More

Federal Court Ruling On 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Puts Obama To The Test

ANNE GEARAN and PETE YOST   10/13/10 10:33 PM ET   AP

Obama Dont Ask Dont Tell Appeal

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday of "enormous consequences" for men and women in uniform if a judge's order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military is allowed to stand.

The Obama administration may well ask for a stay of the ruling while it appeals. Justice Department officials worked behind the scenes on their response into Wednesday night with no word on when there would be an announcement. The uncertainty of the next step left gay-rights activists as well as the military in limbo over the status of the "don't ask, don't tell" law.

A day after a federal judge in California ordered the Pentagon to cease enforcing the law, Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal should be a question for Congress – and only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, which is due Dec. 1.

Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."

In Tuesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members. The 1993 law says gays may serve in the military but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.

Phillips wrote that the law "infringes the fundamental rights" of current and prospective service members.

Gay rights advocates cautioned gay service members to avoid revealing their sexuality for fear that the Phillips ruling could be tossed out on appeal and they would be left open to being discharged.

Defense Department officials would not say what was happening to current discharge cases, or even confirm how many pending cases there might be. A Pentagon spokesman, Col. David Lapan, said no written guidance had been issued to commanders on how to deal with the court order.

An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said Wednesday he will continue using a pseudonym out of concern that he could still be discharged.

"Can I come out right now and be OK? And if I made a statement would it be held against me?" asked the officer, who calls himself JD Smith and said he is an Air Force Academy graduate. He said service members are hoping the Pentagon will clarify the meaning of the court ruling.

Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., said he'd love to re-enlist in the Army two years after being discharged in the middle of a tour in Iraq. But he's being cautious and patient.

"I think it's still way too soon," said 28-year-old Arbury, now a university student. "If I was to hear news that automatically everything would be reinstated, I'd be the first one in the door."

Arbury said he wants to know more about how the military would reintegrate gay ex-soldiers: "If I go back in I want to know, Do I get my rank back? Do I get any damages or compensation?"

The uncertainty extended overseas. When asked by a reporter whether the ruling had had any impact yet, a two-star U.S. Army commander in eastern Afghanistan suggested he was unsure anything would change and said it was unlikely that his soldiers even knew about the court order.

"If that law is changed, they'll abide by the law," but "that's probably the farthest thing from their mind" as they fight, said Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of the 101st Airborne Division.

The Justice Department is considering whether to appeal the Phillips ruling, and its first response may well be another trip to the judge's courtroom in Riverside, Calif., to seek a stay, or temporary freeze. If Phillips turns down the request, the Justice Department probably would then turn to the federal appeals court in California.

If the government does appeal, that would put the Obama administration in the position of continuing to defend a law it opposes.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said time is running out for the ban on gays serving openly.

"This is a policy that is going to end," he said.

Gates, who supports lifting the ban once the Pentagon puts in place a plan for minimizing disruptions, said that besides developing new training for troops, regulations will have to be revised.

Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, face disagreement by some senior general officers on whether lifting the ban would cause serious disruption at a time when troops are fighting in Afghanistan and winding down a long war in Iraq.

The incoming Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, and his predecessor, Gen. James Conway, both have told Congress that they think most Marines would be uncomfortable with the change and that the current policy works.

In part to resolve the question of how the troops feel, Gates has ordered a study that includes a survey of troops and their families.

Gates has said the purpose isn't to determine whether to change the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which he says is probably inevitable, but to determine how to end the policy without causing serious disruption.

Cultural values in the U.S. have shifted since the law was passed, yet there remains a powerful rhetorical weapon for opponents of lifting the ban – fear that it would weaken a military at war.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins accused Phillips of "playing politics" with national defense.

"Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda, disregarding the views of all four military service chiefs and the constitutional role of Congress," he said.

Perkins urged the Justice Department "to fulfill its obligation to defend the law vigorously through the appeals process."

President Barack Obama 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.

Democrats could revive the legislation in Congress' lame-duck session after the midterm election.

___

Anne Gearan reported from Brussels, Belgium. Associated Press writers Anne Flaherty and Robert Burns in Washington and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday of "enormous consequences" for men and women in uniform if a judge's order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military is ...
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday of "enormous consequences" for men and women in uniform if a judge's order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military is ...
Filed by Nick Wing  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 105
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
10:32 PM on 10/13/2010
Thank you Judge Virginia Phillips for finally making a move on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Now let's hope that the government continues to move forward.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
09:37 PM on 10/13/2010
We want a court decision that DADT is unconstitutional and we do NOT want a repeal by Congress. Congress is fickle and corrupt. Without an appeal this case becomes the law.

