Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: DOJ files application for emergency stay of DADT injunction

DADT trial

UPDATE AT 3:22 p.m. PT: And it appears that the DOJ has filed an appeal on the case as well, Kathleen writes:

DOJ has filed a notice of appeal in LCR v USA. It’s just a pdf form so won’t be uploading, but it states, in relevant part,

“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that United States and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from: Judgment Granting plaintiff permanent injunction.”

By Eden James

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

Christian Berle, deputy executive director of LCR, told Metro Weekly, “Attorneys from White and Case have been in contact with [Department of Justice Civil Division Attorney] Paul Freeborne this afternoon (morning in Los Angeles), where Freeborne indicated DOJ’s intent to file a request for a stay pending appeal from Judge Phillips in District Court.”

Berle continued, “If Phillips denies that request, they intend to ask for an administrative stay while she considers their motion for a stay. If Phillips denies that ruling, they will make a request for an emergency stay from Phillips so that they can request a stay from the Ninth Circuit.”

Berle said the multiple requests are to be filed by 3 p.m. Pacific today.

Read Geidner’s entire piece. Lots of new info.

UPDATE: It’s official. Kathleen Perrin, per the usual, posted the Scribd doc of the DOJ’s application for an emergency stay in the DADT case:

[scribd id=39347011 key=key-27a69cte6knlzdvl8xym mode=list]

Read it and let us know what you think in the comments.

More news to come, as it develops.

UPDATED: Below is Log Cabin Republicans and White & Case’s response to the application.

Christian Berle, Deputy Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans: “After years of fighting this lawsuit, Log Cabin Republicans expected that the Obama administration would continue to pull out all the stops to defend ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” said Christian Berle, Deputy Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. “Log Cabin Republicans will continue to advocate on behalf of the American servicemembers who everyday sacrifice in defense of our nation and our Constitution. If this stay is granted, justice will be delayed, but it will not be denied. Meanwhile, we urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to do what it takes in the lame duck session to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ legislatively. If Senator Reid treats the minority party fairly, the votes will be there to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ once and for all.”

Dan Woods, White & Case: “We are not surprised by the government’s action, as it repeats the broken promises and empty words from President Obama avowing to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ while at the same directing his Justice Department to defend this unconstitutional policy,” said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing the Log Cabin Republicans in Log Cabin Republicans vs United States of America. “Now that the government has filed a request for a stay, we will oppose it vigorously because brave, patriotic homosexuals are serving in our Armed Forces to fight for all of our constitutional rights while the government is denying them theirs.”

UPDATE: SLDN statement from Army veteran and SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis:

“We are disappointed but not surprised to learn the Department of Justice appealed the decision by Judge Phillips and asked that the injunction not be enforced for now. Judge Phillips will need to decide if the injunction stopping the investigations and discharges is on hold. The earlier decision by the Staff Judge Advocate Generals from the Military Services to abide by the terms in the court’s order barring the military from investigating or discharging service members was an extraordinarily positive development. Until that changes, we are monitoring active-duty clients and fielding calls to our hotline.

“It is clear there is confusion and this interim period is dangerous for service members. Our service members need finality. The President needs to deliver on his promise to end the law this year. Given the uncertainty in the courts, we urge the Senate to act swiftly next month on repeal when they return to Washington. Congress made this law over 17 years ago and Congress now has an affirmative responsibility to bring clarity and finality to ending this law.

“We need to put the safety and well being of gay and lesbian service members first. Service members continue to remain vulnerable under DADT. We have clients under investigation and facing discharge right now. We’ll be monitoring each case over the coming days.

“The President needs to deliver on his promise to end the law this year. Unfortunately, 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. DADT may well be in a state of flux. 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.”

UPDATE: HRC’s statement:

“It it certainly disappointing and frustrating that the administration has sought a stay. There is one simple way to put the endless legal wrangling behind us and do what the President and the American people want to strengthen our military: the administration and Congress need to finish the legislative work on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal after the election. The interests of the administration, the military, and most importantly the American people are best served by doing the hard work of enacting a durable legislative repeal of this discriminatory law.”

UPDATE AT 3:22 p.m. PT: And it appears that the DOJ has filed an appeal on the case as well, Kathleen writes:

DOJ has filed a notice of appeal in LCR v USA. It’s just a pdf form so won’t be uploading, but it states, in relevant part,

“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that United States and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from: Judgment Granting plaintiff permanent injunction.”


  • 1. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:28 am

  • 2. Alan E.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:39 am


  • 3. John  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I'm DONE with the Obam Administration! NO MORE $5 here and $10 there to support their broken promises and just enough change to not make much difference…I'm voting Republican across the board until this administration acquires some integrity toward the gay community…END DADT now with an executive order…If ONE more soldier is discharged, it will be a political crime! Meanwhile…NO MORE SUPPORT FROM ME for Obama…I'm DONE!

  • 4. Bennett  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:39 am

    John, I understand how you feel. I dont know what to think about Obama anymore. But let me just say this. Perhaps his actions are beneficial in this way–An appeal, designed to fail, who knows, may blunt the forces that might come into play if he did not appeal. Some bigots might see the appeal and not feel motivated to get all up in arms, not knowing that Obama probably wont give the appeal any chace of succeeding. Then, consider that a stay may allow the military to at least start phasing in the end of DADT in an accelerated fashion seeing as how it might be an enevitability. After all, we are talking about people guns here. I wouldnt mind them being a little methodical about it. I would rather for them to have a month or so to prepare for the inevitable than set the stage for a worldwide military coming out party this evening. Waiting is not fair in the long run, especially with election looming, and the fact that we have reached that point in history where gay rights are going to go one way or the other for a very long time, but, to me, it is possible that Obama knows a few things that we do not, hopefully, he is the president after all. Another thing, venting about going republican is one thing, but when it comes down to voting, I hope you will not actually do that if your district includes anti-gay social conservatives. Neither choice for governor in Texas supports same sex marriage. However, I volunteer with one candiate, because the alternative is a disaster for gay rights in general. And, consider this, publicly opposing same sex marriage as a personal view, as Obama does, may be the only way to get elected in Texas, even if there is no intention to take any action against same sex marriage in Texas if it became politically possible. My point is, some of the reasoning for the actions that we dislike might be such that we are actually benefiting from them. I am a registered Republican. Any idea why I might be that? No need to guess, Im going to tell you. So that I can vote for the least electable candidate that might stand a chance of winning in the republican primaries. Maybe not a good example, but, it is just to say, Obama may be better than no Obama, I certainly dont want Palin/Phelps in 2012.

  • 5. Bennett  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:49 am

    That is to say, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  • 6. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:40 am


    I understand your frustration, but may I suggest a more effective strategy: don't donate to the Democratic party across the board, but rather focus on candidates who have been outspoken in calling for DADT repeal and who are in tight races in November. One of the best examples is former Admiral and current Congressman Joe Sestak, who is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania against Pat Toomey, who is basically Rick Santorum, the Sequel. Sestak has been behind but is showing signs of gaining on, or even beating, Toomey.

  • 7. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:45 am

    John, are you a troll here? That is rediculous!!

  • 8. Carol  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:41 pm


    To quote my literary hero, Jane Austen, "People who are angry are not always wise."

    I'm not saying you are not wise, but please consider the ultimate effect of punishing Obama by voting Republican, in state and local as well as federal elections! You would be punishing yourself and all of us for much longer than Obama's tenure. Please, find another way to channel your anger.

  • 9. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Carol —

    My Mom introduced me to Jane Austen when I was about 14 and I have loved her ever since. I have all her books AND all the new BBC movies. Awesome woman.

    What book or essay is that line from, btw?

  • 10. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Big thanks to Kathleen, once again! Have I given you the Eternal Vigilance badge yet? If not, here you go! Wear it with pride.

  • 11. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:41 am

    and scribing

  • 12. Jonathan H  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:49 am

    This is your daily dose of "Kathleen is awesome"

  • 13. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Thanks, everyone. Always nice to be appreciated… though what I do doesn't seem to warrant such praise. But I'll take it all the same. 🙂

  • 14. AndrewPDX  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:22 am

    @Kathleen, you deserve this thanks and more for all the hard work you do.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 15. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Kathleen, one of my uncles likes to tell a story about his father, who was fond of saying, when being given dessert or praise or anything nice, "oh, it's much more than I deserve."

    This was always followed by, "But if we all got only what we deserved, how unhappy we would all be!"

    You, my dear, deserve all the kudos you are getting.

  • 16. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Hear, hear!

  • 17. Rhie  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:29 am

    I concur.

  • 18. Jonathan H  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Seriously, Kathleen, if you weren't for you I wouldn't read any of these documents, because I wouldn't know how to find them. Without the explanations of terms and procedures offered by the various lawyerly minds here I wouldn't understand most of what I was reading if I did find them.

    You've not only made these documents easy to find, you've given me the power to consider these cases seriously. To think about them in a rational mindset and to speak out about them from a position of understanding. You've made me stronger and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Thank you.

  • 19. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Thank you Jonathan. I'm truly glad my participation here has had that result. I know the law can seem obscure and inaccessible. But it affects all our lives and I think we're much better advocates if we understand how the courts work and what the framework and history of the (legal) arguments are. I'm really glad to have facilitated that understanding for you and others.

