Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

9th Circuit lifts stay in Log Cabin Republicans’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” case

DADT trial

By Adam Bink

In the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States case, a stay was granted by the 9th Circuit pending appeal. Well, that stay was just lifted by the 9th Circuit. The recent DOJ brief in the Golinski case was noted by the court, as well as the fact that DADT repeal is in progress and that “the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer.” As such, the court concludes:

The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay.

Very, very big news.

Full order (h/t Kathleen):

[scribd id=59466413 key=key-1n5pb7o4r9m6z5ybvqhg mode=list]

Update: Statement from SLDN:

Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit  Court of Appeals is most welcomed. It’s the hope of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network that this favorable ruling will not be challenged by the Defense Department. In fact, this whole matter could have been avoided had we had certification back in the spring. It’s time to get on with that important certification, end the DADT confusion for all service members, and put a final end to this misguided policy.

139 Comments

  • 1. aquaCA  |  July 6, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    YESSSSSS!

  • 2. Gregory in SLC  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    Such a THRILL to get that announcement….looking forward to getting a msg in not too distant future from Adam letting us know DOMA is DEAD. WOOT to the end of DADT!

  • 3. Gregory in SLC  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    p.s. – thank you Kathleen for posting ruling!!!

  • 4. rick jacobs  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Yes, thank you Kathleen! What would we do without you?

  • 5. Guest  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    "It's dead, Jim."

  • 6. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 6, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Let's just hope the Republicans don't do something tricky like using an old pattern stored in the transporter, or altering history by slingshotting around the Sun. 🙂

  • 7. DazedWheels  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Great news! Thank you, as always, Kathleen!

  • 8. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Now what does it mean?
    Does it mean that gay soldiers now can come out and not be afraid of expulsion from the forces?
    Can this decision to lift the stay be appealed?
    When does it go into effect?
    Is it one more incident where cases concerning gay people receive heightened scrutiny?

  • 9. Steve  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Theoretically it means that DADT can no longer be applied. But this can still be appealed, so it would be best to wait a bit.

  • 10. Gregory in SLC  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    : /

  • 11. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    As a practical matter, I'd advise active duty soldiers to wait before making any statements that could violate DADT policy – only because we don't yet know what the feds' response to this is going to be. If they try to get it reinstated, pending appeal, it could jeopardize the soldiers' status in the military.

    That said, about the only thing the USA can do here is appeal to the 9th Circuit en banc or to the Supreme Court to have the stay reinstated. I don't see why they would do that, given their own admission that certification is just weeks away. I'd say once we get a statement from the government that they don't intend to contest this order, soldiers should be able to be confident that DADT is dead, dead, dead.

  • 12. Gregory in SLC  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    : D !!

  • 13. Sagesse  |  July 6, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Kathleen,

    I would agree that servicemembers should behave as though the law is still in effect until it isn't (hopefully a few weeks plus 60 days away). However, from now on, no one currently under investigation should be discharged, and the investigations should stop.

    I been hiding under a rock all day… haven;t read this. Did the 9th Circuit just issue this order, or were they responding to an LCR request?

  • 14. jpmassar  |  July 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    They were responding to a motion filed by LCR.

  • 15. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    WOW!

  • 16. Ann S.  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    §

  • 17. dsc77  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Me too.

  • 18. dsc77  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Or for new comments… I never know what to select if I want to see replies to my comment AND all new comments!!!

    Dave in Maine

  • 19. Cat  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    This is beautiful progress: to see the court acknowledge and repeat the strong arguments that the DOJ made about the regrettable role the government has played in discrimination against gays. It's amazing to see how the Holder letter and the more recent DOJ filing are changing the legal landscape. I'm a little surprised that the government's opinion carries so much weight in cases such as these (what is 'just' shouldn't depend on that), so I'm extra happy the DOJ has done a 180.

  • 20. Steve  |  July 6, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    The ironic thing is that the DOJ basically argued against itself there.

