iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Dont Ask Dont Tell

09/ 9/10 11:59 PM ET   AP

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members, filed a lawsuit in 2004 seeking an injunction to stop the ban's enforcement. Phillips will draft the injunction with input from the group within a week, and the federal government will have a week to respond.

After-hours e-mails requesting comment from U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paul G. Freeborne and from the Pentagon were not immediately returned Thursday.

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.

The Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.

"This decision will change the lives of many individuals who only wanted to serve their country bravely," said the group's attorney, Dan Woods.

Woods argued during the nonjury trial that the policy violates gay military members' rights to free speech, open association and right to due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

He said the ban damages the military by forcing it to reject talented people as the country struggles to find recruits in the midst of a war. Lawyers also submitted remarks by Obama stating "don't ask, don't tell" weakens national security.

Freeborne had argued the policy debate was political and that the issue should be decided by Congress rather than in court.

The U.S. House voted in May to repeal the policy, and the Senate is expected to address the issue this year.

Government lawyers also said Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction.

Six military officers who were discharged under the policy testified during the trial. A decorated Air Force officer testified that he was let go after his peers snooped through his personal e-mail in Iraq.

The officers who participated in the trial were "reacting emotionally because they're so proud that they were able to play a part in making that happened," Woods said after the ruling.

"It'll be an interesting decision for our president to decide whether to appeal this case. He's said that 'don't ask, don't tell' weakens national security, and now it's been declared unconstitutional," Woods said. "If he does appeal, we're going to fight like heck."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enfor...
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enfor...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,717
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (107 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AMERIKA
Husband, Parent, Sibling, Business Owner, Progress
02:24 PM on 09/20/2010
About effing time! good for the judge.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rick08
01:08 PM on 09/20/2010
If we waited for our military leadership to lead reforms in the military we would still have:
-No blacks serving in the military except serving coffee in the officers mess
-No women in the military except answering phones and as nurses
-A white protestant Anglo-Saxon officer corps.
Change must be IMPOSED on the military if it is ever going to happen.
Patriotic gays who volunteer to serve their country and put their lives at risk to do so deserve respect and gratitude instead of scorn.
02:41 PM on 09/20/2010
Thomas Sowell in his Ethnic America notes that German Americans appear frequently in the US Army's officer corps and gave these examples:

Custer (Kuestner)
Pershing (Persching)
Eisenhower (Eisenhauer)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HarmNone
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
12:17 PM on 09/20/2010
As long as this gets repealed with 'permanence', that's all that matters. If we have to wait for all the little chess pieces to be in place to lock out DADT 'forever', so be it. The end result will be that equality stands for all, that our fellow human beings of the gay community will have right to defend their country openly with dignity and pride.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
11:33 AM on 09/20/2010
DADT was instituted because the bi.gots in the military wanted to feel comfortable with their prejudice. It is about time that the "little boys" who are so gung-ho to kill others but get the "vapors" at the idea of another man might  notice they have a nice but in the shower. 

The members of the armed services just like society as a whole has moved past this knuckleheaded  policy and it should finally be scraped.. the question becomes with the remaining homophobes in the military allow it to expire peacefully or will they jump on a chair and scream "eeekkkk" one last time
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
filakia004
fight back against right-wing insanity
12:30 PM on 09/20/2010
the democrats once again need to grow a spine and fight, including obama. show some passion and anger when its the right thing to do. presidents and i believe congress too, take oaths to uphold the constitution and they are NOT doing it! there are 65,000 gay service members right now, according to the Urban Institute. what are the whackjob republicans going to do, kick them all out? its 2010 for god sakes! serving openly is working in some european countries and will work here too. im also glad someone like lady gaga is putting the spotlight on this and cares enough to try to get collins and snowe to repeal the ban since reid doesnt have 60 votes. christians/republicans and even some blacks, say they believe god created all beings....well that includes gays. and its shameful and hypocritical to say gays cant have equal rights like straights do, jesus wouldnt act this way. this is an civil rights issue just like when blacks fought for their right too. and no one in america should be treated anything less than equal
03:28 PM on 09/20/2010
Soooo agreed.

I have also wondered how guys trained to USE GUNS and KILL PEOPLE are going to be so freaked out by a guy looking at their fanny that they can't perform their job. Seems to me that if that they are that emotionally fragile they don't belong in the military in the first place.