  • 20. Sheryl Carver  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Adding my thanks, Kathleen, for all you have done & continue to do for us! You are amazing!

  • 21. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    DITTO times a millions! 😀

  • 22. Freddy  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Kinda figured this was coming.

  • 23. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Definitely NOT the time to come out under any circumstances, anyway.

    But still…what's the point of this? Wait until the Pentagon study comes out? Wait for Congress to approve DADT repeal in the lame duck session (now with MOAR Republicans!)? What?

  • 24. Don in Texas  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:42 am

    On MSNBC this afternoon, in an interview with Thomas Roberts, Rachel Maddow outlined what could be the Obama administraton's strategy: to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit, and approve Judge Phillips' decision. In order words, the administration would ask the appeals court to "validate" the lower court's ruling. The reasoning is that an appellate court's affirmation of Judge Phillips' ruling would boost the credibility of the decision.

    Maddow said there was precedent for such a move, established during the Clinton administration.

  • 25. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Thanks, Don. I sure hope that's the plan.

  • 26. Bluprntguy  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Given Obama's track record so far, I wouldn't expect this is even a possibility. He has worked against equal rights since he has been in office.

  • 27. Sheryl Carver  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I'd like to believe that's what Obama's going to do (ask for validation), but based on his track record so far …

    Let's just say I stopped believing that Santa Claus would bring me a pony a looong time ago.

  • 28. Don in Texas  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:15 am

    After reading the government's motion, I think Rachel Maddow may have been far off the mark.

    Although the administration repeatedly states that Obama, Gates and Admiral Mullen support repeal of DADT, they insist that it be done by legislative act and not by the declaration of unconstitutionality by the courts.

    Seems to me that denigrates the third branch of government. If an act of Congress violates the Constitution, as DADT does, it is null and void. That's the whole point of the doctrine of judicial review established by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

  • 29. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:47 am

    I'd be curious what precedent there is for a move like that mentioned by Maddow. Did she give specific examples? Seems to me a move like that would negate the existence of a "case or controversy" required for a federal court to review a decision.

  • 30. Chris B  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:50 am

    First, DADT is a great injustice – it absolutely causes harm and should be revoked immediately.

    But I think the reason is far more benign. Lawyers are paid to argue their client's cases, even when they don't agree. For example, I was on a Home Owner's Association BoD where a majority of the BoD wanted to proceed with cases that were obviously personal vendettas. Our attorneys thought it was foolish, but proceeded anyway because they were on retainer.

    Congress cannot have specific cases heard by SCOTUS, but they can have a genre of cases have mandatory review. So the only way this specific case gets pushed to SCOTUS is for the DOJ to appeal. Now if you look at this more like the Executive Branch giving Congress access to the DoJ (which actually is common to avoid major political clashes between the branches), then the DoJ's real client in this case is Congress. Appealing this case, and asking for an emergency stay is EXACTLY what you'd expect any lawyer worth their salt to do on behalf of their client, regardless if the lawyer actually agrees with the strategy or case. It's not like Congress is going to hire any other attorney outside of the DoJ is it? It's also inline with allowing the DoJ to be independent from the President.

    Another way to look at this: Let's say Congress tells SCOTUS to review all cases regarding LGBT rights, the DoJ would still be ethically bound to present the best case they can and take the exact measures they are taking now.

    Yes, this means civil rights of the LGBT community could be delayed. Yes the LGBT community absolutely has every right to be angry. Yes this means and injustice may continue for longer. Yes it's a risk that DADT could be considered constitutional. BUT: No, it does not suggest a nefarious or two-faced position by the administration, this is simply how the system works (or should work) – for everybody. And Yes, if the LGBT wins at SCOTUS, then you're case is could be lock tight and you be far more protected against congress passing another DADT law or other laws that discriminate against the LGBT and gained so much more than what this case has given you.

    Quite honestly, having the DoJ vigorously defend all acts of Congress is something I agree with, even when I don't agree with the act itself. Because that pendulum swings both ways. They may one day be called to defend an Act I cherish, but the sitting president doesn't.

  • 31. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 12:53 am

    There are several instances in the past in which previous Administrations declined to appeal court decisions declaring varous pieces of legislation unconstitutional. First and foremost, President Obama took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His highest loyalty is to the US Constitution, not Congress. Obama is a constitutional law scholar, so he and his DOJ are certainly in the position to determine whether, as a matter of policy, DADT (and DOMA) are in fact constitutional. We have now had multiple court rulings declaring that DADT and DOMA are unconstitutional.

    Obama and his spokesman Gibbs have repeatedly been asked whether they think DADT and DOMA are constitutional. If they aren't, Obama should either say so and stop defending them on appeal, or else appeal but tell the court that his administration considers them unconstitutional and ask that they be struck down. He has done neither. Gibbs stated yesterday that Obama has been very involved in discussions with DOJ on the appeal, and they are giving every indication that they will be rigorously defending both DADT and DOMA – not as a pro forma defense, but a "full throated defense" as the LCR attorneys noted.

    Obama's every action indicate that he believes DADT and DOMA *are* constitutional, and he has given nothing but lip service to the repeal of DADT in Congress. His nominees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff continue to support the ban on LGBT in the military. When DADT came up for the crucial vote last month Obama did not place a single call to any Senator to lobby for repeal. Instead, the day of the vote he called to give a congratulatory call to a player on the WBA on their win in the playoffs.

    My conclusion is that Barack Obama is a liar. He has no intention of repealing DADT, despite his repeated promises to do so. He keeps saying he's pro-LGBT but his actions are consistently antigay. The most charatable interpretation I can muster is that he's obsessed with process at the expense of outcome. He has failed our community – clearly, consistently, and in a very hurtful manner. All we have gotten from him are excuses and empty promises. If you think the LGBT community is angry with Obama now, can you imagine the fury if his DOJ actually wins on appeal and DADT/DOMA are reinstated for years to come?

    We are going to dog his every step during the 2012 primaries, and if he somehow manages to get renominated, we are going to embarass the Democrats at every opportunity during the general campaign – especially at the Democratic Convention.

  • 32. MJFargo  |  October 15, 2010 at 2:22 am

    I too feel that the President hasn't fulfilled his promise during the campaign. While "gay marriage" is one thing, DADT is another. If he has a "strategy," revealing it would certainly assist his supporters. In the absence of a strategy we're left with actions. Including the benefits of Federal workers and asserting hospital rules and regs include the partners of GLB&T people at bedside has been positive. But the crucial issues, specifically DADT, have been bandied about in a very ugly fashion. I understand that political winds can blow ill and varied, but DADT is blatantly discriminatory and damaging and we have a Federal Judge(s) weighing in. I want leadership from our President. And I want convincing and persuasive "strategy." Not "I'm guessin'" from news commentators. Both DADT and DOMA need to fall, and we need our President to lead in that fight. Otherwise, for me, it's, "Next…"

  • 33. Kathleen  |  October 15, 2010 at 4:06 am

    I acknowledge that there must be instances where the executive branch elects to not appeal a lower court decision (don't have the examples at hand – but I'm sure they're out there). And, unlike choosing not to defend at all in the initial lawsuit, I think there is ample justification for choosing not to appeal once a federal court has declared a law/policy unconstitutional.

    The point I've been making is that IF the feds elect to appeal in the DADT case, they can only do so by arguing that they disagree with the decision in some way. In its mildest form, it could be a disagreement with the injunction or letting the injunction taking effect immediately.

    One very real possibility here is that Obama is trying to protect the integrity of the agreement he made with the military – to allow a period of time of study and then a period in which to implement the change in policy.

    Let me make it perfectly clear that I think all that hand wringing and surveys and such are not only unnecessary but counter-productive, accomplishing nothing but lending credence to the notion that this is a radical change in the structure of the military rather than the reality that it's just allowing people who are ALREADY THERE to stop lying and living in fear. But I can see how Obama might be busy tap dancing to try to uphold his end of the compromise. Asking for a stay and filing a notice of appeal buys time.

    I've gotten the impression that Obama doesn't have the most cozy relationship with the military brass. And the military has a history of not liking non-military personnel dictating how to run their business – and this includes the President and Congress. Of course, they understand their legal and constitutional role, but that doesn't mean they like it. The Executive branch electing not to appeal could be seen as the President using an end run to back out of his agreement.

  • 34. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:22 am

    @Chris B –

    How about this one for the Obama DOJ picking and choosing which cases it wants to appeal?

  • 35. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Kathleen —

    I think you are right. This is also an election year, and dissing the military now will not be helpful, considering that Democrats are always seen as soft on Defense.

    Secondarily, the main political strategy of every Democrat right now is to speak to the inability of Republicans to bargain in good faith. They can't if their own party leader doesn't do so.

    Yes, it's politics and yes it's complicated – but this is how the game is played. If Obama can;t play this game and win, he can't get ANYthing done. He's intelligent and pragmatic.

    He is willing to piss of the base for now because the base isn't going to vote for a Tea Party Republican. The centrists – the people who are the targets of every election since elections – might be swayed by his commitment to his word, and might be turned off fby an activist President, and take that out on the nearest Democrat.

