Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Obama administration expected to appeal DADT ruling

DADT trial

By Eden James

This just in from CNN:

Washington (CNN) – The Obama administration is expected to appeal as soon as Wednesday a federal judge’s ruling that halted the Defense Department from enforcing its policy that bars openly gay people from military service, according to senior administration officials familiar with the government’s plans.

While the government has up to 60 days to file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco, California, officials familiar with the case said that could happen in the next day or two.

No more details than that — just anonymous officials talking on background. But it’s certainly not a surprise given other signals from the Administration.

Meanwhile, here’s what Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin said in response to this morning’s “enormous consquences” statement by Robert Gates:

“Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that a federal court’s injunction of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would have ‘enormous consequences for our troops.’ Secretary Gates added that permitting gay and lesbian troops to serve openly ‘is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training.’

“With all due respect, Mister Secretary, implementing repeal of DADT is not difficult, and you should stop saying that it is. Indeed, there were no reports of enormous consequences for the troops yesterday after the ban was suspended. There were no reports of problems today.

As you well know, gays and lesbians are serving honorably and openly today alongside their straight peers. For this reason, and as the RAND Corporation found in 1993, the lifting of a gay ban is not difficult if leaders insist that troops work together. A protracted process involving ‘a lot of training’ is not needed.”

More to come, as it develops.

UPDATE: U.S. Army Veteran Aubrey Sarvis sends letter to SLDN membership and military community

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), issued a letter this evening to the SLDN and military community on the ruling by U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips related to DADT. Link to the letter online: http://bit.ly/dtcSeo

Letter by U.S. Army Veteran and executive director Aubrey Sarvis:

Dear friend,

The headlines are everywhere on the federal court order placing an immediate stop on all investigations and discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But DADT remains a risk, and service members should not come out.

This interim period is dangerous. We need to put the safety and well being of gay service members first, and become realistic. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members continue to remain vulnerable under DADT.

SLDN re-issued its warning this morning to active-duty service members, including those in the reserves and the national guard, to know they’re at risk. We have clients under investigation and facing discharge right now. We’ll be monitoring each case over the coming days. Anyone in the armed forces with questions or concerns should call our hotline or visit www.SLDN.org/StillAtRisk.

A few weeks ago, in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, Judge Virginia A. Phillips held that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members. In response to a request by the Log Cabin Republicans, Judge Phillips ordered a military-wide injunction, preventing the military from investigating or discharging service members under DADT.

So what happens now?

The Obama Administration has two decisions to make. First, it must decide if/when it will appeal the decision finding DADT unconstitutional. Second, it must determine if/when it will ask that the injunction not be enforced pending an appeal.

It is becoming more and more clear that the Obama Administration intends to seek a stay to this injunction and it is going to appeal the decision.

As reported by CNN this afternoon, the Obama administration is expected to appeal the federal judge’s ruling: “sources familiar with the government’s plans expect a motion for an emergency stay to halt the injunction to be filed first with Philips as a matter of procedure. If she rejects it, as expected, the request for an emergency stay would accompany the formal appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court.”

We do service members a disservice by suggesting to them that DADT has gone away for good.

The President needs to deliver on his promise to end DADT this year. DADT may well be tied up in the courts for some time. It will remain the law unless the U.S. Senate acts in December and we have certification by the White House and Pentagon shortly thereafter.

We will continue to urge gay and lesbian service members to not come out; it is not safe to do so.

Service members need finality. We urge the U.S. Senate to act swiftly next month on repeal when they return to Washington.

Aubrey Sarvis,
U.S. Army veteran and SLDN executive director

P.S. Yesterday’s decision showed respect for the sacrifices of all servicemembers, LGBT and straight. Now, you can show your support too by participating in SLDN’s Veterans Day project! Visit www.sldn.org/VetsDayVideo to sign up and learn more.

“Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A journalists’ guide is available here.

UPDATE: The New York Times chimes in with an editorial:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the policy should not be lifted abruptly because there are unresolved questions like whether straight and gay soldiers should share barracks and whether the military should pay benefits to partners of gay service members.

He said he wanted to wait until a review of practices and policies was submitted on Dec. 1.

There is no need to wait. The answer to both questions is: Yes. It would be a disaster if the military replaced this misbegotten policy with official segregation and discrimination.