    Even with certification in "a matter of weeks", they have an interest to do that on their own terms and not follow the courts. At the same time appealing this wouldn't paint them in the best light. It's an interesting situation

  • 21. rick jacobs  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    I sat through a briefing of what the Obama Administration has done and is doing for the LGBT community last Wednesday. I was blown away, actually. They are working on all levels to make our lives better. Yes, we want and need the president to say the words, "I support full equality including marriage." And we cannot stop. But we also need to realize the tectonic shift this president and his administration have wrought. The government's weight is indeed substantial. This will help with the DOMA cases and even the Prop. 8 trial.

  • 22. Cat  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    I enjoyed reading your blog post about that. Thanks for all your hard work!

  • 23. FlexSF  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    How will it effect the prop 8 trial? When will the effect happen?

  • 24. Lawrence  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I now believe that Obama has consciously decided that saying the words "I support full marriage equality" at this time will be a lot less helpful, and may well prevent, incrementally taking out DADT, DOMA, many departmental policies, and establishing an improved legal environment for attacking state discrimination, as seen in recent DoJ actions. I think we are all giving him a hard time for being a lot more ninja and smarter than the rest of us about what this is going to take to get done.

  • 25. Str8Grandmother  |  July 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Whoop!! Whoop!!
    Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. MLK Jr.

  • 26. Mike  |  July 6, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    The Department of Defense spokesman tweeted that they will comply with the court's order!!! YEAH!!!!
    anyway does anyone know if there will be a similar ruling on the Prop stay??? it is the same court after all and the same arguments could be applied and the stay could be lifted rather soon while they case goes on…?
    that could allow marriages to continue immediately!

  • 27. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    9th Circuit has already denied the motion to have the stay lifted in the Prop 8 case.

  • 28. jpmassar  |  July 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Could they plausibly file another motion to have the stay lifted in light of the Golinski brief?

  • 29. Fr. Bill  |  July 6, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    I know this is not an en banc decision, but does this bode well for lifting the stay on the Prop 8 Walker decision pending appeal?

  • 30. Kathleen  |  July 6, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Tweet from @DoDSpokesman Col Dave Lapan
    #DADT ruling – DoD is studying the ruling w/DoJ; will comply w/ orders of the court; taking steps to inform the field of this order.

  • 31. Michguy  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    its only 2 pages.. how much studying do they need… LOL

  • 32. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 6, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    "The Wheel of (the Department of) Justice turns slowly …"

  • 33. Ozymandias71  |  July 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    WOOOT!!! AWESOME NEWS!

  • 34. Bob  |  July 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Hip hip hooray,,,,,, marching forward ,,, inevitable, great,, news,,,,, thanks Kathleen,,,,,, there will be more to come on the road to EQUALITY,,,,, change has come to America,,,,,,,,,,, cheers from Canada

  • 35. JonT  |  July 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Yay! 🙂

  • 36. bjason  |  July 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    This is definitely great news!

    One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, while the Stay being lifted may be an indication of the ruling, the 9th COULD ultimately rule against LCR (that DADT is constitutional) thus vacating the ruling/injunction below. I don't think this will happen but I would caution servicemembers against coming out until DADT is truly dead and gone.

  • 37. Maggie4NoH8  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Would you like to participate in an online poll? Here's the question from the Ruth Institute Blog…

    Do you think children should be made aware of trans-genderism or homosexuality at preschool ages?

    And the link to participate:
    http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/07/06/sex-at-work/#m

    I voted…

  • 38. Shannon  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Well, as is usually the case with these polls, it's worded with a bias… and even if it weren't, the results are meaningless as there's no way to know the profile of those who respond. But as a gay parent of a preschool-age child, if I had to answer a simple "yes" or "no" I might be inclined to say NO… in that I don't think the subject should be spontaneously discussed with young children. But if done in an age-appropriate fashion and in appropriate context, then of course I'd say YES. Preschoolers generally aren't concerned about such matters, so there's really no reason to be discussing it with them unless there's a reason to. But the Ruth Institute has to stir the pot, of course, so they toss out a notion that some will think is scandalous!

  • 39. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    I'm not up-to-speed on preschool policies these days, but I would guess sexual subject matters (and behavior) would be referred to the parents. Is anyone suggesting the subject be added to the curriculum in pre-school besides the Ruth Institute?.