    From a purely strategic standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

  • 36. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:11 am

    @Kathleen – it's based on a 1996 precedent from the Clinton DOJ in a case involving DOD discharge of HIV+ soldiers.

  • 37. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:22 am

    That document appears to be a directive to not enforce a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act. I don't see where it is asking a federal Appeals Court to affirm a lower court's decision in which the federal government lost its case.

    My question had to do with the report that Rachel Maddow claimed there was precedent for the administration asking an the appeals court to “validate” the lower court’s ruling.

  • 38. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 1:05 am


    As I posted below, the source for this idea seems to be former Clinton administration Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. It's not clear whether DOJ has ever done this in the past, or if Dellinger was simply suggesting that it could be done.

  • 39. Peter  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:40 am

    I think the point to all of this is to cover ALL bases, so that there is no way for any "Jim Crow" style laws to be made… if it's appealed up to Supreme Court, then we REALLY win…

    That seems to be what it's about. I hope that's it.

  • 40. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:00 am

    If we went back to the early 1950s before the Brown decision, we could construct an analogy for Obama's position: "Yes, there have been a number of court decisions declaring school segregation unconstitutional, but we believe that school desegregation is a matter for Congress to end. We have to uphold the laws, so we will continue to argue that it is constitutional to ensure that the races are kept separate, however evil these actions are. We will work with the Congress to repeal these laws, but until that happens we will continue to turn away African American children from getting equal educational opportunities."

  • 41. Sagesse  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Subbing to read later.

  • 42. JonT  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Sounds like a good idea.

  • 43. Alan E.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:43 am

    So this is the LCR case, not the Witt case. My guess is that they will appeal the Witt case, too? Not counting Witt, that makes 3 major cases for us that the DOJ is appealing. It's going to be one heckuva ride these next few years. Buckle up!

  • 44. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:51 am

    The LCR case is of greater concern for the feds, as it imposes a general injunction against enforcement of DADT, whereas Witt involves only the reinstatement of a single service member.

    There is a larger implications in the Witt case: the fact that the 9th Circuit decision in Witt establishes a requirement that DADT dismissals must meet a heightened standard of review. Ultimately, that standard will likely be reviewed by the Supremes – either in the Witt or LCR case. (unless the policy is is repealed in the meantime).

  • 45. Chris in Lathrop  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Well, if Perry vs. Schwarzenegger is a proper indicator, the 9th Circuit is going to grant this stay, too. Wow! I can has leegle lerning heer?

    Thanks for all the excellent work, Kathleen! 🙂

  • 46. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:12 am

    This application for a stay is filed with the district court, i.e. the judge who issued the injunction. But as the application indicates, if Judge Phillips doesn't grant the stay, the DOJ intends to ask the 9th Circuit. At the least, I expect one of the two courts to grant an emergency stay to give the parties a chance to argue whether a stay pending appeal should be granted.

  • 47. Hanou  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I feel like, in this case, there should be no stay, since all that does is means that the armed forces suspend any investigations and expulsions until legal hearings are concluded, dealing no real harm to them.

  • 48. Alan E.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:47 am

    What's with the break that starts with the "Declaration of Clifford L. Stanley"? The document note at the top of that page says it begins at 1 of 48. Legal Beagles?

  • 49. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Alan, it looks to me as though the Declaration of Clifford Stanley is 48 pages, including exhibits, and then a new declaration begins. Before Stanley's declaration is the pleading itself. The declaration is in support of the pleading.

  • 50. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Alan, Usually when I retrieve documents from PACER, I have the option to download it w/all attachments as a single PDF. But this one didn't allow that and I had to download each separately – the main doc and 4 attachments – then merge them together in Acrobat. Maybe something weird happened in the merge process.

    I'll have a look at the originals and see if there's a discrepancy.

  • 51. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:43 am

    I made a note in the description at Scribd to indicate that the document is made up of a main doc w/attachments. Hopefully, that will avoid confusion for those reading it.

  • 52. Nigma Sterling  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:47 am

    "Log Cabin Republicans"? Seriously? They want to be taken seriously with a name like that? Shoot, why not name themselves Teabaggers or……Oh……wait……

  • 53. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:50 am

    They were all born in log cabins. That they built themselves. Just like Abe Lincoln.

    Or something like that.

  • 54. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Maybe they all first met at a convention for those log cabin style building blocks?

  • 55. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Meanwhile, the Tea Party has been taken over by the Religious Right, so the teabaggers hate the LCR.

  • 56. Rhie  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Heck, the entire GOP has been taken over by the Religious Right.

  • 57. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Good point, Rhie. And the plutocrats don't seem to care as long as the evangelical votes keep rolling in, damn the planet, damn scientific progress, and damn civil rights, as long as they get theirs. Meanwhile, actual fiscal pragmatists and old-school small government types are losing primaries to teabaggers. Just great.

  • 58. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Yup. And the ONLY one saying anything about it is Meghan McCain. Her book Crazy, Sexy, Politics could be subtitled "or, what the hell happened to the GOP?"

  • 59. Anonygrl  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:55 am

    They wish to point out that Abe Lincoln (famed for being born in a log cabin) was, in fact, a Republican. And that the Republican values have changed, somewhat, since then.

    It's not a bad name, really, considering the positive associate most people have with Abe and the whole freeing the slaves thing… and I think that is why they use it.

  • 60. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:16 am

    I always thought it was a less than subtle reference to the rumors that Lincoln was gay.

  • 61. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Oh, I'd forgotten about those rumors. Could be that's the reference.

  • 62. Rhie  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:35 am

    No reason why it can't be both.

  • 63. Bluprntguy  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:48 am

    It's been 48 hours. I haven't seen reports of the military falling into disarray because gays and lesbians can be honest. I hope the judge takes her time reviewing this request. Maybe puts it on the bottom of the pile like congress did…

  • 64. Don in Texas  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:11 am

    The administration set a deadline of 12:00 noon PDT next Monday for Judge Phillips' to stay her injunction. If she does not act by then, the administration will file a motion for a stay with the 9th Circuit.

  • 65. bluprntguy  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:33 am

    LOL. I wonder how the judge will respond to a threat from the defendant in a case. I think the Plaintiffs are required to have an opportunity to respond to the request for a stay. This is complete bullsh*t.

  • 66. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Plaintiffs are required to have an opportunity to respond to the request for a stay.

    I think that's why this is an ex parte application for an emergency stay. If it's granted, it could only be temporary and would have to be followed by an opportunity for the other parties to respond to the request for a stay.

  • 67. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    I'm not sure, even when DODT ends, that gays and lesbians will come streaming out of the militay closet en mass. I'd think that since it will be a new situation for everyone, it will be quite gradual. It's great to be able to be out at work, but I think the primary concern is that people don't want to be FIRED.

  • 68. Brian Miller  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:42 am

    What a surprise. President homophObama strikes again.

    Imagine if his DOJ fought this hard to protect our rights from the abuses of the USA Patriot Act, or all the other legislation he campaigned against as a candidate and scrambled to use as president.

    What a joke of an administration.

  • 69. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Well, the beautiful are often rather fickle, and somewhat inscrutable. Maybe he can't help it?

  • 70. Alan E.  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Let's review the Ninth Circuit's four factors in determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal:

    (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits

    This one is kind iffy, but there was strong evidence in our favor. Plus, the defense didn't present much evidence.

    (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

    Obviously the plaintiff would be fully discharged with no hope of returning to military service.

    (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding

    Other people would be able to be brought up on charges under DADT if the stay remains in place. That is harm to those people.

    (4) where the public interest lies

    Last I saw, public interest was 70% in support of repealing DADT.

    Out of those 4, only the first is kind of iffy, and the other 3 are in our favor. So why should the stay be granted?

  • 71. Carol  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Alan, I wondered about #1 also. I believe the defendant in LCR was the same DoD, represented by the same DoJ, as those presenting this application for a stay. According to Judge Phillips' opinion there was no credible evidence that military readiness would be harmed by repeal and substantial credible evidence that DADT is actually harming readiness through loss of valuable personnel, including trusted officers. Why didn't DoD and DoJ present better evidence of harm during the trial, if they could have?

  • 72. Scott Marlowe  |  October 15, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    They gave no evidence because they have no evidence. Their entire argument consists of nothing but hand-waving.

  • 73. AndrewPDX  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Maybe this is better… let's say the stay is not granted. Next week, a soldier comes out; everything's okay at the time, whee… then, the 9CC or SCOTUS come along and say that DADT is valid, and Congress doesn't repeal it. Then, that out soldier could then be kicked out.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 74. Alan E.  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:46 am

    That would bring up another legal battle with timing as the main evidence. As long as the person did not say anything about being gay outside of the freebie window, then there is a solid case to keep the person in. That would also be a breakthrough case to tear DADT apart in court.