I suggest, but I cannot urge as I am not in the military and will not suffer the consequences, that GAY service men announced en mass, "I may be Gay; I may not be Gay." But, better than that for the entire nation would be nice for hordes of straight military personnel who truly took the oath to defend the Constitution joined with the Gay military and said, "I may be Gay; I may not be Gay."

We need "I may be Gay; I may not be Gay" rallies across the nation and we need them NOW. They cannot process 30,000 "Maybe I am Gay; Maybe I am not Gay" military personnel.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
09:04 PM on 10/13/2010
If Obama allows the Justice Department to pursue an appeal of this, he will definitely be a one-term president, if he isn't already there now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
09:39 PM on 10/13/2010
We have to wait and see. I expect Obama to stab the Gays in the back again, but people do change -- not often but it has happened .. somewhere once so I heard, but I know not where.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
07:07 AM on 10/14/2010
Many gay people are already moving out of Obama's reach so that they will not be stabbed in the back by one of his surrogates in the justice department. He doesn't seem to have the cojones to do the job himself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marianne TB
07:57 PM on 10/13/2010
The Obama administration is expected to appeal as soon as Wednesday a federal judge's ruling that halted the Defense Department from enforcing its policy that bars openly gay people from military service, according to senior administration officials familiar with the government's plans.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/13/obama-administration-expected-to-appeal-ruling-on-gays-in-military/
this should be on the front page
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marianne TB
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
candcje
Progressive, Liberal Democrat and Proud of it!
07:10 PM on 10/13/2010
Let's keep one thing in the forefront of our minds as we discuss the repeal of this policy. DADT was NEVER about protecting homosexuals or even about "protecting the military." It has ALWAYS AND ONLY been about protecting the delicate sensibilities of hom0phobics. Gays have been serving in armies throughout history. Gays are currently serving in the army, navy, air force and yes, even the marines. They live in tight quarters, double bunked, sharing showers, sharing fox holes. They are doing this already. Soldiers know them, trust them, defend them and are defended by them. Knowing that the dude/gal next to you might prefer the same sex over another does not change who that person is.

If a soldier has that strong a reaction to having a known homosexual share their barracks, then that soldier can quit. No one is forcing any of these people to fight and serve their country. Either get over yourself - you're not that hot! Or leave the military if you find it so offensive to serve with a person of a different sexual orientation than yourself. And don't forget, you've been doing it for this long already. Only difference, is now you know...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DGarr
11:42 PM on 10/14/2010
Well written :-)
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
06:47 PM on 10/13/2010
Too bad we don't have somebody who could just order an end to this stupid bigotry, like, say, a commander in chief of the armed forces.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
broui
No d#%& cat. No d#%& cradle.
07:57 PM on 10/13/2010
The President maybe could do that. But he actually respects the law and the constitution and wants it done right.

What you are advocating for is a left wing version of GWB. This President simply won't act in that fashion. He's better than that. We need him to be.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
08:18 PM on 10/13/2010
Learn some history. On July 26, 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 ORDERING the desegregation of the U.S. armed forces, over the objections of the racist generals.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Agentprovokatur
05:24 PM on 10/13/2010
I may be wrong but likely nothing will happen until after November Elections are over. Republicans will not be able to make enough political hay out of the issue (they've already made their opposition perfectly clear) to bother with an immediate response. If Obama is inclined to request the Justice Department appeal he'll wait until then to avoid discouraging any LGBT voters from going to the polls now.

This will be a real test for Obama. If he actually is committed to ending DADT he'll let it ride as it will provide political cover for him and any other Democrat in Congress afraid to vote for appeal as they can blame it on the "activist courts".
06:28 PM on 10/13/2010
if he doesn't let it ride he's going to be losing a lot of votes this election
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
candcje
Progressive, Liberal Democrat and Proud of it!
06:55 PM on 10/13/2010
By letting it ride for the entire 60 days, he will have passed the deadline for the Pentagon's review and from what I've been hearing, the results of that review are being written as a guide for HOW to repeal, not IF they should repeal. Everyone knows that wonderful, educated, skilled and dedicated soldiers are being kicked out of the military and this is to the detriment of our national security and group cohesion for the individual units where these soldiers serve.

Once the pentagon review is complete and makes formal suggestions for HOW to repeal, Congress will no longer be able to stop it from happening because then it's the military directly saying what is best for ongoing military operations.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Manx
05:17 PM on 10/13/2010
Gates says allowing gays to serve openly in the military "requires careful preparation and a lot of training," which is nonsense. Gays have been serving in the army since Alexander the Great.

