Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

DADT enforcement and court update

DADT trial

By Adam Bink

Two developments: the first is today’s order from the 9th Circuit, essentially ordering the government to “fish or cut bait” on defending DADT. Essentially, the Government is ordered to submit a report indicating whether or not it intends to defend the law; and both parties are ordered to show cause for why this case is not moot given the repeal of DADT in motion. Thanks to Karen O for the heads-up and Kathleen for the link.

The second is that Tom Carpenter over at LGBTPOV catches hold of a memo from Undersecretary of Defense Clifford Stanley on how the military will react to injunction being in effect on DADT enforcement. The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is notable.

49 Comments

  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  July 11, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    But didn't they just refuse someone admittance because he was gay? I can't find the story immediately, but I wonder if Dan Choi is going to try again, too.

  • 2. Steve  |  July 11, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    It's a large organization with a huge bureaucracy. It takes time for orders to trickle down from the top to the recruiting stations at the bottom. A few days really isn't that unusual.

    Complaining to be turned down hours after the court issues its decision is really somewhat silly

  • 3. Ronnie  |  July 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Sheesh…. just tweet it…..duuuuuh!!!….lol….I'm just joshing you……….. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 4. Ann S.  |  July 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    §

  • 5. toddallenpeterson  |  July 11, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    As a trial Attorney I can say "Nothing is easy". But I do have to say that several very heavy hitters are involved on the side of equality and we will win eventually !

  • 6. Dana_Jeanne  |  July 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    So what happens when the republicans get back into power and they repeal the repeal and we have all our openly gay service members everywhere. What happens then? Our govt is treating our citizens like senseless yo-yos 🙁

  • 7. peterplumber  |  July 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    That is why we need to persue the court case. Once the courts declare DADT unconstitutional, no congress can repeal the repeal. They will be forced to dream up some new form of discrimination.

  • 8. d_ott_1  |  July 11, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    This is off subject but I thought you all would appreciate this. This is floating around my local community. It is a video of a little boy meeting a Same sex couple for the first time and how he reacts is the most touching thing ever.
    [youtube SbBtNVFjeDA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbBtNVFjeDA youtube]

  • 9. Lora  |  July 12, 2011 at 12:05 am

    I love it!

    "So that means you love each other….I'm gonna play ping pong now.."

    He sure doesn't look traumatized to me.

  • 10. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Who here thinks there's a mixed message?

    What to Make of the DOJ's Mixed Messages on DOMA?
    http://www.nomblog.com/11150/

  • 11. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    :).

    Gay marriage raises prospect of NY adoption boom
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM

  • 12. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Gay marriage advocates in Maryland launching broader push
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-poli

  • 13. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Illinois Scraps Catholic Charities Adoption Contracts
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/07/1

  • 14. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 11, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Let me guess what topic will be on the NOM blog very, very soon. Something along the lines of, "The Gay Attack on Religion Continues: see, we TOLD you this would be the result of letting those gays get civil unions! (Which we were for if the alternative was marriage, but now we see that we should have stuck to our bigotry – we mean, guns, & been against those, too.)" And as usual, they will play up the "Catholic Charities" part & ignore the "if you get public funds for providing a service, you must serve ALL the public" part of the story.

  • 15. Ozymandias71  |  July 12, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Oh, you're absolutely right Sheryl… but I think this is actually a good thing. IMO a lot of people had no idea that religious organizations were receiving state and federal funding… until these groups started demanding the right to discriminate (and be exempt from state law) while still getting those funds. Wouldn't surprise me at all if stories like this is setting off a lot of 'church and state separation' alarms in people's heads.

  • 16. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 12, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Oh! Guess what's at the top of nomblog.com this morning???

    Breaking News: Catholic Charities Asks For Immediate Injunction After Illinois Terminates Adoption Contracts
    http://www.nomblog.com/11226/comment-page-1/#comm

    Wish I could predict the stock market as easily. 🙂

  • 17. Ronnie  |  July 12, 2011 at 10:58 am

    ROFL…… (rolls eyes at them)…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 18. Sagesse  |  July 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Update: Judge (Temporarily) Stops Illinois from Banning Catholic Charities From Foster Care
    http://www.nomblog.com/11232/

  • 19. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Yeah, they're all gloating over there at the moment.

    One can never be sure, but I hope it plays out properly, that if you take public money, you have to serve ALL the public. That concept is certainly foreign & apparently unintelligible to the Religious Right, but that's not surprising.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    More Than 1,600 Illinois Couples Apply For Civil Unions In Law's First Month
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/more-tha

  • 21. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    NOM Not Invited to N.Y. Weddings, But They'll Be There Protesting
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/07/0

    "The locations target the four Republican senators who broke with their party and voted to pass the marriage equality bill — Stephen Saland, James Alesi, Mark Grisanti, and Roy McDonald."