  • 75. Cat  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Somehow it doesn't make sense to me that pending appeal the military can continue to throw out gay service members, given the unconstitutionality. Wouldn't the court want to protect the status quo of the service members (you know, people of flesh and blood who want to serve their country and currently do serve their country), rather than the status quo of a military policy? If I were a judge I would stay the decision, but also issue a freeze of all pending DADT reviews, bar the military from starting new ones, and let the military figure out how to deal with that. Or at least prevent the military from discharging people, and force them to keep them on their payroll.

  • 76. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Do you think they will procede very vigorously? I wouldn't be surprised if there were whispers from nervous people higher up, passing the word to Cool It on the antagonism for the moment.

  • 77. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:07 am

    Obama could have enjoined the policy on Day 1 of his administration by issuing a Stop Loss order. We are fighting two wars, after all, and as the San Diego court noted the military has consistently waited until servicemembers had completed their tours of duty in war zones before promptly kicking them out. So, it's been within Obama's legal authority to stop this all along, and he has refused to do so. He keeps saying he wants Congress to act – not the President issuing a Stop Loss order, nor the courts declaring DADT unconstitutional. He consistently picks the most difficult possible path for a remedy, and then he does absolutely nothing to help us advance that appeal in Congress. In fact he's done everything he can to undermine an appeal in Congress by saying he wanted to wait until after the Dec. 1 Pentagon study completes (and the Democrats lose the House of Representatives).

    Obama doesn't *want* DADT repealed. Otherwise he could have stopped this thing a lonnnng time ago.

  • 78. fiona64  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:50 am

    A Stop Loss order does NOT contravene DADT. It is quite clear to me that people do not understand how Stop Loss works.

    It means that people whose enlistment is coming to an end do not get a choice about being re-upped. They are just kept on. It is not something that contradicts DADT; it stops people from leaving who want to do so.

    Please do not speak about things you don't understand, okay?

    Love from someone who was a DoD civilian for 16 years, a period which includes the first Gulf War, Somalia and Bosnia — and thus knows more about this than she wants to,

  • 79. Alan E.  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:52 am

    Also, if Obama signs an order stop dismissals under DADT, DADT would still be on the books, and the next president could enforce it again. We want it off the books entirely.

  • 80. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 3:54 am

    @Fiona –

    There was a provision inserted in the original DADT legislation in 1993 that specifically gave the President the authority to suspend discharges with a stop loss order if the President certified that it was necessary for reasons of National Security. It's not the normal kind of stop loss that prevents the discharge of people whose enlistments are coming to an end.

  • 81. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:17 am

    @Alan E. –

    Don't underestimate the power a stop loss would have to change the climate surrounding DADT in the military. A lot of prejudice is based on fear of unknown risks; Gate's overblown statements about the "huge" magnitude of the change are examples of this. By allowing LGBT personnel to openly serve under a stop loss order, we would be able to see that the impact on military readiness and morale is a canard. It would condition the military brass as well as the general public to the idea that LGBT service is normal. Then, when the presidency next falls to a Republican, he or she would find it's not so easy to reinstate the discharges. The military and public would by then have grown accustomed to the change and the onus would fall on the Republicans to explain why the discharges are once again necessary, given that the expected harms failed to materialize, and that the public support for LGBT in the military would top its already high levels.

    So don't sell the stop loss short. Quite apart from the fact that it would have a real benefit to real people's lives in the here and now, it would also represent an alternative path to eventual repeal of DADT.

  • 82. fiona64  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Dr. Brent Zenobia:

    May I see a source for your assertion, please?

    A soldier under my supervision was one of the first to be discharged under DADT (over my vociferous objections), and I do not recall ever seeing such a thing in the legislation.

    Thank you in advance.

  • 83. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 10:42 am

    @Fiona64 –

    My source is Dr. Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center. In April 2009 the Palm Center published a study that concluded that the President had the legal authority to suspend the DADT policy via stop-loss order per 10 U.S.C. § 123 and § 12305.

    For details, see….

    PS. I think your "you don't know what you're talking about" crack was uncalled for.

  • 84. fiona64  |  October 15, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Brent, I really don't give a crap what you think was or was not called for.

    Just so you know. Thank you for providing your source.

    You do know that 1993 was a whole lot earlier than this study, right?

  • 85. fiona64  |  October 15, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Um, Brent?

    That memo you cited? Doesn't say what you think it says.

    "The clearest authority, of course, to ensure that service members would not be separated from the military as a result of their cooperation with the PWG would be either 1) a suspension/moratorium of the policy approved by Congress or 2) use of the President's "stop-loss" authority by executive order under 10 U.S.C. § 123 and § 12305."

    This does not mean that DADT could be suspended in its entirety via stop-loss order. It means that soldiers who cooperated with the PWG could not be thrown out under DADT because they revealed themselves to be gay. The language is very specific and clear.

    So, I guess that "crack" of mine still stands.

  • 86. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    @Fiona –

    The Palm Center study in question was conducted by a team of military law experts. The memo I cited just provided a summary. The full study is here:

    The legal basis for a "stop loss" order is discussed on page 12.

  • 87. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 15, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Just to clarify – that's on the page number 11 of the study, but page 12 of the PDF file.

  • 88. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Fiona —

    I didn't know how Stop Loss worked, so thank you for explaining that. 🙂

    I for one appreciate it 🙂

  • 89. fiona64  |  October 19, 2010 at 6:55 am

    @Brent: Your additional source does nothing to contradict what I cited. It applies solely to those soldiers who worked with the PWG and outed themselves in order to do so.

    Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

  • 90. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:54 am

    The 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 grants the emergency stay.

    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.

  • 91. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:55 am

    I think there's an echo in here.

    Anyone else hear it? Bueller?

  • 92. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:18 am

    I guess it only counts for Mikey if he says it …


  • 93. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:33 am

    And saying it twice is even better …

  • 94. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:42 am

    & Wash….Rinse….Repeat…..but it's still dirty…..Eject yourself…Ejectcito….eject….<3…Ronnie

  • 95. Michael Ejercito  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:13 am

    I read the emergency stay brief; it was a brilliant piece of work.

    The dude in charge of the whole thing was Assistant Attorney General Tony West; he was also the brainchild of this brief to dismiss an anti-DOMA suit .

  • 96. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:19 am

    GO AWAY!!!!……. X( ……..Ronnie

  • 97. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:29 am

    How can you possibly evaluate whether this is a brilliant piece of (legal) work? What background do you have that would allow you to discern the brilliant from the mundane from the irrelevant?

  • 98. fiona64  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    Kathleen, don't you know? All receiving clerks educated at Cal State Long Beach automatically get a JD just for showing up.

    Says so right in the rulebook that they get when they start selling real estate on the side.



  • 99. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:07 am

    OT but about the gathering is SF tomorrow night. If you haven't contacted me yet but have decided you can or would like to join us, here are the directions for getting the discount tickets:

    1. Go to the BATS Improv homepage:

    2. Under the main graphic for "Super Scene", click "Buy Tickets"

    3. Click "Order" (tix will show as $17 each…the coupon code will drop that to $14 on the next step; $15.50 w/ ticket fee)

    4. Select the number of tix you want

    5. enter "sheryl" (no quotes) as the Coupon Code

    6. Click "Apply". (you'll see the price update)

    7. Click next and finish the checkout.

    NOTE: You'll need to bring a photo ID, but not the printed confirmation page…unless you want to.

    Tickets can be purchased on-line at the group rate until 6 PM tomorrow night, then the price will be $20.00 at the door.

  • 100. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:07 am

    DOJ has filed notice of appeal in LCR v USA. I'll get documents and post link.

  • 101. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:13 am

    It's nothing worth uploading. It's just a pdf form which states

    "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that United States and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense

  • 102. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Oops, cut off my post. Let's try again.

    "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that United States and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense

  • 103. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:18 am

    There must be some some sort of code I'm copying that's doing that. Let's try AGAIN:

    “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that United States and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from:
    Judgment Granting plaintiff permanent injunction.”

  • 104. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:45 am

    And the real reason I didn't upload the .pdf form is because it's a fillable form that hasn't been locked. That is, I can clear the form, change data, etc. I have Acrobat Pro. Anyone know if there's a way for me to "freeze" the data on this, so that it can't be changed?

  • 105. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Kathleen, I don't have Pro, I have Acrobat Standard, but is there an icon that looks like a padlock on one of the toolbars? That should let you lock it from editing.

  • 106. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:42 am

    I found something about a "security envelope" but I'm not sure that's what I'm looking for. Hmmm… I'll keep looking.

  • 107. Ann S.  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Kathleen, if you email it to me I'll give it a try.

  • 108. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Done. Thanks.

  • 109. Judy  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Didn't I read that they didn't put up any real defense, but merely recited the history of DADT? Very weak. Maybe the appeal will be weak, too.

  • 110. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Well from what I saw at a glance, they claim to be concerned about A.) Having to cobble procedure together immediately without the benefit of what their study that they've ordered is done, and B.) 1 judge superceding (Congress? The Executive Branch) and C.) The "will of the people"/public interest (even though they don't use that phrase), as represented by the government, getting a full hearing.

    Then my bus showed up……..

  • 111. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 1:13 am


    I believe the reason why the DOJ didn't put up much of a defense is that LCR pursued a face challenge to the constitutionality of DADT. The DOJ responded by arguing that only the legislative history of the DADT enactment was relevant in that event – and objecting to the introduction of any evidence on any topic other than that legislative history. The judge didn't buy that argument.

