# Federal Court finds "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 10, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259 "2010-09-10T02:34:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/1 "2010-09-10T02:34:46Z")
I figure around these parts, any debate would be pretty one-sided, so I’ll put this in MPSIMS as a “sharing the good news” item. [Article here](http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/09/Judge_Rules_DADT_Unconstitutional/): > [@](#): > > U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips wrote in the 85-page opinion handed down late Thursday that the DADT statute violates the Fifth and First amendments. Log Cabin Republicans are entitled to a “permanent injunction barring its enforcement,” Phillips wrote. There’s a PDF link at the bottom of the article to the actual decision itself, which I have not yet read. But for now: Hooray! ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/2 "2010-09-10T03:05:30Z")
I just saw this come across my Facebook feed. Excellent news! Far too long in coming, though. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/3 "2010-09-10T03:13:07Z")
Can you explain the implications for a confused foreigner? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/4 "2010-09-10T03:14:37Z")
Yeah, I remember when Bill Clinton tried to make allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military one of his first campaign promises to get followed up on. 17 years ago. So now, the majority of the population favors repeal (by a fairly wide margin). The President favors repeal. The Secretary of Defense favors repeal. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff favors repeal. The House favors repeal, and has passed a bill saying so. A majority of the Senate supports repeal. A Federal court has found the current law unconstitutional. Yet, DADT is still law. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/5 "2010-09-10T03:16:10Z")
A district court within the Ninth Circuit, doesn’t strike me as all that surprising. > [@waterj2](#): > > So now, the majority of the population favors repeal (by a fairly wide margin). The President favors repeal. The Secretary of Defense favors repeal. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff favors repeal. The House favors repeal, and has passed a bill saying so. A majority of the Senate supports repeal. A Federal court has found the current law unconstitutional. Yet, DADT is still law. Darn that rule of law! ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/6 "2010-09-10T03:22:24Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Can you explain the implications for a confused foreigner? Gays and lesbians will be allowed to serve openly in the military. In theory. In practice, the decision will likely be stayed pending appeal. In the immediate future, the plaintiffs (the Log Cabin Republicans, who brought the lawsuit) have until next Thursday to submit a proposed judgment, including a permanent injunction against enforcing the ban on gays and lesbians. Then the government has a week to submit their objections to the proposed judgment. Then I think the judge issues a final judgment, and then we move on to stays and appeals. I think the government gets 60 days from final judgment to appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/7 "2010-09-10T03:34:12Z")
So, this being only a district court ruling, does this mean that Westerners can serve openly, but everyone else still has to keep quiet? And what happens if a gay soldier under this court’s jurisdiction comes out, but the injunction is then overturned by a higher court? ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/8 "2010-09-10T03:40:59Z")
My uncle actually worked on this case (he is a lawyer for the Pentagon, so he was working for the defense). Before you scowl though, his job was simply to argue the merits of the case based on the law as it’s written now. It’s up to the judges to determine whether the law itself is Constitutional or not. I’m not sure whose decision it is on whether DOJ will appeal it up or not, but that’s still a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/9 "2010-09-10T04:32:39Z")
I thought I read that there was a possibility that removing DADT would actually make it where you can’t serve openly as Gay. I thought the whole point of DADT was because there was some other law saying you couldn’t be gay and in the military, and DADT was a loophole. Is the other law being overthrown as well? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/10 "2010-09-10T05:49:54Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > My uncle actually worked on this case (he is a lawyer for the Pentagon, so he was working for the defense). Before you scowl though, his job was simply to argue the merits of the case based on the law as it’s written now. Ah, yes, the _I was just following orders_ defense. How’d that work out for the soldiers tried at Nuremberg? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/11 "2010-09-10T06:16:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I thought I read that there was a possibility that removing DADT would actually make it where you can’t serve openly as Gay. I thought the whole point of DADT was because there was some other law saying you couldn’t be gay and in the military, and DADT was a loophole. Is the other law being overthrown as well? This. So far as I was aware – i.e. going from my memory at the time – _DADT was passed to allow gay people to serve in the military_. The law essentially forbid the military from inquiring as to your sexual leaning, allowing you to stay in as a soldier regardless of what the answer would be. Of course, this was a compromise, with the downside that if you did tell them your sexual leaning, they could kick you out. But that’s a step forward from having to tell them up front and not getting allowed in at all. Should DADT be revoked, it seems like it would revert back to what it was before. They ask, you tell, and out of the military you go. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/12 "2010-09-10T06:41:29Z")