  • 22. Anonymous  |  July 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    The military is already training civilian personnel on the DADT repeal. It is already going forward.

  • 23. JonT  |  July 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Yes, but the all-important certification is still dragging it's sorry ass.

    Until that's done, then LCR is still very important.

    Even after it's done (certification), I think it's still important in possibly preventing some right wing government in the future from trying to 'repeal the repeal'.

  • 24. Bryce  |  July 12, 2011 at 3:41 am

    Did anyone but me notice the order that came out yesterday in the Ninth Circuit. I really thought it would have appeared here on P8TT.
    Essentially the court said this: "The government has argued that the repeal of DADT is constitutional, but not DADT itself. So, the government needs to tell us if it is going to continue to say that or if it is actually going to defend DADT so that someone else can step (either the house or amici) and actually do it." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201
    Like I said, I'm kinda surprised that it didn't make it on here.

  • 25. Leo  |  July 12, 2011 at 5:27 am

    Umm, it did make it on here: the first paragraph of this very post is all about it.

  • 26. Sagesse  |  July 12, 2011 at 4:03 am

    I was expecting a response, and as usual, Ed Whelan delivers.

    Vaughn Walker, the Bohemian Club, and Prop. 8
    http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/271562/

    Does anyone know, does one need to be a member of the Bohemian Club (or any other organization) to speak at an event?

  • 27. Rob in CA  |  July 12, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Here's a list of past and current Bohemian Club members and I don't see Judge Vaughn Walker's name on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bohemian_Clu

  • 28. Rob in CA  |  July 12, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Let me qualify, that list is just of "Notable" past and present members. There's a complete list of current members out there but I haven't found an copy online yet which is readable.

  • 29. Bryce  |  July 12, 2011 at 5:04 am

    This is a bit off topic, but…
    Does anyone (Kathleen, I'm looking at you) have any insight on what is happening with the appeal of the June 14 order by Judge Ware in response to the Motion to Vacate. The Defense filed a notice to appeal on June 23, and I understand that it is then the prerogative of the Ninth Circuit to set a schedule and docket the appeal. However, since this is an appeal pertaining to an existing case–that is, since it is a motion to vacate a case which is already in appeal in the Ninth Circuit–does that change procedure? If not, does this mean that the appeal of the decision on the motion to vacate will not be heard by the same three person panel? And, in any case, why is the Ninth Circuit taking so long?
    Do we have any clue on what is happening there?

  • 30. Sam_Handwich  |  July 12, 2011 at 5:57 am

    "The California Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments during the first week of September as to whether there is any authority under California law that gives Yes on 8 standing to appeal the federal district court’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. After the state court issues its decision in that matter, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is expected to issue its own ruling on whether Yes on 8 has standing. If the panel rules Yes on 8 does have standing to appeal, the panel is likely to issue, simultaneously, its ruling as to whether to affirm or reverse Judge Walker’s August 2010 decision, finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional."
    http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/06/29/prop-8-

    Hope that helps.

  • 31. Leo  |  July 12, 2011 at 6:34 am

    Ninth Circuit has docketed it and set a briefing schedule, I think Kathleen posted it in comments a while ago. Appellant's opening brief is due October 3.

  • 32. Bryce  |  July 12, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Ninth Circuit doesn't have a page for it that I can find. 🙁
    Do we have any links?

  • 33. Bryce  |  July 12, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Also, do we know if it is going to the same panel? (I would assume not.)

  • 34. Bryce  |  July 12, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    I just found the comment by Kathleen. I wish I could find some of the documents. This is crazy confusing to me!

  • 35. Ozymandias71  |  July 12, 2011 at 7:14 am

    Completely off-topic, but reading this article got me so excited I needed to post it somewhere to share with you folks.

    TWO – 'Yes, we Exist. So does our past.' http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2011/07/17569/

  • 36. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 12, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Thank you so much, Ozy! I had NO idea about many of those state laws & how they were applied. I'm guessing that if the general population, at least the moveable middle, knew about this history, there would be a lot less criticism of the comparisons between discrimination around orientation vs that involving race, religion, etc.

    Of course, in this age of sound bites, it will take people with a lot of skill to get the info out & into people's brains before those brains switch to a different "channel." (Calling AnonyGrl!) But I'm sure it can be done.