Read the whole thing. Still no on-the-record sources, but the assumption is still that the administration is appealing.

UPDATE: A friend emails:

Rachel Maddow did a terrific show tonight, with 2 interviews and commentary

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39642458#39642458

Aaron Belkin of Palm was also on KQED. Here is the link:

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201010130900

78 Comments

  • 1. Ronnie  |  October 13, 2010 at 8:52 am

    It really all just comes down to JUST DO IT!!!!….. <3…Ronnie

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  October 13, 2010 at 8:54 am

    subdidlyscribin

  • 3. Freddy  |  October 13, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Should have known!

  • 4. Kathleen  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Sorry to hear this, but can't say I'm surprised.

  • 5. Ann S.  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:07 am

    So true.

  • 6. JonT  |  October 13, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Not surprised either.

    Unlike my vote in 2008 which was all about 'Change I could believe in', I'm beginning to suspect my vote in 2012 will be, once again, 'The lesser of two evils".

    Thanks Mr. President, for being such a "fierce advocate".

    But at least he isn't McCain 🙂

  • 7. Alan E.  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Of course

  • 8. NetAmigo  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:09 am

    It took Nixon to open up China and Reagan to reach out to the Russians. Maybe it will take the Republicans really to reach out for freedom for the gay and lesbian community. Brown and Schwarzenegger have courageously demonstrated that elected officials do not have to defend unjust and illegal laws. It's too bad the Obama administration has not demonstrated the same courage.

  • 9. fiona64  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Like John Frickin' McCain and Sarah "I Couldn't Pour Water From a Boot if It Had Instructions on the Heel" Palin would be any better?

    Again, the DOJ is *obligated* to defend federal laws in federal court (unlike the state AG situation). This is NOT Obama's fault, people.

  • 10. Sagesse  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:38 am

    This is a chess game, and it's nowhere near over.

  • 11. charles m  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:46 am

    fiona (or anyone who can answer),

    Taking a wide view of this and other legal cases, I don't understand exactly when DOJ is obligated, and when it is not. I would think, in theory, the President of a nation or the governor of a state is obligated to enforce laws that are passed, and obligated to defend them in court.

    But sometimes, it seems the executive is deciding not to enforce or defend.

    In this case, I'd like to know, is Obama really obligated? Why, and what can anyone do about it if he is obligated, but chooses not to appeal?

  • 12. Ray in MA  |  October 13, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I agree Fiona, it is not Obama's fault, here.

    The Fed Gov't has always been a step behind all Cilvil Rights movements…

    It's not the job of gov't to change people's views on Civil Rights.

    It is OUR duty and responsibiliy to change the heart's and minds of people…once accomplished, the gov't has to take take appropriate action.

    Watch the Mark McKinnin segment in here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed

  • 13. Jyo  |  October 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    > Again, the DOJ is *obligated* to defend federal
    > laws in federal court (unlike the state AG situation).

    They're not obligated to defend federal laws; they do so simply out of tradition. Here are some semi-recent examples:

    1. In Morrison vs. Olson (1988), the Department of Justice not only failed to _defend_ a law that Congress passed (the Independent Counsel Act), the Department of Justice argued _against_ the law.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_v._Olson

    2. Turner v. FCC. Turner Networks sued the FCC over a provision in the 1992 Cable Telecommunications Act. Bush (41) had vetoed this act, and Congress overrode his veto. Bush directed the DOJ not to defend the law in court.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_

    It doesn't happen often, but the DOJ is allowed to sit this one out.

  • 14. Justice Trillin  |  October 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    @fiona64: the DOJ can and has refused to act in the past in matters that affected federal law.

    In addition, exactly what has Ohcanta done for the gay community since he has taken office? You want to defend the man and that is great. Put your blinders on and be led through the mire that is today by people who claimed to have your best interests at heart yet proved ONCE AGAIN that promises made during campaigns are all lies to garner votes, sympathy, and dollars.

    I don't blame our President for his lack of effort on our behalf. I blame politics. When we have campaign reform in full swing so that no candidate is beholden to anyone be it someone rich like Bill Gates or a corporation like Monsanto or a union like AFL/CIO, then the promises will start to mean something. Oh wait. They won't be making hollow promises. They will just commit to getting the job done and when elected, do it.

    Then, and only then, will we have equality.