Presumably, when the Log Cabin Republicans file their proposed judgment, it won’t request that the military revert to the _status quo ante_. And even if it did, it would leave repeal up to the military (ultimately President Obama)'s discretion. Before DADT, there was no congressional statute about homosexuality in the military. Hence, Clinton could have ended discrimination by executive order, just as Truman did with racial discrimination. Then the top brass threw a shit fit, with several (including Colin Powell) threatening to resign, and Congress passed DADT. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/13 "2010-09-10T07:11:48Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > > [@Rigamarole](#): > > > > My uncle actually worked on this case (he is a lawyer for the Pentagon, so he was working for the defense). Before you scowl though, his job was simply to argue the merits of the case based on the law as it’s written now. > > Ah, yes, the _I was just following orders_ defense. > > How’d that work out for the soldiers tried at Nuremberg? It’s not even that… every lawyer is bound by the law. Their job is to interpret the law, not to decide on the merits of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/14 "2010-09-10T12:36:25Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > > [@Rigamarole](#): > > > > My uncle actually worked on this case (he is a lawyer for the Pentagon, so he was working for the defense). Before you scowl though, his job was simply to argue the merits of the case based on the law as it’s written now. > > Ah, yes, the _I was just following orders_ defense. > > How’d that work out for the soldiers tried at Nuremberg? Don’t know, but it worked out fine for the lawyers defending the accused at Nuremberg. And they secured the acquittal of Hans Fritzsche and Franz von Papen, among others. In particular von Papen, who had worked against Hitler’s interests, was simply not guilty of anything but political manuevering, and it’s a good thing for the interests of justice that he had someone willing to defend him. Our system of justice depends on each side in a dispute having a vigorous advocate. So take your “just following orders” snide comments, and …er… rethink them. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/15 "2010-09-10T13:52:12Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Ah, yes, the _I was just following orders_ defense. What a bizarre thing to say. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/16 "2010-09-10T14:00:40Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > I thought I read that there was a possibility that removing DADT would actually make it where you can’t serve openly as Gay. I thought the whole point of DADT was because there was some other law saying you couldn’t be gay and in the military, and DADT was a loophole. Is the other law being overthrown as well? > > This. So far as I was aware – i.e. going from my memory at the time – _DADT was passed to allow gay people to serve in the military_. From my understanding it was passed to pretend to let them serve in the military, while in reality increasing the anti-gay persecution. It meant that if you let even the slightest implication that you might conceivably be homosexual slip to anyone, anywhere they’d toss you out. And they’d watch you like a hawk for that slip. It was nothing but an example of writing bigotry into law, about as fair minded and well meaning as segregation was. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/17 "2010-09-10T15:01:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > From my understanding it was passed to pretend to let them serve in the military, while in reality increasing the anti-gay persecution. It meant that if you let even the slightest implication that you might conceivably be homosexual slip to anyone, anywhere they’d toss you out. And they’d watch you like a hawk for that slip. It was nothing but an example of writing bigotry into law, about as fair minded and well meaning as segregation was. Your understanding is flawed. Nothing in this post is actually true. It’s just your imagination reinforcing your prejudices…again. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/18 "2010-09-10T18:38:37Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > From my understanding it was passed to pretend to let them serve in the military, while in reality increasing the anti-gay persecution. It meant that if you let even the slightest implication that you might conceivably be homosexual slip to anyone, anywhere they’d toss you out. And they’d watch you like a hawk for that slip. It was nothing but an example of writing bigotry into law, about as fair minded and well meaning as segregation was. > > Your understanding is flawed. Nothing in this post is actually true. It’s just your imagination reinforcing your prejudices…again. Well, **Der Trihs** and hyperbole are not strangers… but the fact is that the military’s claims about inclusion of gays “destroying readiness” and “morale” and harming the warfighter’s mission are all belied by their actual practice: > [@Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates](#): > > LCR also produced evidence demonstrating that Defendants routinely delayed the discharge of servicemembers suspected of violating the Act’s provisions until after they had completed their overseas deployments. In other words, if Defendants began an investigation of a servicemember suspected of violating the Act, the investigation would be suspended if the subject received deployment orders; not until he or she returned from combat – assuming this occurred, of course – would the investigation be completed and the servicemember discharged if found to have violated the Act. Thus, Defendants deployed servicemembers under investigation for violating the Act to combat missions or, if they were already so deployed, delayed the completion of the investigation until the end of the deployment. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/19 "2010-09-10T23:15:05Z")
Any chance it won’t be reversed on appeal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259/20 "2010-09-10T23:52:19Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Any chance it won’t be reversed on appeal? I think it has an excellent chance of surviving appeal. Reasons on request. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-court-finds-dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional/553259.md?page=2)