I was trying to form the proper words, you did it very well. What you said.

This atheist says amen to that sacredh.

Being new to this site, I must ask myself, “Is this guy for real?” He sounds like a bad charicature of the Dana Carvey’s Grumpy Old Man.

The only thing this proves is that social issues are of more concern for the libtards on this site, and the reason why we should never vote another libtard back into office.

One of the goals of the TEA party Take Back America movement (in addition to restoring capitalism, free enterprise and fiscal responsibility and purging our institutions, such as education and the media, of radical left wingers) should be to clean house of ALL activist judges.

The left wing coup in control of this country threw out the Constitution about 4 years ago.

Yes, Stuart, I am aware of the personal liberties argument and it is a sound one when examined on its own merits. My question is more theoretical and broad.
.
From where do we derive the notion that marriage is strictly sanctionable by the state when it involves two individuals? It seems rather arbitrary to me. It seems that it’s simply a matter of what we are comfortable with. If this is the case, then we already allow arbitrary encroachments on individual liberty with regard to marriage, we already concede that the government can regulate and limit the concept of marriage without compelling state interest. I’m not suggesting that gay-marriage and polygamy are moral/social equivalents, but, philosophically speaking, what principle/tenet/code suggests that one is a protected liberty and one is not?

“…they’ll wonder why heaven is on fire when they die.”
.
Thank you for that, sacred! (giggling) I just hope that I can remember to steal use this line at the appropriate moment. (still giggling)

Hello squirmz!
.
Welcome to Swampland! You’ll find that we’re a bunch of people that enjoy discussing / debating issues, the media’s (lack of) reporting on issues, and making snarky comments about the White House Photo Blog.
.
Oh, and we’ve got about 6 other commentors who all sound like Dana Carvey’s Grumpy Old Man… ;)

Wipe that foam off your mouth brah. You are NOT one to talk about being radical. I’m also sure when you mean “ALL” in relation to activist judges you REALLY mean just the ones who don’t prescribe to your own particular brand of mental disorder. The way I understand it, living in a free country meant having the right to an individual opinion. Are you a blackshirt?

Thank you for the reply, Neo.
.
As best as I can tell the State’s interest in marriage stems from property and wealth transference.
.
I hold the quite unpopular position that the State should have no standing in marriage. Marriage being a religious institution. The State does have an interest in contracts and that, it seems to me, is what the focus should be on.
.
I’m pretty much alone but that’s the only logical thread I can follow Constitutionally. Otherwise one ends up trying to reconcile the difference between denying same-sex marriage and allowing inter-racial marriages.
.
Other than society’s comfort level I don’t see it.

So textee believes that those whose honest interpretation of the law – whether correct or incorrect is immaterial, if it is an honest interpretation within the boundaries of their understanding and using logical reasoning based upon the evidence presented without bias as all of this is actually the duty of the judiciary – who interpret the law in such a manner that runs counter to his opinions should be fired, declared an enemy of the state, and put in a cold, dark corner in conditions that are appalling even for GitMo.
.
Textee: there is a 90 page document that lays out all of the evidence presented at the trial and then talks about the conclusions of the judge in question. Would you care to read through it and explicitly explain to me exactly what lines within that document mean that this Judge is in fact a terrorist or as bad as a terrorist and should be treated as such? While you’re at it, would you care to find the law that allows you to be the thought police

Welcome to swampland squirmz.

Thank you! I’ve actually been lurking for a month or two now. I’m actually pretty apolitical, but the commentary around here has sucked me in. The combination of insightful posts and trainwreck commentary (you know what i mean. you know you shouldn’t watch, but you just can’t help yourself) is really an addicting combination. My wife, who is normally the informed one around the house is astounded with some of the information I’ve been relaying. I find even a few of you out there that I do not happen to agree with, that have an open mind have some very relevant opinions. Idealouges though are pretty much only of value to me as comic relief. I definately give you all a lot of credit for giving me the information to make informed decisions.

I joined in January of 09′ but had been a lurker since August/September of 08′. Swampland has hit the skids since then. It’s still interesting and a good place to find real news/opinions, but it has gone down hill since then. Some of the best people have given up and left. It seems to me like it’s mostly a p!ssing contest anymore. Still, I haven’t another site that is as good. There’s not a single person here that I agree with on everything (good thing because I’m sure I’m wrong on some issues).

Heya, squirmz. I joined a couple years back, but after the troll infestation took hold a year or so ago, there’s been less worth commenting on. On the upside, it keeps me up with Fox’s Villain of the Week

Thanks. It was getting boring around here, with all this rational discussion.
If I throw in one of your favorite pejoratives a number of times, will you go away? Let’s try:

libtards
libtards
libtards
libtards
libtards
libtards
libtards
libtards

libtards!

13.3 – ohio,

“On the upside, it keeps me up with Fox’s Villain of the Week”

Fox’s villian of the month is 1/2 of the US population.

Its villian of the week is anybody who didn’t vote the straight Republican ticket for the last ten elections.

Its villian of the day is (all of the above) plus any Republican who shows any propensity to work with non-Republicans in the interest of the nation.

Its villian of the minute is anybody that it wants to villify, for whatever reason, as long as its villification feeds the ratings beast.

Clear?

Herby, apparently the meds aren’t working and the foaming at the mouth is affecting the quality of your journalism, not to mention the damage being done by the monsters under your bed.

Liberals ( neoCommunists) have taken civil discourse to a new level. Is any lib capable of debating at a level above junior high school?
Clarification (although it doesn’t fit your distorted paradigm): I mean ALL activist judges! the reason you are squirmy is because they happen to be 99.99% liberal!

14.1 – ricardo,

Now is that any way to defend your Fox news? Insults?
For shame! I mean… Isn’t its motto “We distort, you subscribe?”