  • 15. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Justice Trillin, you seem to think that I am personally affected by any of the things I stand for — other than my stand for equal protection for *all.*

    It appears to me that an unfortunately large number of my fellow posters believe that the office of the president holds a great deal more power than it actually does. As anonygirl pointed out yesterday, the fact that Dubya consistently overstepped his bounds has given people the wrong impression.

    The President can recommend. He can suggest. He can hold his breath until he turns blue. But he *cannot undo an act of congress,* and he *cannot force his DOJ to behave a certain way.*

    Gah. Separation of powers, anyone?

  • 16. AndrewPDX  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:21 am

    There is an old Vulcan proverb. Only Nixon could go to China. — Spock, Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered Country

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 17. JonT  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    "Logic is a wreath of flowers, that smell bad." – Spock – 'I, Mudd'

    🙂

  • 18. Rhie  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Good. Appeal is the only thing that will remove it, short of an act of Congress. Has the DOJ requested a stay of the injunction or have they just appealed the decision? The former would be way more telling.

  • 19. Bob  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:17 am

    "It has enormous consequinces for our troops" because it changes the atmosphere of religious bigotry, which presently thrives and controls all actions from the top down. it's the folks at the top that need to change the toops will adapt.

    The religious right just has to let go of it's notion of this being God's war, there's got to be a lot of those at the top who are royally pissed off, that the military will no longer be a haven for the christian right, that ship has sailed, and they're pissed really big time. stop coddling the self rightieous bigots,

    The problem posed really is replacing those old dinosours at the top. Someone has to issue the command, the troops follow orders, It's the fudging at the top that makes the situation so delicate, stop blaming the troops. That's the typical spin very NOM like, but we're concerned for—- whatever, like Ronnie says just do it

  • 20. Judy  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Let's not call it "fudging at the top", shall we? On the other hand….

  • 21. Spencer Wulwick  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:20 am

    In the name of GOD – IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! Isn't that the very reason we are going to war? To protect EVERYONE'S freedom!!! I am so embarrassed that I ever supported President Obama. I am so disappointed in myself that I actually BELIEVED in him.

    IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL – DON'T FIGHT IT – AND DON'T YOU DARE LET ONE MORE SERVICE MAN/WOMAN GET KILLED TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOM – WHILE YOU – YOU – ARE DEPRIVING THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE DEFENDING US, OF THEIR CONTITIONAL RIGHT.

    SHAME ON YOU!!!! SHAME ON YOU, ROBERT GATES. SHAME ON YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!!!!

  • 22. Cat  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:24 am

    As usual, most military leaders, politicians and even news people are completely ignoring the evidence behind the ruling, and acting as if this is just some random decision that is interfering with the 'proper' process. They should be saying: the trial has clearly shown DADT has been unconstitutional and counter-productive since it's inception, and we will implement the required changes immediately, stop all pending investigations, and invite all service members discharged due to DADT to re-enlist..

    It's quite frustrating, I agree.

  • 23. Bill  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:35 am

    It's as if they believe that court judgments in favor of LGBT rights don't count or something.

    I'm waiting for them to ask for 'do-overs.'

    It's truly pathetic.

    A Federal Court of Law says kicking out the gays is a no-no, and they're all, 'yeah, whatev.'

    It TRULY speaks to just how sub-human they view us to be. It speaks to how successful they have been in dehumanizing us. They actually have convinced themselves of their own hateful bull shit.

    We are so much better than them.

  • 24. JonT  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    @Bill: 'It’s as if they believe that court judgments in favor of LGBT rights don’t count or something.'

    So far, they really haven't yet, have they?

  • 25. JonT  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    I sympathize with you Spencer, but I do not regret voting for Obama.

    I cannot imagine how much worse off we would have been had McCain/Palin been elected (shudder).

    I have my issues with Obama, but he was the better candidate by *far*.

  • 26. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:21 am

    IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL – DON’T FIGHT IT – AND DON’T YOU DARE LET ONE MORE SERVICE MAN/WOMAN GET KILLED TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOM – WHILE YOU – YOU – ARE DEPRIVING THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE DEFENDING US, OF THEIR CONTITIONAL RIGHT.

    And we should believe the federal court for the Central District of California instead of the federal appellate court for the First Circuit?

  • 27. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Are you still here, you ignorant little gnat?