  • 40. Chris in Lathrop  |  July 7, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    There is such a thing as age-appropriate sex education. I'd presume in this case, it would boil down to telling kids that sometimes, when you grow up, a person finds they were born the wrong sex and can have it fixed; and that some girls marry girls, and some boys marry boys. 🙂

  • 41. Lodi Gal  |  July 7, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    As someone who once taught preschool and parent ed, I have to agree with you Chris. Children in preschool like dramatic play and stage pretend weddings and play house all the time. It would be natural to reinforce that all kinds of loving relationships are normal and healthy. Common storybooks show the princess marrying her prince — sexual activity between The Beauty and The Beast is not part of the curriculum. A book that depicted two princes marrying would be viewed in the same light by kids that age. People love each other and get to live happily ever after.

  • 42. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    OH DO vote on this one… although what are the odds that they will show the actual results if we all do? 🙂

    And I wish there were a comment section… I would say "Of course. In just the same way that they are made aware of other races, or of other nationalities. Both transgendered people and homosexual people are a fact of life. One would never teach preschoolers about the mechanics of sex, but to explain that someone can be a man or a woman, or that someone can love a man or a woman, no matter who they are or what they look like is totally appropriate. And to explain that this is part of nature, that people are born that way, the same as people are sometimes born with blue eyes, or are left handed, is how you handle it. No preschooler is going to ask you the mechanics, they will accept the fact that you, as the adult, are comfortable around people who seem different than they are used to, and they will be comfortable too, and learn tolerance, respect and love. Seems like a very good idea to me."

  • 43. Cat  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Ugh. What a horrible blog post by Frank Turek. I have a hard time trusting people who say there was only a single reason for being sacked, and it totally wasn't their fault.

    And I'm not sure I want to vote on such a poll question. Must children be made aware of trans-genderism or homosexuality at preschool ages? No, I don't think so. Why would you if it doesn't come up? Must children be protected from discussing of trans-genderism or homosexuality at preschool ages? No, I don't think so either. I'm sure they can deal with the fact one of their classmates has two dads, or has a dad who is now a mom. The more matter-of-fact and the less hoopla, nervousness and dramatization, the better.

  • 44. Sagesse  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Made aware by whom? This is not a yes or no question.

    Some pre-schoolers will become aware of homosexuality or transgenderism because they encounter it in their lives. In that case, their parents will explain it to them in an age-appropriate way. Should it be brought up in conversation otherwise… not at that age.

  • 45. Leo  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    The problem with the "teaching kids about homosexuality" scare in general, and this poll in particular, is that it intentionally conflates romantic feelings and sexual activity. Should preschoolers be taught about heterosexuality? Let's settle that one first.

  • 46. PoxyHowzes  |  July 8, 2011 at 11:55 am

    I so agree! "Sex Education" in this country is so screwed up (pun intended!) that no one knows what anyone is talking about when they talk about "teh kidz.'

    "Darryl has two daddies;" "Monica has two Mommies, " I have one mommie and one daddy." — those are observations, not questions, and like all observations of the real world by real kids, they need to be dealt with in early education. They need NOT to be treated as questions, necessarily. They certainly need not be treated (in early education) as questions about the differences (if any) between Teh Butt and Teh Vaginal sekhs!

    The NOMMERS are afraid — deathly afraid — that if 'two-dad Darryl or 'two-mom Monica' even show up in kindergarten, that teh oh-so-pure NOM kids will immediately gain impure mechanical knowledge (probably from the serpent, just as Adam and Eve did) of all kinds of evil sex practices.

    This only goes to prove, of course, that contrary to their professed belief, the Nommer religion is all about sex and nothing about love.

  • 47. justjoel59  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I have learned so much from this blog and all your comments! Imagine, 2 years ago, if you had asked me what "en banc" meant, I probably would have said "at the bank!"

    Does anyone know if the Pres answered any questions about marriage equality at his town hall on Twitter today?

  • 48. Alan_Eckert  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Can I get the link to scribd directly please? The flash player doesn't work on iPhones and I would love to add it to my vacation reading list.

  • 49. Gregory in SLC  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    see if this works: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59466413/LCR-v-USA-ORDE

  • 50. Gregory in SLC  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Alan, I can't see the embedded scribd from work but if I click on the big word SCRIBD top left corner it allows me to go to the site and can view from there…..maybe that would work on your iPhone?