How about just a INI Rule? ( i.e. "I'm Not Interested")
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VA Magoo
11:10 AM on 09/20/2010
I myself have never seen the word homosexual referenced in the Constitution.
Therefore how can it be un-constitutional?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
11:46 AM on 09/20/2010
Not sure what you're trying to argue. Neither did you see the word eskimo or mormon or paraplegic or for that matter heterosexual, but any laws that single any of those groups out for special sanctions would be rendered unconstitutional as well. It has to do with individual freedoms.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctor4kids
Incite civility and reason
01:30 PM on 09/20/2010
I don't even think the word "marriage" is in the Constitution.
03:29 PM on 09/20/2010
Well said.
12:36 PM on 09/20/2010
Try "freedom of spech."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ladyvader
Done with 2-party system that has failed us.
01:30 PM on 09/20/2010
Equal Protection Clause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maxwelldog
even if i don't go anywhere, I'll still be late.
10:53 AM on 09/20/2010
The concept of DADT escapes me, actually, and the further concept of repealing it is even more confusing.
First, one of the senior Veterans Affairs officers (the one who got caught stealing kids' scholarship funds for golf outings) Steven Buyer, a friend of Mike Pence, says that he doesn't think homosexual soldiers should be allowed in the military because they would be a morale problem. (Uh...did he want homosexual civilians to serve?)
Does that mean that a homosexual can't be trusted in a room full of other men?
And if that's true, maybe they shouldn't let the men who are in go on leave, because they surely can't be trusted around women, too.
Now, despite the fact that I wrote to him and told him that a gay soldier saved not only me, but a small flock of helicopter crewchief/mechanics in Viet Nam because we had no idea that was mortar fire coming in. There are huge bunkers between choppers, and we were oblivious to the noise (we thought it was corps of engineers dropping stuff to scare us...it had worked before, but now we were wise) (NOT! ...INCOMING!)
So I am glad a gay soldier called us out of danger. (read my memoirs to see how we found out)

Now, if they repeal DADT, doesn't that mean it goes back to the way it was? I mean, I know everyone says open service, but nobody actually SAID open service, did they?
photo
fratricide08
Yellow Dog Democrat
01:19 PM on 09/20/2010
Yes, theoretically it should go back to the way it was which means that this interim time (while DADT is on hold and yet the UCMJ with the specific prohibition again homosexuality is still active) could be exceedingly dangerous for gay servicemen and women who wish to stay in the military. BTW, I would love to hear the rest of your story but have no idea how to see your memoirs.
10:02 AM on 09/20/2010
Evidently the Log Cabin deserves credit for taking a principled stand. Now get ready to move your wagons over to the Democratic Big Tent after the mid-term elections because you are NOT wanted by the new Teanderthal GOP.
03:31 PM on 09/20/2010
"Teanderthal"! Ha! I'll pass that one along!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
03:40 PM on 09/20/2010
Log Cabin Republicans are like broken clocks they are still accurate twice a  day...Thank You for the lawsuit but beyond that you need to decide if a party so wedded to the cause of making the lives of gay people he// is really worth supporting despite perhaps a  more "corporate" view of economics than most
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:02 PM on 09/18/2010
9/18/10, If the HuffPost doesn't genuflect to these gays, they should be allowed to serve. Tell only those to whom it matters: physicians. Is the person suitable for military service? All others need not know. Stop wasting time with this while proverbial 'Rome' burns. ~~~Weiters~~~
12:11 AM on 09/17/2010
getting discharged for reading through someones personal property is not right its like reading some ones mail with out their permission. you should not be discharged but if it was something severely bad then a punishment would be in order. its kinda like saying were going to throw you in jail for burning a tree.
09:37 PM on 09/14/2010
I think it shouldn't matter if you're gay because you're serving for your country, just because you're gay doesn't mean you will do a different job. Gays aren't very different from other human beings. They have thoughts and feelings and the ability to fight for their country the same as a heterosexual. What I don't understand is why the big fuss over a man loving another man when I know for a fact there a plenty of guys who go crazy over seeing girl on girl? This is just the opinion of a 17 year old girl people try not to freak out over nothing haha
10:04 AM on 09/20/2010
A good post for a 17 year old. Keep posting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeremy Danials
I do not think it means what you think it means.
12:04 PM on 09/20/2010
A very PROMISING 17- year old. There's hope for the next generation yet!
04:17 PM on 09/14/2010
I cant wait for the day I can marry the love of my life... I am a 23 yr old Military Police officer (been in for four years now) and the country I love and protect says that I shouldnt be able to chose who I love or have the same rights as the people I stand beside and protect like my own brother or sister. Although they can run off and get married however many times they like, I am not allowed based on the fact I love a woman. Its sad. Thats all I can say. I only hope I will one day be able to see this over turned. My command has no issue with the fact that I'm gay and I have been open to them. I'm not discharged because I'm a good soldier... and thats the way it should be. So kudos to my command! Too bad they werent all like mine.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
hackerblaster
I did not mean that to be a factual statement.
09:59 AM on 09/20/2010
I hope you get to marry your love one day and be happy! hugs
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fauxmccoy
my microbio is macrobiotic
10:03 AM on 09/20/2010
thank you for your service. i am glad to hear that you have suffered no loss due to being open about your sexuality, it is indeed rare.

i have to believe that soon you will be able to marry the person you love. it is shameful for us as a nation that we have not yet recognized full civil rights for all. keep up the good fight, we will get there.
08:37 AM on 09/13/2010
Why are gays not allowed to kill for their country?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
11:47 AM on 09/20/2010
They can kill for their country, they just can live openly or recieve equal treatment under the law. The hypocracy is amazing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MJVs Common Sense
Lawyer, Intellectual, Author, Amateur Historian
07:19 PM on 09/12/2010
(1) Yes this judge lacks the authority to injoin the entire country, she only has authority over her district.