  • 28. eDee  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I was home school so please forgive my ignorance

    Does that mean the Obama administration is going to stop the Defense Department from continuing DADT?

  • 29. Judy  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:37 am

    It means it will likely be appealed to the next court level instead of just standing as the last word from the courts. Potentially, the ruling could be turned around by the appellate court.

    I'm also waiting to see if there is any 'stay'.

  • 30. Bob  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I put my hope in Obama too, big time, and I haven't given up, So far he's done nothing, that really frustrates the hell out of me, but I still have HOPE that he has a mind to think, and a heart to feel, sometimes no action is an action. maybe delalys are for a reason

    while we getted knocked to and fro with these news reports, I'm going to wait till he actually does something before I make my final decision,

    if his inaction comes from ignorance and fear, or because he is really against us, that will show. the end result will be the only thing that will reveal the truth, and the waiting is unbearable,,,,,,,,,, I have many Canadian friends that are eagerly waiting to say told you so.

  • 31. eDee  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:37 am

    **Secretary Gates added that permitting gay and lesbian troops to serve openly ‘is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training.’**

    So your troops can't follow orders?
    Men and woman in the military can handle bullets flying by their heads but not a gay guy defending their back?
    Growing up I was taught 'Don't Think – Do as you are told'
    I thought the military was taught the same.

  • 32. Judy  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:39 am

    And the gays and lesbians are ALREADY THERE! The disruption happens when you drag some of them from their units!

  • 33. Cat  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:47 am

    This is one of those problems that is exactly as big as the problem is imagined to be.

    If you imagine it is a major problem that needs interviewing, planning, preparation, training, feedback, reviews, etc., then it will turn out to be an ugly beast where nobody knows what the current rules are or how to act, many things will go wrong, people try to sabotage the process, and so on.

    Instead, if you give a direct order from the top with clear instructions that the DADT policy is revoked immediately, and sexual orientation is now on the list of things that cannot be discriminated on, the problem will be small. Sure, some people will discriminate, but there are already ways to handle that, the same as discrimination based on race or gender. Nothing new to see here, please move along…

    Do they have interviews, focus groups and sensitivity training for all the soldiers before they decide to go to war?

  • 34. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:55 am

    The two worst things are 1) discrimination continues apace and 2) howls of joy from the Family Research Council et. al.

  • 35. Michelle Evans  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Yeah, it needs so much time to properly implement this idea of non-discrimination–like the years and years it took to de-segregate the military in 1948. Oh, wait, Truman just signed an Executive Order, and segregation was done, finished, kaput–immediately. Does no one learn from history?

    They say it will be hard to implement because they WANT it to be hard to implement. It's like the old deal where they say that this is their way of protecting us from ourselves. What garbage.

  • 36. Bill  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Off topic, but for those of you who read Tony Perkins' hateful essay in the Washington Post earlier this week, here is a response to him from one of the mom's whose son killed himself.

    It's very good.
    http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvo

  • 37. Bob  |  October 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    one hell of a good letter, that mother has turned her loss into a gift, and uses her own tragedy to educate herself and be of service to others, very redeeming, we need more people like her. Woot Woot

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Well, they would not be in this situation if they had done the right thing and pushed harder to get DADT and DOMA repealed in the first place, now would they?

  • 39. Seraphiel  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Wooo, that's the fierce advocacy we've all come to expect.

    Has anyone managed to get an explanation for why they keep doing this? They aren't required to appeal, and accepting the court's decision would lead to the outcome they claim to support. So: WTF?

  • 40. Michael  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:41 am

    No matter whether you support Obama as I do, or not, one thing is clear: He will appeal any ruling on DADT or DOMA. Whether he has some grand strategy or he's spineless, I'll leave it up to others to decide.

  • 41. Sagesse  |  October 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

    I'm going with grand strategy. Both the DOMA and DADT decisions deserve to be tested and upheld on appeal. The recent district court decisions are great, well argued and well decided, but they need the added weight of having the appeals courts uphold that anti-gay discrimination is unconstitutional.

    I don't think Obama is a coward. I do count a lot of opportunistic political cowards, but he's not one of them. He doesn't have a vote, they do.

  • 42. allen  |  October 13, 2010 at 11:54 am

    He is certainly a coward in some capacity. When Rick Warren asked him about his stance on marriage in '08, he either lied or purposely failed to clarify his position in fear he would lose support from bigots.