  • 51. peterplumber  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

    The 9th has it posted for free.

  • 52. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    The federal courts are not in the chain of command of the military. Just as a federal court cannot order the military into war, neither can it force the military to do anything by issuing a court order.

    So basically, for all of the waving and celebrating, this is nothing but a hollow victory.

    I do want you to know that I support the repeal of dont ask dont tell, so that now anyone who tries to come out (especially if they are a SEAL) can be dealt with appropriately. Extra Duty, Cleaning the Latrine, all of the things that make a wimp into a soldier.

  • 53. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Oh and while youre celebrating, be sure and thank a Navy Seal for killing Osama Bin Laden.

  • 54. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    I don't ever thank anyone for killing another person, no matter how evil one may think that person is. But you can thank me for paying that Navy Seal's salary, if you like. And your's, too, I suppose, if you really are a Navy Seal.

    Oh… and your assumption that homosexual soldiers are wimps? I guess it shows that the training about the repeal of DADT did not really so much take with you. Shame, that. Here's hoping that the rest of the armed services are not quite so neanderthal and will be better able to follow orders. And the laws of the United States of America as interpreted by the federal courts, as they are required to do.

  • 55. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Its not an assumption that homosexauls are wimps. I have seen it firsthand. Homosexuals are more easily compromised by the enemy.

    I was on a mission in Iraq with a gay soldier from another service. He was captured by the enemy while on patrol and broke down and compromised our position in the desert. Luckily we were able to fight our way out and I am here today. I dont know what happened to him.

  • 56. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    So for you, the lesson of that story is that because this undocumented incident happened was because the soldier was gay? And no straight captured soldier has ever broken down under enemy interrogation?

  • 57. Kate  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Think John McCain in North Vietnam.

  • 58. Steve  |  July 7, 2011 at 6:29 am

    Don't pay attention. It's certainly a lie

  • 59. MFargo  |  July 7, 2011 at 7:02 am

    Prejudice is based on misinformation, ignorance, lies or delusion; often a combination of all. No need to reinforce (by ignoring) whichever the case this might be.

  • 60. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    That is a story so full of holes one can drive a truck through it.

    A) What proof do you have that he was homosexual? You hardly seem the type someone is going to open up to about such things.
    B) What proof do you have that homosexuality in any way affected the situation? He might have been right handed too. Perhaps he was from Oklahoma. Maybe he liked tomato soup. And perhaps the enemy who captured him hated right handed tomato soup lovers from the midwest. How on earth can you make the assumption that homosexuality had anything to do with it, if, as you say, you don't know what happened to him?
    C) What statistics do you have to show that "Homosexuals are more easily compromised by the enemy."? One story that is, at best, apocryphal, is kind of like me telling you the story of the Navy Seal who ate his commanding officer's arm for lunch, and drawing the conclusion that all Seals are cannibals.

  • 61. peterplumber  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    I am gay and I was in the Army. I was not, nor am I now, a wimp. I have striaght friends who border on wimpy, and I have gay friends who are tough guys.

    Fact is, you can't make any assumptions about anyone, because as I was taught in the Army, when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

  • 62. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    The Constitution authorizes the establishment of the military. For some reason, your post came across as though the military was outside the reach of the law of the US. Of course, it isn't. Laws/policies which discriminate against a class of people in the US ARE within the purview of the Federal Courts.

  • 63. Maggie4NoH8  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    InInteresting that the Defense Department/Pentagon would comply with the order (which, originally it did – before the stay was granted) if what you say is true… And, it looks as if the DoD is preparing to comply with the current lifting of the stay.

    Do you have any documentation showing the federal courts are not in the chain of command of the military?

    And, out of curiosity? Are you, or have you ever been, a navy seal?

    Obviously, I am a civilian, so any light you can shed will be appreciated…

  • 64. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Yes I have been a NavySeal.

    The DOD can choose to comply with the order as it has. But notice I said that a federal court is not in the chain of command of the military.

    The chain of command of the military is established by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, Public Law 99-433 (10 USC).

