WOW... The time has come!

[+ kontor1]

Not sure if there is a topic about this so I posted here:

 

SAN DIEGO – A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

 

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.

 

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.

 

The injunction goes into effect immediately, said Dan Woods, the attorney who represented the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.

 

"Don't ask, don't tell, as of today at least, is done, and the government is going to have to do something now to resurrect it," Woods said. "This is an extremely significant, historic decision. Once and for all, this failed policy is stopped. Fortunately now we hope all Americans who wish to serve their country can."

 

Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

 

Phillips' decision was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

 

"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans.

 

He was the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.

 

Gay rights groups warned gay troops not to make their sexual orientation public just yet. Aaron Tax, the legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal. If that happens, the case would be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the decision could be reversed.

 

"Service members must proceed safely and should not come out at this time," Tax said in a statement.

 

Supporters of the ban said Phillips overstepped her bounds.

 

"The judge ignored the evidence to impose her ill-informed and biased opinion on our military, endangering morale, health and security of our military at a time of war," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, a women's group on public policy. "She did not do what Congress did when it passed the law and investigate the far-reaching effects of how this will detrimentally impact the men and women who risk their lives to defend us."

 

The case put the Obama administration in the awkward position of defending a policy it wants Congress to repeal.

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer, have both said they support lifting the ban. But Gates and Mullen also have said they would prefer to move slowly.

 

Gates has ordered a sweeping study, due Dec. 1, that includes a survey of troops and their families.

 

President Obama agreed to the Pentagon study but also worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn't suffer.

 

That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

 

Gates has said the purpose of his study isn't to determine whether to change the law — something he says is probably inevitable but up for Congress to decide. Instead, the study is intended to determine how to lift the ban without causing serious disruption at a time when troops are fighting two wars.

 

"The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal.

 

Government attorneys had warned Phillips that such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, which includes current and former military service members.

 

The Department of Justice attorneys also said Congress should decide the issue — not her court.

 

Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training.

 

"Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," Phillips said in her order.

 

She said Department of Justice attorneys did not address these issues in their objection to her expected injunction.

 

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after listening to the testimony of discharged service members during a two-week nonjury trial this summer in federal court in Riverside.

 

She said the Log Cabin Republicans "established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights." She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Phillips is the second federal judge in recent weeks to throw the law into disarray.

 

A federal judge last month in Tacoma, Wash., ruled that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible. Barring an appeal, Maj. Margaret Witt who was suspended in 2004, will now be able to serve despite being openly gay.

 

Gay rights advocates have worried they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill last month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision.

 

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

 

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are openly gay. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.

 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military

[Toulouse]

Well, nothing to do now but see if the far-right-wingers are correct and the world ends.

 

I think I have time for a beer first.

 

3.

2.

1.

 

Nothing yet. I will go see if the sky is falling...

 

Hmmmm. Better give it some time, I suppose.

[+ glutes]

This is wonderful! Now some of our right-wing bomb throwers (Mickey Moosie, Merlin Moosie, et al.) can serve our counrty with distinction.

[BewareofNick]

Well, this should serve as a reminder to everyone that progress never comes from conservatives.

[trilingual]

Unfortunately, the government can appeal this injunction and probably will. The government just filed its notice of appeal on the Massachusetts ruling finding sections of DOMA to be unconstitutional. So it's probable that this will be appealed, as well. It's a shame the government won't take the position of California in the ruling finding its gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional and just refuse to appeal the case. There's a question as to whether the Prop. 8 proponents in that case have legal standing to file an appeal on their own (the state was a party to the initial case), so that ruling may stand if the 9th Circuit rules that the proponents don't have standing. The federal government should take the same position that California did on Prop. 8 on the DADT and DOMA cases, stating that the lower court decisions are convincing and that they are unlikely to be overturned on appeal, so there is no point in wasting government money and resources pursuing a futile appeal.

[RockCreekRunr]

It's about time! Congratulations to all the gay servicemen and women in our armed forces.

And, Suck on THAT republicans--oh wait--you do suck IT, but you hide it, deny it, and then condemn it. Sorry, I forgot.

[Rick Munroe]

Our Fierce Advocate is probably going to appeal it.

[KMEM]

6 years to get this case into court? And, now, the accusation will be that the court is legislating from the bench. Perhaps this should go to the Supreme Court to see if it is indeed a constitutional issue. Attorneys, what do you think?

 

Seemingly, either the BO administration or the Congress could change the policy but might not resolve the potential constitutional issue.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[justaguy]

KMEM, I'd like to see it go to the Supreme Court. The question, IMO, is the consitutionality of DADT--and that needs to be settled at the highest level.

[Guest greatness]

PeterHung you are so thoughtful to post this. Thanks. Kisses and hugs~~~

[+ kontor1]

PeterHung you are so thoughtful to post this. Thanks. Kisses and hugs~~~

 

I was happy to see this news Unfortunately I am also pretty sure that they are going to appeal it but I hope that they will not succeed

[+ deej]

I was happy to see this news Unfortunately I am also pretty sure that they are going to appeal it but I hope that they will not succeed

 

The appeal will definitely happen, but I saw a former Solicitor General opine that it may not be for the reason we all think. The appeal *may* say "we agree it's unconstitutional but we'd like that decision to come from an Appeals panel rather than a single judge". There is apparently precedent.

 

[dane michaels]

IT IS ABOUT TIME!

 

I do not know how long this will be in affect, I dont care who brought it about, BUT I am glad to hear and see that the winds of change are finally passing through.

 

Rome was not built in one day, but it sure was built with some FIERCE fighters, fighting for their lovers (men)

 

I knew to many MEN that fought long side me that had to hide what and who we are, that could take out an insurgent from a considerable yardage, provide impecable medical care, or selflessly provide christain services in combat zones just as well, if not better than any "straight" Marine/Sailor. We all have rights, and its about damn time that we ALL black/white/orange/yellow/PINK get to excercise our god given HUMAN rights.

 

8 years of hidding. I so hope for a future that military members can be what they want (so long as it is not thrown about trashily)<is that a word LOL, and be all that they want to be, strive to be, and excel as any other service member would without the fear of reprisal.

 

HERE HERE to fairness and the SELFLESS service member that can now stand up!!!!

[+ kontor1]

Here is the newest chapter:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_gays_in_military

 

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday asked a federal appeals court to immediately suspend a judge's ruling that overturned the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

 

The government says it wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to take action on Wednesday. The federal government is preparing arguments for the appeals court on why the ruling on "don't ask, don't tell" should be suspended while the case is appealed.

 

The Obama administration says it is in favor of repealing the law. However, the government says that letting the ruling of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips to go forward immediately would be a major problem for the military.

 

Leaving the judge's decision in place now "would create tremendous uncertainty about the status of servicemembers who may reveal their sexual orientation in reliance on the district court's decision and injunction," the Justice Department said in its latest appeals court filing.

 

"Effectively developing proper training and guidance with respect to a change in policy will take time and effort," the court papers added. "The district court's injunction does not permit sufficient time for such training to occur, especially for commanders and servicemembers serving in active combat."

[CowboyUp]

So Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert tells the Family Research Council audience that "Homosexuality is Adultery" and that gay soldiers can't control their sexual hormones---Wow, talk about some twisted logic some politicians use to support their biases and hatred. Hear his idiotic comments: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkProgress2#p/u/23/KtzQsutfSV4