    He has failed still to explain his reasoning. His stance on marriage I believe has hurt us immensely and has roadblocked some support we could have garnered, especially since it has become a talking point to give weight to their bigoted remarks; "my stance is the same as our president". All because of his lying.

    With that being said, I still begrudgingly support him. Unless hell freezes over and the next Repub Candidate supports equality more so than Obama *HAH!*, then I will be voting Obama again.

  • 43. Tigger  |  October 13, 2010 at 10:59 am

    I was the biggest apologist ever, but this is really wearing my patience thin…

  • 44. Carpool Cookie  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    "Secretary Gates added that permitting gay and lesbian troops to serve openly ‘is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training.’

    Why does it sound like he's responding to a proposition that soldiers serve alongside man-eating space aliens?

    Since when does it take "careful preperation" and "a lot of training" to treat people with mutual respect?

  • 45. Richard W. Fitch  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Careful preparation and a lot of training are required because of all the Dominionist chaplains that have infiltrated the military. They are propagandizing that this is a godly war and that the gays must be barred at any cost.

  • 46. JonT  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Yeah, I had a similar reaction. They are already in the military!

    The military already knows how to handle discrimination/harassment. Don't they?

    What's the big fucking deal Mr. Secretary?

    I wonder what would happen if all (or most) LGBT soldiers currently in the military 'came out' one day. Announced their orientation. Made a big, public, media reported deal about it.

    Not going to happen for obvious reasons, but I often wonder about things like that 🙂

  • 47. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Did permitting female troops to serve with male troops require any special training or accomodations?

  • 48. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Well, if you ask my bigoted nephew, the ex-Marine, he'll tell you that women don't belong in the services because "they just get themselves raped."

    And, of course, people like you seem to think that your mere gender automatically would mean that some gay man would come on to you, right? And that therefore some special training would be required to tell those same gay men that they are to be professionals and do their damned jobs?

    I guess you must automatically find every woman a target potential date because of her gender, right?

    As if a) gay and lesbian soldiers cannot be professionals and b) they lack discernment.

    Why are you more interested in protecting homophobes? (It's the same question I asked of my nephew, throwing in "rapists" since he seems to think that women somehow "get themselves raped").

    Your deliberately disingenuous attitude does not reflect well on the educational standards of Cal State Long Beach.

    I'm just sayin' …

  • 49. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Well, if you ask my bigoted nephew, the ex-Marine, he’ll tell you that women don’t belong in the services because “they just get themselves raped.”

    Military Rape Crisis Center

    And, of course, people like you seem to think that your mere gender automatically would mean that some gay man would come on to you, right?

    No more so than a woman's mere gender automatically means that some straight man would come on to them.

    Now, clearly there are servicemen of both orientations who can work professionally.

    Then again, there was the Tailhook scandal.

    As if a) gay and lesbian soldiers cannot be professionals

    Of course they can be professional like straights.

    Or unprofessional like straights.

  • 50. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:27 am

    What is your beef here, Michael? I'm serious.

    Why are you even here? It's quite obvious that you have significant anti-GLBT bias (and no small amount of misogyny to boot). If you think that the Military Rape Crisis Center is an answer to the attitude that "women get themselves raped," you're incredibly naive.

    BTW, more than two-thirds of female service members will be raped at some point during their career, most frequently by one of their colleagues. How about if we put the blame where it belongs, on the rapists? Oh, wait, we can't do that … the victims can just go to the crisis center, where they'll be referred for counseling, and be told to "get on with their lives" while the millitary does fuck-all about it.

    I was a DoD civilian for 16 years, little boy, and part of my job at one point was investigating these cases. I have seen things that would make your ignorant ass turn inside out.

    Oh, and I am a survivor of rape — BY A SERVICE MEMBER. My source on that Military Rape Crisis Center? It's primary.

    Don't you ever fucking condescend to me again, you sorry little piece of shit, or I will make you regret that your parents ever met.

    That is no threat, little boy. It is a goddamned promise.

    Now, go and color or something while the adults talk.

  • 51. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:28 am

    PS to Little Mikey:

    That whole Tailhook thing? Is part and parcel of the rape culture of the US military. Women aren't raped by men, they "get themselves raped."

    Fuck off, little boy.

  • 52. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Ejectcito…maude!!!…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 53. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Fiona,

    I am in awe of you right now. Seriously, I admire your strength, and your way with words.