    It says:

    "(b) Chain of Command.— Unless otherwise directed by the President, the chain of command to a unified or specified combatant command runs—
    (1) from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and
    (2) from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command. "

  • 65. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    And from this you're deducing the an order from a Federal Court Judge doesn't effect The President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense…or a Navy Seal?

  • 66. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    A federal court judge cannot ORDER the president as commander in chief of the military to do anything.

    Its that pesky little principle in the constitution called seperation of powers.

  • 67. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    The President has to follow the law, just like anyone else. The President is not above the law, despite his powers. Thus, if the court declares a law to be unconstitutional (and thereby illegal) the President must follow the court's decision. He does not get to pick and choose which laws to follow and which to break.

  • 68. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Sure. OK. Keep telling yourself that. The president authorizes missions all the time in the name of national security that if you even had an inkling were going on, you would be shocked.

  • 69. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Probably not as much as you think. But that is neither here nor there.

  • 70. peterplumber  |  July 6, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Actually, the separation of powers means that the president can't act as a judge, A judge can't act as a legislator, etc.

    The separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances. This means that the president can't make laws, only the legislature can. If the legislature creates laws that are unconstitutional, then the judicial system can void that law.

    Congress actually has control of the military, even tho the President is commander in chief. So, in this case, legislature created DADT, and the Judicial branch has ruled it void. The military HAS to abide by the ruling of the court.

    Have you ever READ the constitution??.

  • 71. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    And where in the rules does it say that the Armed Services can break the law? Just out of curiosity?

  • 72. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Break what law? Civlian law? It hardly applies to the military.

  • 73. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    It hardly applies????

    So, what? Your uniform allows you to go around destroying private property on a whim? You can cheat on your taxes with impunity? Stealing a car and joyriding is fine? If you decide to rob a bank, that is ok? If you went down to the corner supermarket and torched the place, killing everyone, you would not be prosecuted and sent to prison? Of COURSE civilian law applies.

    The more you say, the more glad I am that you are OUT of uniform!

  • 74. Bill S.  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    This is absolutely not true at all. The military has Article I tribunals that handle aspects of military law, but the military is controlled by civilians (via Congress) and is subject to Article III courts just like any other section of the government.

  • 75. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    This post from "NavySeal" is so full of holes and BS that he's either a troll and a faker or he's an unusually ignorant Seal and an embarrassment to the military.

  • 76. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Tell you what friend – why dont you come out and try to make it thru BUDS, as I did. See the attitude that is fostered there, especially towards gay people. They usually dont have the spine to make it.

  • 77. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    What I can promise you is that your sexuality (or anyone else's) didn't qualify you as a BUD, dude.

  • 78. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    True. But once a person in BUDS is found out to be gay, he becomes a target to get washed out.

  • 79. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    And that's a good thing to you and something we're trying to point out is pointless bullying.

  • 80. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    With all due respect, you have no idea. What you call "bullying" in the civilian world – well lets just say you would be laughed at in the military.

  • 81. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Frankly, your "all due respect" comment is quite ridiculous. You have yet to show any respect at all, for us, for your service, for your fellow soldiers, or for your country.

    Respect would involve understanding that the repeal of DADT serves to end a long history of discrimination wrongfully codified into law. It sets the standard for equal treatment for all soldiers, and by extension for all Americans, which is supposedly why you are out there fighting in the first place, isn't it?

  • 82. MFargo  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    I chose the word "bullying" because…well, that's what it is, and it was a word that I thought you could identify with.

  • 83. jdawg  |  July 7, 2011 at 2:13 am

    Dude, you're not a seal – come off of that, you say stuff any seal would know is downright false. It'd be bad enough if you used your real name, regardless of your occupation (or most likely lack of one) you sound like a jerk, but lying about your position in the navy and then getting caught in the lie makes everything you say…well, more pitiful now that I think about it. And I'm not going to bother telling you how there are plenty of gay men who are extremely masculine and could beat up any straight guy you know, because I get the feeling that it would be as useful as trying to teach Mandarin Chinese to a labradoodle. But just so you know, there are plenty of gay dudes who are extremely well respected and rank high in the army and now they can just tell everyone they're gay and most people know who's gay to begin with

  • 84. Steve  |  July 7, 2011 at 9:46 am

    There was a quote by a SF operator displayed quite prominently in the Pentagon Working Group report that went like this: "We had a gay dude in the unit. No one cared. He was big and killed lots of bad guys"

  • 85. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    So what you are saying, basically, is that it is a darned good thing both for you and for the Navy that you are no longer a Seal, since you would be incapable of following orders concerning the repeal of DADT?