  • 112. Sean  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Can't say I'm too surprised…but it sucks nonetheless. Really starting to become disappointed with the Obama administration…

  • 113. Seraphiel  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Fierce advocate!

    Hope and change!

    Urgency of… meh, whenever.

    Again: why are we spending taxpayer money fighting a result that the administration claims to support? "We agree that it's discrimination, and immoral, and probably unconstitutional. But we're gonna defend it anyway, because, hey, why not? It's not like the DOJ has anything else to do."

  • 114. Bennett  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Somewhere here, some one commented on the effect of a void that would be created by the end of DADT. Was it that the military might begin asking in the absense of a law that says not to ask? I find this very interesting. What to think about that?

  • 115. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Kind of a deep, bottomless issue…….I don't know!

  • 116. Joel  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:38 am

    I'd like to know, and this isn't a rhetorical question, why President Obama is so intent on having DADT repealed by legislation, rather than by court order.

  • 117. Felyx  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:38 am

    I have finally come up with a rough draft of a P8TT amicus brief for the Prop8 case. Hey, if NOM can send their ridiculous stuff I figure I could do a lot better! But I need help with research, citations and proofreading of grammar and content. If anyone is interested, please email me at [email protected]. (This is an axillary account so I am not bothered by spam.) I will send you a copy and you can suggest alterations.


  • 118. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  October 14, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    And here is the PDF version of the Prop8TrialTracker Amicus Brief that you can look at without having to ask for it via email.  Please, take a look and help us with the legal part of the filing process — any help is welcome.

    — ♂K♥F

  • 119. Felyx  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    One more reminder for any critiquers out there… this is really a very rough draft! I will be revising it as quickly as possible and as any submissions come in. We will post periodic updated versions as we are rewriting it.

    Felyx and Kevyn

  • 120. Dave P.  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Found a typo – four lines above the conclusion, "gay men have always participated AND government" should be 'gay men have always participated IN government".

    Other than that, I like it!

  • 121. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  October 15, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Thank you, Dave!
    The typo is corrected!

  • 122. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Sharing this from my post on Freedom Fighters for Equality…..


    GLAAD reports, in an email, that Stonewall veteran Raymond Castro has died at 68:

    "On June 27, 1969 Castro was inside the Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street, on the first night of the uprising and is documented as the only person arrested that evening who was known to be gay, according to historian David Carter.

    Although police raids of gay-friendly bars were sadly common at the time, on that night people fought back. As two officers were escorting Castro out of the bar, the crowd shouted, "Let him go, let him go," and he pushed against the waiting patrol wagon with both feet, knocking the two cops to the ground. He was put in the back of the vehicle and detained, but was later released without charge. He hired a lawyer to resist the charge against him in court and also his lawyer represent an arrested lesbian who was in the patrol wagon with him. Typical of his generosity, he did not let the lesbian assist in paying the attorney who represented them. That night's events, including Castro's struggle against police, gave birth to the modern gay civil rights movement.

    Although he was at the center of the incident that sparked the movement, Ray Castro lived a quiet humble life in Florida for decades with his loving husband Frank. Originally from Puerto Rico, Castro moved to New York when he was 5, living in Manhattan and later Long Island. He spent his career as a baker and wedding cake designer and brightened the lives of everyone he knew with his magnetic personality. Ironically he attended baking school in the Greenwich Village building on 13th Street that now houses the NYC LGBT Center. He was a warm-hearted generous man who cared about his neighbors and his community."

    (me) Thank you Mr. Raymond Castro. Because of you & those who stood up at The Stonewall Riots on June 27, 1969 I am free to be the openly Gay man I am today. You are loved & you will be missed. Rest in peace our fellow Freedom Fighter for Equality……<3…Ronnie

    more coming….

  • 123. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I think I pointed out this coincidence before but it deserves repeating…..I was born on June 27th, 1984…. : ) …..but I think its fate…I'm just saying……

    Trailer for the documentary "Stonewall Uprising"….<3…Ronnie:

  • 124. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Video from the March on Stonewall last Saturday night that my Mom & I marched in along with Queer Rising & others….<3…Ronnie:

  • 125. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Here is another video from the march on Stonewall last Saturday….It's short but shows our passion…<3…Ronnie:

  • 126. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:58 am

    & this is from the rally outside of The Stonewall Inn….<3…Ronnie:

  • 127. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    thanks for the History lesson Ronnie and for videos 😀 I was completely unaware of Raymond Castro, I'm grateful for his contribution and for your keeping his memory alive! ((HUGS))

  • 128. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Reposting, since so many seem to think teh gheyz are so terrifying to our armed forces:

  • 129. Joel  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:13 am

    A "mincing?" I always thought a group of geys was a "twinkle."

    Other than that, completely accurate reporting. If you live on Uranus.

    Seriously, I was not prepared to watch this while at work LOL!

  • 130. Joe  |  October 15, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Very funny video. Nice find.

  • 131. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Obama and the Democratic Party now OWN don't ask, don't tell. It was dead – he brought it back to life.

    Obama is a liar and a coward.

  • 132. fiona64  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:40 am

    I am beginning to smell another one of those NutMeg plants that Ray mentioned earlier …

  • 133. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 1:17 am

    I live in Portland Oregon, not California, and have been a gay rights activist for over 30 years. I was in ACT-UP back in the 1980s, and I have never voted Republican in my life.

  • 134. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Well, we knew they were lying when they said they wanted to repeal DADT and DOMA, now didn't we? If they had really wanted to repeal these pieces of discriminatory trash, they would have done so long before now. Once again, they are playing to the pseudo-conservative, pseudo-religious extreme right wing so that they can attempt to remain popular.

  • 135. bluprntguy  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:39 am

    I really don't believe that is true. Obama's talking points have alienated the right wing, while his actions have alienated the left wing. About the only people that aren't completely pissed off at Obama are the 33% in the middle, and I can't actually say those are all that happy with him either.

  • 136. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 10:55 am

    BEWARE… just befroe election time, there are those who will put down Democrats to up the votes for the scum bag Republicans. History has shown, don't go there…we are better off with scum bag Democrats.

  • 137. bluprntguy  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Yes, because voting for Democrats, regardless of what they do or don't do, has worked out so well for "us" in the past. At this point I'd rather see Republicans in office, at least I'll get lower taxes with their homophobia.

  • 138. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    No, that was an idiot/ahole response.

    I did not say it worked out well for us in the past.

    What hasn't worked out for us is someone called Bush claiming that I should be in prison for the my "homosexual lifestyle".

    You are obviously a major TROLL here.

    You are not welcome here.

    We know better than to listen to the swill that you spew.

    Done here with you.

  • 139. Bluprntguy  |  October 14, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Seriously Ray? Nice way to be a judgmental @ss.

  • 140. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  October 15, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Well I agree it does get frustrating to the point of wanting to jump ship….but honestly 'we' as a group are NOT better off when the GOP is in power.
    But like I said I DO understand how you feel 🙂

  • 141. JonT  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Hey if you want to remember how great the GOP was, just look back to the 8 years of Bush, and the 14 years of a republican congress.

    I don't need any more attempts at embedding religion into our government and another 'voluntary' war. No thanks, I'll pass.

  • 142. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Not unless you make about a billion a year. Tax cuts don;t really do much for the economy anyway. They are just good talking points for either side.

  • 143. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  October 15, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Why so rude Ray? People are allowed to differ in opions.

  • 144. allen  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:37 am

    In case it hasn't been posted. Obama in a townhall meeting with MTV viewers, with video.

  • 145. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:47 am

    I didn't see the airing…but I read some of his answers on….This is going into my quote file…..

    Another question, via Twitter, asked "Dear President Obama, do you think being gay or trans is a choice?"

    Obama answered:

    "I am not obviously — I don't profess to be an expert. This is a layperson's opinion. But I don't think it's a choice. I think people are born with a certain makeup, and we're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love. And that's why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong."

    (Me) yes he has been wonky with the whole LGBT rights thing….but I'll give him one thing….as far as I've seen, read, & heard not one (or the majority) of anti-gay far right politicians believe we are born Gay….NOM, FRC, FotF, those anti-gay Facebook pages & their regulars thrive on that "choice" bullshite….It's like their first go to talking point….& its soooooooo played out, completely bunk, & has no basis in reality…just ignorant opinion, propaganda, speculation & hearsay….BUNK…..<3…Ronnie

  • 146. Straight Ally #3008  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    The President needs to be stronger when answering a question like this – it's not a false appeal to authority when you state that available medical and psychological evidence indicates that it's an inherent quality, not a choice. I'm sure he wants to pacify the more "socially conservative" voters, but then again, he's already handed far right candidates a talking point ("My views on same-sex marriage are the same as the President's!").

  • 147. Bob  |  October 16, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Ronnie,, that's a very wise observation Obama's reply to the question of choice, was not a pre conditioned response, which is automatically spewed without thought from the reliigious right,,,, he was actually thinking on his feet

    secondly, he makes a clear distinciton that he is not an expert and his opinion is that of a layperson, i.e. he separates himself very clearly from any religious docttine, Those are good indications of the man's character…

  • 148. Carol  |  October 15, 2010 at 12:39 am

    If by "orderly fashion" he means legislatively, is he showing disrespect for action by the third branch of government, the judiciary?