    I am so very sorry you had to endure rape from a colleague. That is…I was going to say unacceptable but that's too weak a word. It's horrific and evil and just awful. So is the general response from the public, the DoD and police investigators.

    I am completely agreed about the rape culture in this country. It is disgusting and horrible. Any time I try to talk about it, I usually get the "what about the MEN?" or "Well., if women didn't dress/do/say X…." responses. Good to see someone else who recognizes it for what it is.

  • 54. Michael Ejercito  |  October 16, 2010 at 3:38 am

    I am so very sorry you had to endure rape from a colleague. That is…I was going to say unacceptable but that’s too weak a word. It’s horrific and evil and just awful. So is the general response from the public, the DoD and police investigators.

    Rape is truly an act of nithinghood.

  • 55. Ronnie  |  October 16, 2010 at 3:58 am

    "nithinghood"

    8 / ….Ronnie

  • 56. Ann S.  |  October 16, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Ronnie, if you google it you'll see this is one of Michael's favorite words. It's an odd one to latch onto, but that figures.

  • 57. Ronnie  |  October 16, 2010 at 4:44 am

    @Ann S…..yeah I did that…there's only like a few google finds using that "word"….however that "word" doesn't show up in Webster's Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionaries or even Urban Dictionary.com…so I'm just going to roll my eyes at Mr. Ejectcito…..rofl….<3…Ronnie

  • 58. Eden James  |  October 13, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Just posted a few more links in the main post: A NY Times editorial, an amazing Rachel Maddow show tonight, and an interview with Aaron Belkin on KQED.

    Refresh to check them out.

  • 59. JonT  |  October 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    The link Eden posted (KQED: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201010130900 ) was… interesting.

    John Arquilla, (director of the Information Operations Center at the Naval Postgraduate School) seemed to be trying to ride both sides of the fence.

    On one hand – "Stop the discharges".

    But on the other: "There is a significant Christian worldview in the military"; "It will take decades to deal with the integration of LGBT's in the military"; "There are certain units where it would be OK to have a gay service member, but in the elite units (Seals, Special Forces, etc) it could be a real problem." Blah blah blah.

    I give him credit for at least not saying "No, we cannot have those damn homos in the military at all!", but…

    I paraphrasing his statements of course, but come on man.

    As Aaron from the Palm Center kept repeating, these people are already there!

    It's worth listening to, but I kept rolling my eyes at Arquilla's straw men. They were so flammable 😉

    Thanks for the links Eden.

    PS: Of course Rachel rocks. No need to even say anything there 🙂

  • 60. Sagesse  |  October 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    I agree. All the 'selective' openness Arquilla talks about is completely arbitrary and unenforceable. And catering to the 'Christian ethos' of the military is simply religious persecution of LGBT servicemembers.

  • 61. Episcopal Bear  |  October 13, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    FUCK the God damned Christians! And I *AM* one!

    That's a total bullshit response, in the same vein as NOM's "WE'RE being persecuted because those homos won't let us hate on them anymore!"

  • 62. How to keep a dog from br&hellip  |  October 13, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    […] BREAKING: Obama administration expected to appeal DADT ruling … […]

  • 63. Carol  |  October 14, 2010 at 1:32 am

    If it were hard to implement, wouldn't there have been some defense evidence of that at the trial? Judge Phillips saw no credible evidence of possible damage to the military. There was only evidence that (1) when they know a soldier's orientation, troops don't care, and (2) enforcement of DADT actually disrupts readiness. Plus, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Obama says he wants DADT ended but wants Congress, not the courts or the executive, to end it. I suppose appealing Judge Phillips' ruling could be intended to force the Senate to act, but I don't see it, not with John McCain standing in the doorway. More likely, filing an appeal before the election will anger the very voters we need.

  • 64. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I don't know if we should be flying into a huff right away, though…..it's not confirmed the President will press for an appeal yet.

    When the skies are brighter canary yellow
    I forget ev'ry cloud I've ever seen,
    So they called me a cockeyed optimist
    Immature and incurably green.

    I have heard people rant and rave and bellow
    That we're done and we might as well be dead,
    But I'm only a cockeyed optimist
    And I can't get it into my head.