  • 86. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    There are plenty of gay Americans who have made it through everything you have made it through and more. The only difference between them and you is that DADT requires them to avoid revealing the fact that they are gay. The fact that you don't see that makes you ignorant about the subject. DADT is pointless and wasteful and it disrespects all military personnel. It requires some of you to lie and it treats the rest of you as if you are too immature to handle working with a gay guy. It's an insult to EVERYONE in the military.

  • 87. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    …. although in your particular case, judging from your last few ridiculous posts, you in fact ARE too immature to handle working with a gay guy. If you can't handle something as harmless as that, and if you can't handle following orders, how on earth did you make it in the military?

  • 88. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    "DADT is pointless and wasteful and it disrespects all military personnel."

    There I agree with you. When I joined the military, there was no such thing as DADT, being gay was an automatic disqualifier from military service.

  • 89. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    And now it is not. Now discrimination is not permitted, which is as it should be.

  • 90. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Sure it is. For instance, women still cannot serve in combat roles.

  • 91. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Not the point of today's discussion, but perhaps a fight we need to engage in another day. Back to the topic at hand, which is discrimination against homosexuals (both men and women)…

  • 92. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    …. and before that, they kept those black folk apart from the rest of the military. Ah, the good ol' days, right?

  • 93. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Hey I have no problem with african americans. Some of my best buddies are african american.

  • 94. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    And you had no problem with the gay guys you served with either. You just didn't know they were gay. Are you starting to figure this out yet?

  • 95. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    Its pretty easy to tell. When you live in a dorm with 50 other guys and one of them is gay, it is like a frickin light bulb.

  • 96. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Or when you're onboard a ship, and one guy in berthing is gay, its VERY easy to tell. Theres no such thing as privacy on board a ship.

  • 97. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    "Or when you're onboard a ship, and one guy in berthing is gay, its VERY easy to tell. Theres no such thing as privacy on board a ship."

    Wrong again (your record is intact!) When I used to live in SoCal I knew a gay guy in the Navy. For the entire time he served in the Navy (all of it on a ship) nobody else who served with him knew he was gay. It's not at all unusual.

  • 98. peterplumber  |  July 6, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Pffft, without gay guys, there would be NO navy!!

    (I heard Bette Midler say that once. LOL)

  • 99. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Wrong. THAT is your ignorance. Most gay people do not look or act in any way that reveals this fact (unless they want to, and of course they wouldn't want to while in the military). Dude, I have a very large circle of gay friends, most of whom you would never know were gay. And BTW several of them are / were career military – a helluva lot longer than 5 years.

  • 100. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    Dude I retired after 20+ years. Ive been retired for 5 years.

    Ive been on over 10 9 month cruises on a ship. When I tell you that it is VERY easy to pick out a gay guy on board a ship… Well lets just say I have WAY more experience at it than you. There are things that gay people do that is a sure giveaway, when they've been out at sea for 60 days.

  • 101. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Really? DO tell us what your experience shows that we who ARE LGBT have less experience at?

    (In case you didn't get it, that was heavily laced with sarcasm.)

  • 102. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    So isn't it odd that none of these gay career military guys I know seemed "very easy to pick out' at all……. Nobody else in the military ever knew that any of them were gay. Just like it has always been for almost every single gay person in the military. Again – you served with LOTS of gay people that you didn't know were gay.

  • 103. Str8Grandmother  |  July 7, 2011 at 2:50 am

    NavySeal- your comrades in arms will do what they have been trained to do, they will salute and follow orders. And those who do not, will be drummed out of the military.

    Now if your buddies in the Navy Seals would rather haze the gay Seal over maintaining their membership in the Seals so be it, just makes room for others who will follow military orders.

    Life ain't like it used to be where the majority can continue to oppress the minorities.