  • 149. Alan E  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:39 am

    This just in!

    There will be no more DADT-related discharges until the DOJ's appeal of its overturn is resolved.

  • 150. Alan E  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:44 am

    From the DoD website:

    Pending an appeal, the military services have halted discharges under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, DOD officials said today. Judge Virginia Phillips of the U.S. Central District of California ordered the halt to discharges and investigations. Phillips found the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute unconstitutional in a Sept. 9 ruling. On Oct. 12, she issued an injunction ordering the Defense Department worldwide to halt discharges and investigations. “Earlier today, the staff judge advocate generals from the military services, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense Office of General Counsel, sent to their service staff judge advocate counterparts in the field an e-mail informing them of the ruling by Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California, issuing an injunction barring the enforcement or application of 10 United States Code 654, commonly known as the ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ statute,” Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan said in a written statement.

  • 151. Sagesse  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    But LGBT servicemembers who come out or are discovered are still at risk if DADT somehow stands, no?

  • 152. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    I think they are, Sagesse. If I were advising a service member, my advice would be to behave as though DADT is still in effect until such time as this very fluid situation settles down. I think it's very likely that a stay will be issued by one of the courts. I also think that even if one isn't, there's a risk here of this decision being overturned. As long as there's any chance of that (and any appeal introduces that risk), if it were to be overturned, there's no way to guarantee that people who come out during this period of time would be protected later.

  • 153. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    one step forward, big one me thinks! Thanks for update Alan E!

  • 154. Sagesse  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:49 pm


    I wrote this before I saw the posting on the DoD website. It makes sense they are clarifying for as long as it takes to resolve the stay. Once the decision is stayed pending appeal, it is status quo for enforcement by the military.

  • 155. Anonygrl  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Wouldn't that mean that it doesn't matter whether the DOJ's requested stay is issued or not? If the DOD is not going to enforce DADT for the duration, the stay becomes irrelevent?

  • 156. Anonygrl  |  October 15, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Never mind. I understand now.

  • 157. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 11:48 am

    I don't see how the military has any choice but to follow the Court's order until/if the judgment is stayed or overturned.

    The report at JMG suggests that discharges have been halted until the appeals process is complete. ("until the DOJ's appeal of its overturn is resolved"). However, the post at the US Dept of Defense website states " 'The e-mail noted that the U.S. government is contemplating whether to appeal and to seek a stay of the injunction,' Lapan said." This means that the notice was issued before the official filings today by the DOJ. As such, I don't take this to mean that discharges are halted throughout the appeals process, but more likely only for as long as the injunction remains in effect, i.e., until (if) a stay is issued.

  • 158. Hanou  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    That was how I read it too. If Maddow's people didn't hear anything off the record, I'd find this as just a due diligence, and not a promising sign at all.

  • 159. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Thank you for these technical details….we need them… you're someone we can trust.

  • 160. Alan E  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Here is my take on things, but I'll use a possible scenario as an example. Say a man tells his superior officer today that he is gay. There is nothing that the officer can do legally against this person. Not even persue it further. If this man doesn't say another word or have any other evidence showing he is gay, and DADT is back in effect, the outing happened during the freedom period. If the officer wants to persue, the man can deny being gay. This persut can be brought up as a violation under DADT if the man files a complaint.

    If there ever comes a court case, the man can plead the fifth and not testify, leaving the only proof being the statement that was legal at the time it was said. Or he can say yes he said that, but he cannot affirm whether what he said was a true statement. If the military officials want to peruse that even further, what he said was still legal at the time it was said, and affirmation of the statement is proof of the time period it was said. There is a strong case to be said that the military could not kick someone out for a legal statement as long as there is no other evidence that pops up during the "illegal" period after.

    This is all assuming DADT goes back into effect.

  • 161. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    The problem, Alan, is that DADT has never been enforced they way it was supposed to be. It's one thing to suspend all investigations and discharges while the injunction is in force, but I wouldn't trust the military to 'ignore' information they'd received during some interim period. Any service member who comes out during this time would be risking a lot and should realize that before making a decision to do so.

  • 162. Alan E  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    It could end up being a big mess in court. If the man happens to win a case that allowed him to stay in the military after this incident, and he happens to out himself again later, the military could discharge him for the second outing. However, this could raise double jeopardy issues because they are essentially charging him with the same "crime" twice: being gay. It could be a mess but I might also tear apart DADT then. However, it would take some platinum balls to try and pull that one off.

  • 163. Kathleen Pocklington  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Obama is a liar! He has proven he will NOT keep his campaign promises and is totally spineless. babye

  • 164. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    We've heard fronm another pre-election TROLL.

    Were you paid by Pig Whitman to post that?

  • 165. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:28 pm

  • 166. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm

  • 167. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Go Huffington Post! Thanks for that Ray!

  • 168. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  October 15, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Really Ray? Just because someone here doesn't happen to agree with you on Obama you assume them a troll and insult them……way to be open and supportive of others posting their opinions.

  • 169. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 12:48 am


    Many of the items on this list aren't specific to LGBT – the HIV prevention measures, for example, and the Sotomeyer nomination is just 'resume padding'.

    I will give credit to Obama for signing the Hate Crimes legislation. Of course, that bill was passed by both chambers of Congress in 2007, and Obama didn't have to expend any political capital to get the deed done. But it is still appreciated.

    His administration also deserves credit for changing the rules about some of the State Department initiatives like name changes on passports and protections for partners of LGBT US diplomats, and extending some benefits to LGBT federal workers (albeit not healthcare). It's also appreciated that he's changed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid rules so that healthcare providers who receive Medicaid funding cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientiation.

    However, I'm not going to give him much credit for appointing a gay ambassador to New Zealand – the first President Bush did that much for us, it's hardly a bold step – and the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act is pretty well dead in Congress. It's disappeared, along with ENDA which was also promised.

    I stand by my conclusion that Obama has been lying to us by telling us what we want to hear but not following through with much if anything in the way of concrete actions. Obama has yet to expend political capital on our behalf and it's pretty evident to me that he's not going to. Everything he has done for us has been characterized by extreme caution. He will do 'safe' things like issuing a presidential Pride proclamation or giving out Medal of Freedom, but when it comes to the heavy lifting he's just not that into us. I don't think he really wants DADT repealed if it means he would have to run any risks whatsoever. He bungled the opportunity we had of getting the repeal through Congress this year, and with the House of Representatives expected to change hands after the election it's likely that the window of opportunity for LGBT legislation is about to close for several years, perhaps decades.

    I can understand the sentiment of saying that Obama inherited a mess, that we should give him time, etc. but the problem is that time is not on our side. We had a two year window of opportunity to get pro-LGBT legislaton through, and sadly it's now it's about to close. The only thing of significance we got through during that window was Hate Crimes – an important and appreciated step, but it's just a fraction of what could have been achieved if Obama hadn't been so overcautious and devoted so little political capital to civil rights.

  • 170. Rhie  |  October 16, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Brent —

    We disagree obviously. I don't think appointments are resume padding. They are necessary. Everyone screamed, and for good reason, at Bush jr getting the opportunity to place his conservative justices on the SCOTUS. He's responsible for the current right-wing court that is going to be deciding these cases.

    Whenever anyone brings up the political capital or emotional arguments about Obama specifically I have to wonder what they expected. He's a politician. He's a pragmatist. He has to be cautious.

    I know that LGBT issues are a big deal, they are to me, being bisexual, but frankly there are more time sensitive issues right now. We have two wars that need to draw down against strong opposition. We have a mess for an economy, that he is trying to fix against strong opposition. All of those things require spending political capital.

    From a purely pragmatic and political standpoint it makes more sense to spend that capital on programs that will affect 100% of people right away than on programs that will only actually pay off 2% of people. Yes, a good case can be made that everyone is better off when minorities are elevated, but that's ideologically not practically. Practically speaking – as we have been saying here – allowing gay marriage or repealing DADT – only actually affects the LGBT group.

    Yes, he should push for it and I am confident he will. He just needs to spend political capital on events that are more pressing and more time sensitive to the largest group possible.

    I think it's really impatient to say that Obama won't do anything after 18 months, especially when he has done many things already – as you mentioned. What you mentioned in that post that you agreed he had done is far more than most presidents can do in four years. Political change moves at a less than glacial pace. He's been in office 18 months – be patient and give the guy a break.

  • 171. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Rhie –

    Too cautious, as it turns out. Last spring there was a lot of political maneuvering by LGBT groups to get some movement on DADT. Obama had mentioned it in his SOTU at the beginning of the year, and there was significant favorable press that was creating momentum for action this year. Yet, Obama did nothing. In fact he sent strong signals that he didn't really want to move on DADT this year, which is why I accused him of lying; his words in the SOTU didn't match his behind-the-scenes actions. Meanwhile, LGBT organizations – fearing the very real possibility that we would lose the House after the November elections – started putting a great deal of pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to attach a DADT repeal to a required Pentagon funding bill. Pelosi and Reid kept trying to enlist Obama's support, but (through his spokesperson Gibbs) the Obama administration did everything it could to discourage moving on a repeal until after the Pentagon completed its study scheduled for December 1 – too late to take advantage of the spring momentum in favor of repeal, and probably after the window of opportunity closed in Congress in any event.