All the preparation, training and surveys are just a way of delaying the end of DADT.
10:36 PM on 10/13/2010
Exactly. I mean, what could there possibly be to prepare for? Does the republican party think that because gays are now OPENLY allowed to serve in the military that we will all of the sudden have marines in pink sequined costumes or something? Honestly, it is terribly offensive to me that they think the American people are so stupid as to not see through this. DADT is unconstitutional and absurd, flat out. There is nothing to prepare for except a more open and honest country that will result.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
don52
04:49 PM on 10/13/2010
What are the motives of a judge to make this ruling just before the election? Why now and not years ago? Why is congress wasting its time on hearings and the military doing studies about the issue if all it takes is one judge to decide for everyone? I don't think judges should have political agendas. I don't know whether this ruling will help one party or the other. Federal judges serve for life just like those on the supreme court. There is any number of judges that could have made that decision. That is over 200. What makes this judge so special? Is this a rogue judge or is she speaking for the judiciary. I wonder about the California judiciary. They have 700 on death row and have executed 13 in 35 years. Why do the waste there time sentencing people to death if it has little chance of being carried out. They go through lengthy and expensive process to get some one on death row, just to have judges decide otherwise.
photo
Cori527
Gay democrat agnostic vegetarian!
05:13 PM on 10/13/2010
"What are the motives of a judge to make this ruling just before the election?"

That it unfairly discriminates against a minority population of United States citizens?

That would be doing his job.
photo
Cori527
Gay democrat agnostic vegetarian!
05:13 PM on 10/13/2010
oops... "her" job :)
04:12 PM on 10/13/2010
im in the military... i know and are friends with gays in the military... some of which work hard at thier jobs... all of which are human beings. i have served over seas and its not easy for many reasons. to say that someone who makes that sacrifice EVERYDAY, but must keep secret one of the most important aspects of most peoples lives is pure robbery of the soul. i agree that:
yes we volunteered, nobody made us join, but come on! really? i hear the arguement of it being a distraction in the field... im a man who likes women, i suppose women cant serve now either... it's distracting. anyway, good to see support! :-) i want my kid to grow up in an america of tolerance reguardless of believes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
candcje
Progressive, Liberal Democrat and Proud of it!
07:03 PM on 10/13/2010
You say "im a man who likes women, i suppose women cant serve now either..." Actually, I recall back when I was in junior high, I ended up in the military room for career day. I spent minutes sparring with the recruiter there about why I, as a woman, would not be allowed to serve on the front line if that was my passion and desire. He kept telling me that women just don't do that. Women just don't serve on the front line. Something about safety of women because we bare the children... and I think something about being distracting to the men. So, we've overcome that hurdle in the last 25 years. Now we need to overcome this hurdle so your kid can grow up in an america of tolerance, regardless of beliefs. :-)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bigdaddyvike
left and rightly so...
04:08 PM on 10/13/2010
I'm tired of all the fence sitting here. Obama says he wants to get rid of it, then petitions not. to. "Pentagon study". "Congress must pass it". Gates says "absolutely" get rid of it, then says no. I would think this is headed to SCOTUS, if they'll hear it, which I doubt they will.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kansas1
03:41 PM on 10/13/2010
I hope President Obama plans to let DADT expire and go away. It's a ridiculous rule. A human being having to lie about themselves in order to serve their country is a crime. It's like telling an Italian that he can serve but he has to claim he's Mexican to do so. America needs to grow up and join the 21st century. When will people drop their ideology's, myths and bigotry and realize that race & orientation does not make anyone less HUMAN. Diversity is what makes the United States, the United States and I find it very sad that other countries seem to get it while we want to keep going in reverse....
03:37 PM on 10/13/2010
You can find the "LCR v. USA – Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law" HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39202930

The judge points out that since gays have been fired under DADT, and since the ban on gays hampers recruitment, the military has had to lower it's fitness standards to find soldiers, and also has stooped to allowing in people with serious criminal histories....something they didn't do in the past. The judge points out that this is hardly in the intrest of "military preparedness".
sandiegoconservative
Surprisingly refreshing and undeniably delightful
03:28 PM on 10/13/2010
Lord almighty, I am so tired of this argument. I know why some think a homosexual serving in the military is a big deal, but I sure don't. If a guy or gal can make it through boot camp and is a trained soldier, do you really think the fact that he/she is gay/lesbian is going to make them less of a fighter? I would want them covering me in combat because they are trained.

I know some people will argue that being gay means the soldiers are checking everyone out in the shower, but how many concrete examples of sexual advances or harassment have actually surfaced in recent times? How many true and valid complaints are being lodged against gay soldiers right now? I strongly doubt there is a real problem. Have there been any studies with current troops to see how they feel? I know there are peripheral studies, but for crying out loud, this should not be an issue. If the person is qualified, let him/her serve their country.