  • 37. justjoel59  |  July 12, 2011 at 7:45 am

    I just feel awful for all those GLBT soldiers. "Can I come out now?" "Yes, no, wait, no, yes, no, maybe"

  • 38. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 12, 2011 at 9:48 am

    And if you guess wrong, or your timing is off, you might very well find yourself not just "out" of the closet, but "out" of a career, too. I'm guessing that, regardless of what is supposed to happen once DADT is really, truly, finally dead, it might be harder for some to re-enlist, depending on the recruiter. "Oh, our quota for your rank/career field is filled right now. Come back next year."

    Am I cynical? I prefer to call it realistic, based on over 6 decades of experience with humans.

  • 39. Rover Serton  |  July 13, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    I've been in the military. Re-enlistment has nothing to do with a recruiter, your commander and sargents have alot more to do with it. In 1980, there were gay guys in the USAF. If they did their job, no one cared. If you didn't do your job, gay or straight, you weren't liked.

    Like it or not, Military officers follow orders and directives. If gay is not an issue, it is NOT an issue.

  • 40. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    I was in the USAF, too, Rover. Most of the people I served with would obey orders, as we all were supposed to. But unless things have changed (which they may have, it's been decades), re-enlistment papers are first filled out at a recruiting office. The military has its share of almost-following-orders folks, which is why some people got discharged under DADT when they never, ever, "told." So if one of those folks is the first person to handle an "out" LGBT's re-enlistment papers, it IS possible that those papers will get "mislaid" or the re-enlistment otherwise delayed. I am not saying this will happen, but until the DADT is completely dead, I personally wouldn't stake my career on it just yet.

  • 41. justjoel59  |  July 12, 2011 at 7:48 am

    Michele Bachmann on homosexuality made it on the Today Show this morning.

  • 42. davep  |  July 12, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Here's a link to an article that includes an ABC NEWS video on this subject, including some undercover video that was recorded by "Truth Wins Out" when they sent and undercover investigator into the clinic owned by Machmann and her husband. It shows that the Bachmanns are using Federal funds to pay for 'Pray the Gay Away' reparative therapy, which they then lied about by denying that they do this! This could be pretty big stuff :
    http://minnesotaindependent.com/84255/undercover-

  • 43. James UK  |  July 12, 2011 at 8:41 am

    On DADT, if the 9th Circuit finds that the case is moot, can it remand the case to Judge Phillips with a direction to vacate?

    A statute can always be repealed by a later Congress. A finding that DADT and in particular the discrimination that it engenders is unconstitutional is a much more important victory for LGBT people than the repeal of DADT by Congress, which so far has not been effected and in any event contains no anti-discrimination provision.

  • 44. gelz209  |  July 12, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Interesting Read on the Windsor DOMA case. http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1

  • 45. Ronnie  |  July 12, 2011 at 9:06 am

    This is the America NOM et al. is creating & perpetuating……

    Singer Ari Gold Told to Move to Back of 'Short Line' Bus for Holding Hands with Man http://www.towleroad.com/2011/07/singer-ari-gold-

    "The driver told us if we wanted to continue sitting together, we had to sit in the back."

    The driver called a state trooper, LOL, & the state trooper saw nothing wrong with what the musician & his traveling companion were doing. Hey Short Line bus driver, they paid for the bus tickets NOT you so shut up & do your job.

    "Gold made an announcement to the other passengers, explaining that they had been pulled over to wait for the state trooper because he was holding hands with a man."………The musician plans on filing charges.

    "Haven't reached anyone from Shortline yet-I'll call Lamda Legal to see if there's any action to take or at least make sure Shortline gives better employee training. I stood up to the driver despite my racing heart, I can only imagine what that might have done to someone who couldn't."

    *cough*Rosa Parks*cough*. Back of the bus???!!! [email protected]#K YOU back of the bus……….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 46. Ronnie  |  July 14, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Update…..Interview with singer Ari Gold about what happened on the bus ride…. <3…Ronnie

    Bus Ride Bigotry: What Really Happened to Ari Gold? http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/07/1

  • 47. Ed in South Bend  |  July 13, 2011 at 6:33 am

    DOMA……could it be that no one really gives a shit what DOMA actually does? Rather….people in power see that DOMA requires same sex married couples to pay more in taxes, and thus want to keep DOMA in place as a money making tool for the gov't? I know, this idea is out there….but what do ya'll think?

  • 48. Steve  |  July 13, 2011 at 8:05 am

    And there you go: http://www.10news.com/video/28523083/index.html

    Lesbian accepted for re-enlistment

  • 49. Sheryl_Carver  |  July 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Yea!!!!

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