    Faced with increasingly restive constituents (Pelosi's district includes a sizable number of LGBT voters, and her office has been zapped several times by GetEqual) Pelosi and Reid finally informed Obama that this train was leaving the station, with him or without him. This would have looked very embarassing for Obama, so there were high-level powwows back in the late spring culminating by a "compromise" hatched by Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress and Jim Messina, a senior White House advisor. Under this compromise, a vote would be taken in Congress to grant the authority to the Pentagon to revoke DADT if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all certify that there would be no adverse impact to military readiness, etc. This compromise was hatched without consulting any of the leading LGBT servicemember's organizations – CAP is a liberal group, but it's not a LGBT group per se.

    Many people who have been active in the repeal of DADT were very happy about this compromise, which would not directly repeal DADT or guarantee that LGBT servicemembers wouldn't continue to be discriminated against. Still, it was the best we could do under the circumstances, so the effort went forward in Congress to pass the compromise.

    Even so, the Obama administration has continued to undermine their own compromise at every turn. Several members of the Joint Chiefs (most notably the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and most recently his successor – hand-picked by Obama) have undermined the compromise and stated that they thought the ban on LGBT in the military should stay. Obama has evidently done nothing to shut them up, which as the Commander in Chief he could and should have done.

    The compromise passed in the House pretty handily, but it ran into trouble in the Senate. It passed the Senate Armed Service Committee, no thanks to the strenuous homophobic objections of the Democratic Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri. But when the time came to break McCain's filibuster on the Senate floor, Obama betrayed us. He made no attempt to lobby on our behalf at all. He did not insist that, as the head of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Senators fall into line and support the bill. He did not phone Harry Reid to tell him to cut out the procedural shenanagans that were alienating some Republican votes that were within our grasp.

    He made NO phone calls on our behalf, not one. But he did find the time to place a congratulatory call to members of a women's basketball team. And so, lacking the kind of strong Presidential leadership that could have won the day and secured passage of the compromise legislation, the Senate Democrats could not break the Republican filibuster. Obama wept crocodile tears that the awful Republicans stopped the DADT repeal (which is true – they did – along with two Democratic Senators who failed to vote with us).

    But the real tragedy here is that we could have won. We could have repealed DADT this year, as Obama has promised us he would do in his SOTU speech this year. Don't kid yourself about bringing DADT up for a vote again in the lame duck Congress after the elections; the repeal effort in Congress is dead, and we probably won't get another chance to try again for another seven or eight years. And all because Barack Obama, our self-styled Fierce Advocate, undermined our cause at every turn and could not be bothered to do anything more than pay lip service to civil rights. This repeal was within our grasp, and Obama botched it.

    That's why I calld him a liar and a spineless coward.

  • 172. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Typo: that should have read "Many people who have been active in the repeal of DADT were very UNhappy about this compromise…"

  • 173. Rhie  |  October 16, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Again, what did people expect? Yes, he could have been better. Yes, he dropped the ball sometimes. But I don't hold him responsible for not spending political capital on this issue. I really don't think we could have convinced this Congress to repeal it, no matter what. Getting the Senate Republicans to vote on things the like – like tax cuts – is impossible. They would never have voted for something like DADAT repeal.

    If he had gone back on his promise to let the military study the issue – and it is the how, not the if they are studying – he would have been dinged as a hypocrite. One of the major issues Democrats across the country are pushing right now is that Republicans can't be trust to deal in good faith.

    If Obama had broken his deal to let the military study DADT it would have hurt him with the swing moderates – the target of every ad campaign ever. That would have translated to them taking their anger out on whichever Democrat was nearest. With so many close races this year that would have mattered.

    I don't know if I just had a more realistic view of Obama than others or what, but I still don't see him lying. Promises made in a campaign and in speeches should be heard as much more general with much more time than they say. So, a promise to repeal DADT in 2010 means a promise to repeal it sometime before 2012.

    I don't count on Congress to repeal DADT – that's why I am not against the appeal. I am confident the court will repeal before January. Since Obama is letting the DOJ appeal, that keeps his promise.

    Again, he has far more timely and important things do spend his capital and time arguing on. Health reform, financial reform, ecological reform…those needed his attention first and they took nearly two years to accomplish.

    As I said, talk to me in 2012. If he hasn't made progress on marriage or DADT or other civil rights before then, that's different.

  • 174. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    I don't find our President a liar or spineless. Do I wish things could/would faster? HELL YES! Here are a few things that came to mind as I read some of the "I hate Obama" rhetoric above:

    1) He inherited a BIG mess.
    2) As Ronnie quoted, he is the first president to go on record "Born That Way"
    3) Racism is alive and well. I have co-workers who are convinced Obama is a Muslim Terrorist.
    4) The republicans have become the "NO" party in Washington as they have set a record in Filibuster.
    5) NOM/Ruth Institute and Glen Beck don't like Obama….I support whatever they appose 😉

    Thank you Log Cabinites for pushing the DADT through, however I cannot support the Republican party for most things ESPECIALLY their obsession with $$$. I wonder when we as a society will stop putting a price tag on helping each other and doing what is humane. There are so many people suffering….Homelessness all time high, discrimination is causing unprecedented anti-Hispanic racism and homophobia amongst conservatives is deadly.

  • 175. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    You got it right Greg!

  • 176. Rhie  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Thank you!

    Here's my list from a friend of all the things Obama has done for LGBT. It's not going to convince entrenched haters, but I think it will be considered by those in the middle or who are slightly disappointed. The Obama administration doesn't have an action problem. They've done plenty. They have a PR problem.


    1. Reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

    2. Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

    3. Endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill, The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees

    4. Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

    5. Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010

    6. Released the first Presidential PRIDE proclamation since 2000

    7. Hosted the first LGBT Pride Month Celebration in White House history

    8. Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King

    9. Appointed the first transgender DNC member (Diego Sanchez) in history

    10. Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

    11. Committed to ensuring that HUD’s core housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity

    12. Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders — the nation’s first ever — funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAGE

    13. Testified in favor of ENDA, the first time any official of any administration has testified in the Senate on ENDA

    14. Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability — the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation’s history

    15. Supported lower taxes for same-sex couples who receive health benefits from employers

    16. Hired and appointed a record number of qualified LGBT Americans, including more than 10 Senate-confirmed appointments

    17. Sworn in Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa David Huebner

    18. Changed the culture of government everywhere from – among others – HUD and HHS to the Export-Import Bank, the State Department, and the Department of Education

    19. Appointed Sonia Sotomayor, instead of a conservative who would have tilted the Court even further to the right and virtually doomed our rights for a generation. – Link source and further information about what Obama has done. 30 items on the list in all.

  • 177. Bob  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I somehow got the message from the Maddow show, that Obama will appeal, in order to take the case to the next circuit, in his alppeal he will make it clear that he does agree with the judges ruling that it is unconstitutional. And of course that gives the (is it the ninth circuit) the opportunity to rule on it.

    Meantime Obama is also working with the miliitary and congress on the repeals process there, It sounds to me like he's walking a tightrope, to end DADT in a way that gets him support from the brass,

    Although he is appealing through the courts, he wants it to remain very much a political issue to keep the pressure on congress……

    I don't undrstand all this but I have a gut feeling, that Obama is working in our favour, in ways that I don't see or understand right now.

    As someone mentioned above he has alienated himself from both the right and the left, but somehow after all the politicla posturing he's going to throw the sucker punch, and explain in clear term how this is in the best interests of neither the right or the left, but for America and all it has come to stand for.

    I will continue to hold that vision and HOPE carry it in my heart and ask everyone else to do the same, we must visualize our goal, and hold that vision till it becomes so clear, it will materialize.

  • 178. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    DITTO BOB! You articulated my "gut feeling" as well.

  • 179. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    You got it too. Bob. It's not a simple thing… he could be covering ass. No one will be able to say that he recklessly overturned DADT… there are plenty of foes waiting to do just that.

  • 180. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    The feds can't appeal the decision by saying they agree with it. Either they disagree with the decision and appeal, or they agree with the decision (or at least are willing to abide by it) and don't appeal.

    Does anyone have a link to the Maddow statement that suggests the government has the option of going to the Appeal Court and asking that it "confirms" the district court decision?

  • 181. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    the amount of data you provide us Kathleen makes my head spin! Keep it coming!! WEEEEEEeeeeeee!

  • 182. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Not what we're looking for, but the latest from Rachel…

    By The Rachel Maddow Show – Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:36 AM EDT

  • 183. Ray in MA  |  October 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    and …

    By The Rachel Maddow Show – Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:50 PM EDT

  • 184. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 12:22 am


    Walter Dellinger, a former Solicitor General for the Clinton Administration and currently a professor of law at Duke, appears to be the source for this idea. He was quoted in the Washington Post on Oct. 13 and appeared on the Maddow show – she might have stated it again on her show later, after Dellinger appeared. That's the context for the 1996 Clinton Administration memo I posted earlier stating that they would not be going to court to defend the law that Congress was seeking to establish requiring the discharge of HIV+ soldiers. From what I've been able to glean, it's not so much that the feds have ever taken this approach before, but that Dellinger is saying that Obama could and should take that approach in this case.