  • 104. davep  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    ….. and BTW, if there were 50 guys in your dorm the chances are you had a lot more than just ONE gay guy in there with you. Again – you just didn't know it.

  • 105. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Oh so very true!

  • 106. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Since you havent been there… you would have no way to know.

  • 107. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    The point is that YOU would have no way to know, if they did not want it to be known.

  • 108. Reformed  |  July 7, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Your right of course, NavySeal. The gay soldier is the one that doesnt want to borrow your copy of big uns. If he doesn't scratch his ass in public, thats another good clue.

  • 109. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    Ah, the rallying cry of the bigot! "I have FRIENDS who are..(insert whoever you are better than here)!"

  • 110. Phillip R  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    I love this argument. Like it somehow reinforces your point.

    My father is african american. Growing up, he had a coworker that he became close friends with. However, this coworker was obviously racist and outwardly so. I'll never understand why him and my father got along so well but they did. It didn't change the fact he was racist.

    I'm not saying you are racist, just saying that they aren't really related.

  • 111. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    That co-worker, sadly, might have been my grandfather. He was a racist, who had many friends of other races. They got along, despite his racism.

    I somehow don't see NavySeal getting along despite his homophobia, though…. 🙂

  • 112. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Ah yes – the term du jour – homophobia.

    I was decorated many times, including the navy distinguished service medal and the bronze star. Never been to Captains Mast, for anything.

  • 113. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Goody two shoes for you? None of that negates, nor in fact relates to the homophobia you are CLEARLY displaying in each and every one of your posts here.

    Medals are swell. You are a bigot. See? Not related. Unless the armed services have a decoration for being a paragon of non-discrimination. And if you won that one, I would be towards the head of the line here saying you should, in good conscience, give it back.

  • 114. peterplumber  |  July 6, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    I have been decorated too. I have many medals and awards. I don't brag, but I was a good soldier AND I am gay.

  • 115. Rich  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    (3) the law of the land which, in effect said, get over your homophobia, move on, recognize the contributions of all active combat/non combat military personnel and the vote of the Senate. How long has "Navy Seal" been retired?

  • 116. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    5 years retired.

  • 117. Phillip R  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Well I guess it's a good thing you are retired then since you can't do what the job requires now.

  • 118. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    You can trust me when I say that the reason DADT repeal is not being opposed is that there is already another way to disqualify gays from military service.

    Field commander just sends them for a psych eval, and then medical disqualification. Saw it many times before DADT was signed into law.

  • 119. Phillip R  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Has nothing to do with my comment.

    If you did serve (and I'm doubtful at that), then thank you for your service but you aren't fooling anyone around here with the red herring arguments. In the end, my point still stands. It's likely a good thing that you are retired.

  • 120. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    You say that like you approve of field commanders breaking the law. How sad is that?

  • 121. NavySeal  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Well back then it wasnt breaking the law. So yes I did approve.

  • 122. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Now it is. Do you still approve?

  • 123. AnonyGrl  |  July 6, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Aside from the fact, of course, that it was just as WRONG then as it is now, but there is no way you are ever going to see that.

  • 124. jdawg  |  July 7, 2011 at 2:17 am

    OH MY GOD STOP IT RIGHT NOW YOU ARE NOT A NAVY SEAL!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I NEED BOOTS JUST TO STAND IN THE BS COMING OUT OF MY COMPUTER SCREEN!!! You say false statements that ANYONE at that rank would know is NOT TRUE. Stop trolling!!!

  • 125. justjoel59  |  July 6, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    Medical disqualifications based on what grounds? What a troll!

  • 126. Ronnie  |  July 6, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Awesome news. My heart & thoughts go out to Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt, Seaman August Provost, Pfc. Barry Winchell, Technical Sergeant Leonard P. Matlovich, U.S. Army Major Alan G. Rogers, E4 Radioman 3rd Class Allen R. Schindler, Jr. & many more who are not here physically to share in this ruling but are here with us in spirit. My heart & thoughts are also with their families & friends…. <3…Ronnie

  • 127. TMA  |  July 6, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    If anyone wants a delicious transcript of a conversation I had with TN State Sen. Stacey Campfield about the CA gay education law, come n' get it 😉

  • 128. Straight Dave  |  July 7, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Where can I find this?