(2) that being said, doing something like this is a good way of drawing attention to the issue. (though I would also submit that an injunction will make the judicial process longer because it will create more cases, like does the judge have the power to do that, which will make a final decision on the merits a much longer process).

(3) I find that I agree with the government lawyers. This is an issue that is being dealt with by Congress right now, and they seem happy to toss it out. It's really inappropriate for a judge to be jumping into an issue like this while it's already being addressed by the other branches. If it were not in congress right now, I would applaud this ruling, but that is not the case.

(4) It's kinda one of those "duh" rulings. Pretty much everyone who matters (from the military to legislators) agrees this policy is both unsound and on it's way out the door. DADT is going down one way or another, and no one has any realistic doubts about that anymore. Why did we need a judge to tell us what we already knew?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldyandrea
10:05 AM on 09/13/2010
"(1) Yes this judge lacks the authority to injoin the entire country, she only has authority over her district."

I don't believe that's true. The fact that she is a Federal judge makes this, you know, *Federal* and therefore nation wide. Were she a state judge, then the jurisdiction would be limited to that state. Additionally, it's not inappropriate for a judge to issue a ruling on a case that's set before them. The timing may be inconvenient for some, but them's the breaks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
04:26 PM on 09/14/2010
1. Not sure and will have to research judge's reach of authority.
3. Not a valid argument...House HAS dealt w/the issue and the Senate is stalling and the r's have promised a filibuster to shut down voting for bill where DADT is a rider. So, why not deal w/this via judiciary?
4. May be a 'duh' to you but you will notice DADT is still in effect. Something/someone needs to kick start it and get this settled.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Cullen
11:20 AM on 09/20/2010
Regarding point (1) and scope of Federal Judges ruling. Of course it impacts entire country; as an example, see recent federal ruling on stem cell research (D.C. court, August 24, 2010).

This ruling appears to be politically driven, in that it involves a Republican organization, a federal judge, and comes down at a time when I vote is inevitable and the President has pledged a change. Too many coincidences in timing.

Camouflage is the new black!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
11:46 AM on 09/20/2010
If the Repugs are stup.id enough in their pursuit of the votes of bi.gots to "vote against the troops"  in order to try to keep DADT in place let them and let their  false patriotism be on full display...they would rather starve the military of funds and possibly kill troops than stop worrying about who the troop loves
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JasonWS
Lovely day for a good plan
05:31 PM on 09/12/2010
Once upon a time, we didn't bother to talk about these problems. We forced gay men into the closet, and to protect that hidden secret, they helped George Bush get Elected, like Mehlman did, or did other "deleterious" things to our country. Let people be, what they are. If they're criminals, lock them up. If they're human beings, let them live free and open lives. We cannot afford to waste the public time and currency on angry garbage about Gay versus Straight. Let them be, marry, love, divorce, serve, and die with dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, there's an economy that needs mending and a lot of infrastructure that could use some help.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldyandrea
10:06 AM on 09/13/2010
Well, and not just gay men were forced into the closet. Plenty of gay women have suffered due to DADT as well, let us not forget.
photo
blukazoo
I support your right to disagree.
05:17 PM on 09/13/2010
Excellent post! new fan.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
brt929
05:29 PM on 09/12/2010
So if this ruling stands, will all the people that were forced out of the military be allowed to re-join?  Will this open up the military to lawsuits for back pay?

I certainly believe that Congress needs to repeal DADT, but if we do it through the courts I would think that we are going to see an extreme of litigation.

Why can't Obama just help push it through?  Why is he so scared of taking a stand?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anti-Panoptic
Conscious Grad Student
06:27 PM on 09/12/2010
I dig.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
04:28 PM on 09/14/2010
Because Obama is Bush-light. Obama made a lot of promises to LGBT community for our votes and we're starting to hold him to his word.

Why can't Obama just help push it through? He's a politician and November elections are just around the corner.
10:09 AM on 09/20/2010
Why can't we build Rome in ONE day? Charitably, you don't understand the workings of controversial legislation as it makes it way through Congress. Obama is not at fault here. Social conservatives, GOP and older military guys share the major blame. I see you didn't mention that fact.