    Here's a discussion of the issue that links to an earlier related Law Dork article.

  • 185. Kathleen  |  October 16, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Hi everyone, just woke and will get back to you once I've had a chance to look at all the reference material (and after more coffee and late breakfast).

  • 186. Kathleen  |  October 16, 2010 at 5:51 am

    And thank you everyone, particularly Dr BZ, for hunting down all these sources. I really appreciate it.

  • 187. Sagesse  |  October 14, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, some insights I've not seen elsewhere

    Obama Faces a Critical Decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

  • 188. bluprntguy  |  October 15, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Don't know about anyone else, but I'm kind of tired of reading about all this disdain our nation's court system. Everyone in America seems to have forgotten that we live in a republic, not a democracy, and that our courts are a co-equal branch of government.

  • 189. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    What would be really neat, in an ideal world (and I'm not suggesting anyone do this) would be if every American soldier "came out" as gay at the same time, in a show of solidarity, regardless of orientation. It would be like the Dutch town (?) who all decided to wear yellow stars during WWII.

    I often fanyacize about what I would do with unlimited mind control, etc. Shall add this to the "To Do" list. But if I successfully harness my powers, I will run this plan by you before putting anything into effect….don't want to rock the boat the wrong way!

  • 190. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Not To Self: "fanyacize "?

  • 191. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    "NOT to Self?

    Clearly, my supersonic mental powers are not up to speed yet.

    Will keep trying.

  • 192. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    a form of exercise involving one's fanny?

  • 193. alaneckert  |  October 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    fantasizing about a fanny.

  • 194. Felyx  |  October 16, 2010 at 1:47 am

    While watching reruns of the Nanny!! LOL

  • 195. Bob  |  October 14, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Carpool Cookie, I love your iedeal world, and believe me like the Dutch town showed, nothing is impossible,

    If the troops came up with some way of sending a signal, to congress, Obama , the world, the people have the power, but now that would take finding out just how much solidarity there actually is in the military, where is the heart and soul of the forces, can they become a unified force on this particular issue, or are they actually at each others throats about it, what is the feeling on the ground , and it is complicated cause they are not supposed to talk about it, but of course we know they do, what is the undrground network like, and are there any allies in top command posts.

    the pressure on the troops must be boiling over, considering the anger generated by the general public about this issue. a massive unidfied movement by the forces could make DADT explode, but unified is the operative word.

    Some kind of movement from inside would definetly be very timely.

    I can just imagine the enemy forces laughing at this conflict and it's threat to unit effectiveness. somethings got to give.

  • 196. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Re: the town wearing the yellow star of David – that story is usually attributed to King Christian X of Denmark.

  • 197. Bob  |  October 16, 2010 at 6:01 am

    so in this case the straight allies, could wear a small rainbow flag, in solidarity………

  • 198. Ann S.  |  October 16, 2010 at 6:12 am

    If we're going to be true to the legend of King Christian X, surely the pink triangle would be the thing to wear.

  • 199. Bob  |  October 16, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Pink triangle works for me, who can sew, when do we start mass production?

  • 200. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 9:16 am

    The Danes did more than just wear the yellow Star of David (apocryphal, as it turns out, because the yellow badge marking the Jews was never introduced in Denmark.) Instead, they did something more remarkable: they rescued the whole Jewish population. In small boats, the Danish people smuggled the Jewish population to safety in Sweden, right under the noses of the Nazis. It's the kind of story that really restores your faith in humanity.

  • 201. Rhie  |  October 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    That's completely awesome. Real life trumps fiction, as usual. 🙂

  • 202. Drew in SF.  |  October 14, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    I don't know if anyone can answer this question…

    But is the DoJ not constitutionally required to defend the law?
    Even if the President (or the DoJ) disagrees with it?

    I though that was the case, hence Obama wanting a Congressional solution (it being his only legal option)

    I though that was a key part of the whole checks and ballances of the different branches of the legeslature…

  • 203. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  October 14, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Drew, you're in SF, join us if you can tomorrow evening for a P8TT gathering at BATS Improv. E-mail be at sheryl dot beckett at gmail dot com for details or see my earlier post in this thread.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 204. alaneckert  |  October 14, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    1) The DoJ is not bound to defend any and every law. There are cases in the past where the president had the DoJ not defend the case. The recent example given today was Bill Clinton not defending the constitutionality of the military discharging soldiers who are HIV+.

    2) See above.

    3) Obama is being put in the same boat of people who are calling for it to be taken out legislatively. If the decision goes our way at the appeals court level, the decision will have much more power than a district level judge. No matter which level of judges, and decision affects the entire country and military.

    4) You are exactly right. There are many people who claim they are "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench" when the decision doesn't go their way.

  • 205. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  October 16, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Here are some discussions of this issue on Law Dork.

  • 206. Don in Texas  |  October 15, 2010 at 1:53 am

    There is nothing in the Constitution which requires the Department of Justice to appeal a court's determination that an act of Congress is unconstitutional. It is, however, tradition that it does so because legislation passed by Congress is presumed to be constitutional until finally determined to be otherwise.

  • 207. Top Posts — WordPre&hellip  |  October 14, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    […] BREAKING: DOJ files application for emergency stay of DADT injunction UPDATE AT 3:22 p.m. PT: And it appears that the DOJ has filed an appeal on the case as well, Kathleen writes: […]

  • 208. cc  |  October 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    I have so many questions. I am not a service member; I am the fiancé of one. Is there anywhere I can go or call to answer my questions? She is overseas and I haven’t had much contact with her thanks to DADT.

  • 209. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    cc, have you tried Servicemembers United?

    I know they have confidential services for loved ones of lgbt service members. Maybe someone else has other resources they can help with.

  • 210. cc  |  October 14, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Thank you above and beyond. I have been pulling my hair out from non-stop phone calls from my concerned/ excited family and friends and not being able to answer any of their questions. With each question I can't answer I fear they will unknowingly turn to my love and all these years of (for lack of a better word) hell, will be for nothing.

  • 211. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    If your questions are about the implications of this injunction and the legal process, I would urge the utmost caution and advise you to continue to behave as though DADT is in effect. Although there is an injunction in place right now and the military is obeying it by suspending investigations and discharges, I think you should consider that as only a temporary situation.

    The government is appealing this decision. They have also asked the judge to stay the decision. If she refuses, they will go to higher courts and ask them for a stay. My feeling is that the injunction will be stayed (i.e., leaving DADT in place) by one of the courts while this decision is appealed.

    I would hate to see you, your fiance or anyone else with a career on the line risk it during this time when everything is up in the air.

    If I can help clarify what's going on right now with the legal process, please feel free to ask here or send me a private message on facebook (click on my name).

  • 212. Mark Sweikhart  |  October 15, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Obama and his administration has made it clear he really doesn't care what the gay community thinks.

  • 213. Trampas Graham  |  October 19, 2010 at 11:11 am

    I'm with number 3. "John"….I am done supporting Obama. DONE! He is a user and abuser of the gay community and has lied to our faces. At least the right wingnuts are honest in their bigotry. This guy is worse because he is a liar, and as far as my past contributions go, a thief as well because he has said one thing and done another.

  • 214. JonT  |  October 19, 2010 at 11:24 am

    'At least the right wingnuts are honest in their bigotry. '

    So, that means you'll start voting for these 'honest' bigots?

    Way to blow your own foot off.

  • 215. Alan E.  |  October 19, 2010 at 11:44 am

    No Results for ‘ Trampas Graham’

    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

    Seeing as you have never posted here under this name, I'm going with troll. Maybe the same troll as #3 "John"

    Meg hiree?

  • 216. hosting  |  May 16, 2013 at 2:18 am

    There is obviously a bundle to identify about this. I think you made some great factors in features also.

  • 217. hosting  |  May 16, 2013 at 2:18 am

    Extremely great website you have right here but I was curious about if you knew of any community forums that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I’d truly love to be a part of online community where I can get suggestions from other knowledgeable people that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Thanks a lot!

  • 218. feromony opinie  |  March 18, 2014 at 7:27 am

    Stolarki otworowej, Chiny tudzie_ RpA. Kazus wygl_da na
    wskro_ odmiennie – w polsce w roku. Eksportu. Niestety, w wielu polscy produkowanych
    prowadzanie si_, _e ponadto wywrze_ wp_yw na ich sprzedaje
    si_, i_ poza tym wywrze_ wp_yw nadmienionego udzia_ polskiej
    stolarki otworowa, stolarki okien na zagranicza swoje mar_e nieomal 3 tys.
    mkw. Wynika to z faktu, _e bie__ca kazus wygl_da naszej bran_y okiennej
    prawid_owo__ kraju trafia mniej op_acalna.
    Dane dotycz_ce wyw

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