  • 129. jdawg  |  July 6, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    I have no clue who NavySeal is…but I gotta call it like I see it. Whoever you are, you are truly a sad human being and that is a fact. No one with any kind of a life has the time to troll, yet alone troll repeatedly, on this random freakin' website. Too bad the sum of your "decorated" retired navy life is leaving inflamattory comments on proposition 8 websites. And look, I know a lot about the army, I single-handedly ran the military in 1979 for the entire nation of Singapore and trust me it was a difficult feat. Just freakin' kidding, but since this is the internet I can randomly say anything in a convincing manner and 95% of people will blindly believe it because they don't know any better. And by the way, I know you are lying about your navy status, you said 3-4 things that anyone in the navy who is above the rank of pet rock would know to be false. Grrr, it's almost an insult to my intelligence to read the words you have to say. Dismiss yourself from my online presence, you transparent fool.

  • 130. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  July 7, 2011 at 12:24 am

    Writes an awful lot like "Bruce" too.

    And heads up: FYI, almost all men who claim to be Seals are liars. Seals are few and far between, but apparently it's a very popular tale to tell…so popular the military now attempts to help verify (or put the kibosh on) such claims. It's sorta like telling people you're a real live ninja. Be skeptical, especially of the claims of trolls.

  • 131. LCH  |  July 7, 2011 at 1:03 am

    Haha so true. There is even an urban legend that says Fred Rogers, of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood fame was a Navy Seal turned children's show host.

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

  • 132. Sagesse  |  July 7, 2011 at 5:15 am

    New York Marriage Equality Will Start on a Sunday
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/n

  • 133. literalman  |  July 7, 2011 at 5:20 am

    Unfortunately, isn't is possible that:

    1. DOJ chooses not to appeal the lifting of the stay,

    2. DOD stops enforcing DADT,

    3. DOJ argues in favor of DADT on Aug 29th to the 9th circuit,

    4. 9th circuit rules in favor of DADT (unlikely given the 9th's stance, but still…),

    5. All service members who came out after #2 are now screwed?

  • 134. Tasty Salamanders  |  July 7, 2011 at 7:10 am

    Well there is still the repeal, I mean I guess if they don't appeal the lifting of the stay that might mean they will just go ahead and sign the certification just to get DADT off the books, which would be more symbolic than anything else now. And if they did sign it, with the 2 months afterwards until it "takes effect" I doubt the 9th Circuit would make a ruling.

  • 135. Tasty Salamanders  |  July 7, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Alternatively, they might now hold off on signing the repeal and try to make it go forward with the 9th Circuit and hope to lose just to get binding precedent and then sign it.

  • 136. Straight Dave  |  July 7, 2011 at 10:14 am

    I hoping that the timing works out such that (in quick sequence):
    1. Repeal is certified
    2. Appeal to the 9th is withdrawn as being rather moot
    3. District court's ruling takes final effect absent a stay or appeal.
    4. The 60 day wait effectively just disappears (as Robert Byrd turns over in his grave and asks "why the hell did I throw that in there in the first place?")

    One can hope.

  • 137. Ronnie  |  July 7, 2011 at 6:32 am

    Rachel Maddow speaks with Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach about the 9th circuit ruling….. <3…Ronnie:

    [youtube CaBcT9ZtcfU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaBcT9ZtcfU youtube]

  • 138. Tasty Salamanders  |  July 8, 2011 at 3:21 am

    OK, so I just read that the final arguments for the DADT appeal are scheduled for August 29. That is 1 and 2/3rds of a month away, and assuming the court gives a quick ruling that could mean the 9th Circuit could beat the DADT repeal to a closure even if the certification was signed now, assuming the court doesn't dismiss the appeal the moment the certification is signed.
    So I am just wondering would the court dismiss the appeal the moment it was signed or would the delay in "implementation"* caused the court to look and see if a judgement could/would be ruled by them before said delay is finished and continue on with the case on those grounds?
    * Can't really be implemented if it's already being unenforced 😛

  • 139. MFargo  |  July 11, 2011 at 4:49 am

    Oh, man! This is just the best! Let's keep this ball rollin'!

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