    I hear the human race
    Is fallin' on its face
    And hasn't very far to go,
    But ev'ry whippoorwill
    Is sellin' me a bill,
    And tellin' me it just ain't so.

    I could say life is just a bowl of Jello
    And appear more intelligent and smart,
    But I'm stuck like a dope
    With a thing called hope,
    And I can't get it out of my heart!
    Not this heart…

  • 65. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Optimistic/denial-expert that I am, though, it just ocurred to me, How can skies be a "bright canary yellow"?

    After dropping an atomic bomb?

  • 66. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:51 am

    There is one legal issue that the broad injunction would create.

    This injunction prohibits the Department of Defense from discharging any serviceman under DADT, not just the plaintiffs.

    This would mean that any serviceman, not just the LCR plaintiffs, would have standing to appeal if the Ninth Circuit panel overturns the entire ruling or limits the scope of the injunction to the LCR plaintiffs. (While this would be a moot issue of the Ninth Circuit overturns the LCR decision, as the plaintiffs would almost certainly appeal, it might not be so moot if they limit the scope of the injunction to the named plaintiffs, as the named plaintiffs would not have any motive to appeal such a decision.)

    In Sierra Club v. EPA, the Sierra Club sued the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to change the terms of a permit issued to the city of Phoenix. The Ninth Circuit held on appeal that the city of Phoenix had a protectable interest in this case, since the outcome of the case would bind their actions. Similarly, every serviceman now has a protectable interest in the LCR case (since they directly benefit from the injunction) and so they have standing to appeal an adverse ruling on the injunction or DADT itself.

  • 67. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:29 am

    And so goddamned what?

    Why are you so threatened by gay men and lesbians, Michael?

    Afraid that you might be gay yourself?

  • 68. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:59 am

    I wanted to discuss the relevant legal issues further.

  • 69. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Michael, you're not discussing, you're saying the same things over and over. Your legal knowledge is limited and you are misusing legal terms of art.

    No one here is interested in discussing the legal issues with you.

  • 70. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:17 am

    But your not discussing anything…Ejectcito…Its nothing but bullshite copy & paste & you have no idea wtf you're talking about….as been pointed out by actual Legal Professionals in past threads….get over yourself…. : / …Ronnie

  • 71. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:55 am

    No shite sherlock…because when it has to do with Constitutional Law it applies to ALL Americans not just the plaintiffs you benighted troglodyte….stop pretending to be a lawyer you immature spoiled brat….we know you're a real estate sales person….don't link your myspace (so out dated) to your sign in name if you are going to pretend to be something you're not…. ; ) ….Ronnie

    P.S. Your copy & paste is waisted…nobody is falling for it

    P.S.S. What do you get out of posting on here? Nobody believes you, nobody agrees with you, & Professional Lawyers have even squashed you in put you in your place…..You're waisting your time…& you're wasting the one life given to you….so sad & extremely pathetic…you're pathetic.

  • 72. Marlene  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I served honorably as a Marine and a bisexual and never had any trouble. Obama promised that he would end DADT. If, in fact, he now turns and betrays us, I will vote every for every teaparty candidate I can find, just out of spite. If we're going down the tubes, let's go whole hog!

  • 73. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Except that the spite vote doesn't help anything.

    Teabirchers in office? Just wait to see the corpses hung from the walls of the Republic of Gilead.

  • 74. Carpool Cookie  |  October 15, 2010 at 2:32 am

    While you're in the booth, Marlene, be sure to vote that you can get care packages in prison when bisexuality is criminalized alongside homosexuality.

  • 75. BREAKING: DOJ files appli&hellip  |  October 14, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    […] anonymous-sourced rumors from yesterday just became public today. Chris Geidner broke the news a little earlier in the Metro Weekly: […]

  • 76. Tab  |  October 15, 2010 at 9:32 am

    I'm sorry could you repete that?

  • 77. WHAT THE HELL? – Lo&hellip  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    […] [Sounds of me banging my head on the keyboard]. THIS IS WHY WE'RE HAVING AN ENTHUSIASM GAP! Dammit! Equality is in the National fucking Platform for crying out loud. […]

  • 78. WHAT THE HELL? » Do&hellip  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    […] [Sounds of me banging my head on the keyboard]. THIS IS WHY WE’RE HAVING AN ENTHUSIASM GAP! Dammit! Equality is in the National fucking Platform for crying out loud. […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!