Air Force DADT Enforcement Has Stopped, According To Official's E-Mail

WASHINGTON - A gay rights group says the Air Force has told its legal officers to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" because of a judge's ruling Tuesday. But the order to halt discharges could end soon.

The Obama administration will ask the judge to allow the ban on homosexual servicemen and women to continue in force pending an appeal to reverse the ruling, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Lawyer Dan Woods said his client, Log Cabin Republicans, which won the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling on Tuesday, has been notified that the Justice Department "will appeal and seek a stay" in the case later Thursday. That word was confirmed by the person in the government knowledgeable about the administration's discussions.

The government source said the delay in responding to the judge's order resulted because the Obama White House weighed in on the Justice Department's handling of the case.

This person, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations, said a couple of White House lawyers did not want to seek a court order that would temporarily suspend the judge's ruling.

The source said the process was back on track and that court papers seeking the stay will be filed.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members. The 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" 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.

The administration's decision to appeal the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling comes just one day after it filed an appeal against a separate judges ruling that part of the Defense Of Marriage Act is "unconstitutional" because it withholds health and retirement benefits for the spouses of federal employees in same-sex marriages.

Before news that Department of Justice would appeal Phillips' ruling, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network circulated an e-mail on Thursday that it said was written by the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Richard Harding. In that e-mail, Harding says the Defense Department "will abide" by a court order that says the military can no longer discharge service members who are openly gay.

Such guidance would represent the first time in decades that the military would not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that "don't ask, don't tell" is "going to end" -- it's just a matter of how.

On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be considered only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, including an assessment of service members' attitudes toward the change. The study 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."

Comments

[compajuan049]

07:28 PM on 10/15/2010

It is a human rights issue, not a "values" issue, It should have never been treated as a mere "policy issue" The good thing though, is that both sides are less inclined to treat it as a "criminal issue" or as a "sin", at least it appears that reason and conscious are prevailing in the majority.

[CessnaDriver]

06:52 PM on 10/15/2010

Would someone PLEASE tell me why they think this United States Supreme Court is going to allow DADT to be overturned?

[ShaolinFingerJab]

05:02 PM on 10/15/2010

I've been reading articles in this website for months but never felt inspired to open an account to comment because I know that people's opinions change and this is more media manipulation and marketing, but today I decided to say something:

Gay is not a race!

Gays and liberals have the right to be angry at the president and the Democrats, they have the right to vote Republican to punish the Democrats and Obama, they can do whatever they want with their vote because that is their voice and their right. No problem with that. But what I got a serious problem with is when gays compare the issues that they are going through with the painful struggles that African-Americans have gone through, that's what pisses me off.

Priviledged suburban gays and liberals may not be well informed, but the struggles of blacks did not end with the emancipation proclamation of 1863. So, be angry, complain, vote for another party, get a primary challenger to Obama, all of that is reasonably understood, gays are frustrated and that's also understood, but what does not make sense is to reduce the struggles of African-Americans to matters of political correctness.

Do whatever you want but stop the comparisons.

[Kevins]

05:03 AM on 10/19/2010

Why would we vote Republican to punish Democrats and Obama? Repealing DADT was just passed in the Democratic House and fillibustered by Republicans in the Senate.

That would imply a need to punish Republicans, right?

And the comparison being made is NOT to the Emancipation Proclamation, but to Eisenhower's desegregation of the Military. And that is clearly a pertinent comparison to DADT.

[bardgal]

04:46 PM on 10/15/2010

Why do I get the feeling this is more about Obama-bashing and less about gay rights?

[Hardyman1966]

06:32 PM on 10/15/2010

As one of "them", I agree. People don't read the whole story anymore. We've only got the patience for a headline. "Max Headroom" in the 80's was dead-on accurate.

[bardgal]

08:43 PM on 10/15/2010

thank you. I've been marching for gay rights since the '80s when I could, and all I've gotten is "you hate gay people." WTF???? HuffPo has either become completely overrun by teabagger posters, or the Still-Angry-Hillary-Lost people have gone over the deep end trying to make sure Obama fails. Or both. Right now I think both.

[toldyeso]

08:32 PM on 10/15/2010

because you are a loyalist and dont actually care about equal rights for all citizens at all.

[bardgal]

08:40 PM on 10/15/2010

You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. Give it a rest.

[toldyeso]

03:41 PM on 10/15/2010

How do you build a more inclusive, tolerant and accepting country when policy makers that are supposed to represent the Democratic party use language like that?

“Live style” choice is something you’d expect to hear from Ralph Reed.

Valerie Jarret needs to be show the door. This is the language intolerant religionists use.

The Religious View

The question of what causes some people to be gay has been a topic of endless debate. Generally speaking, the religious community of every persuasion views homosexuality as an abhorrent sin against God and nature. Deeply religious groups among Muslims, Christians, Catholics and Jews reject homosexuality as totally unacceptable in the eyes of God. Therefore, most orthodox religious leaders view it as a life style choice thereby condemning the homosexual to eternal hell.

The American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychiatric Association, the organization that writes and publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, listed homosexuality as a mental disorder until the 1970′s. Based on increasing amounts of research the APA decided to drop homosexuality as a diagnostic category. They found that as long as gay people adapted well to their sexual orientation and were able to function in society, there was no reason for them to be placed in the category of having a mental illness. Therefore, when gaypeople seek psychiatric counseling there is no attempt to counsel them to change their sexual orientation.

The folks in the White House just keep on keeping on when it comes to homophobia.

[new beginning]

04:27 PM on 10/15/2010

Would you mind terribly stopping the posting and reposting and reposting and reposting of this? Or do you just have no new material to add to the discussion?

[toldyeso]

04:49 PM on 10/15/2010

you wrote:

“Some children who are bullied for being gay, are NOT if fact gay. Because someone else tells them that they are gay, doesn't make it so. Bullies often bully kids who are 'different' on some level and use the difference as their excuse to bully. All bullying is destructive and wrong. No matter the target. You are no less a victim if you don't happen to be gay, but are bullied.”

and

“You just don't like her because she is a black woman.

and

"There! How funny is it to use that tired old Dem method of deflecting criticism and silencing debate!”

and

"“My high school aged son tells me that it is now in style at the local middle and high schools for kids to go through a "gay stage" - particularly girls where they experiment sexually with all and sundry... It would seem that the majority of these kids who are experimenting sexually with various partners are making a choice to do so. This is the new "normal".”

---

your interest in silencing the anti homobigot truth is quite obvious

[MMRDO]

03:37 PM on 10/15/2010

I wouldn't advise any service members who are gay to come out right now, I know it seems like the policy is going to be overturned, but I wouldn't want to see anyone's career get hurt if it doesn't.

[inorbit]

03:36 PM on 10/15/2010

No LGBT person should volunteer to serve in the US Armed Forces until this odious law is rescinded. Why should they be expected to risk their lives for a country that does not give them equal protection under the law????

[toldyeso]

03:10 PM on 10/15/2010

No excuses, Mr. President: Clinton admin didn't defend law kicking HIV+ soldiers out

by: Pam Spaulding

Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. Nothing to fear except fear itself. Pick your best phrase to express how this President and his DOJ have painted themselves into a corner regarding DADT repeal. Excuses, excuses about how the administration MUST legally defend a policy that discriminates, and how it's only Congress that can stop the discharges through legislative repeal (after bogus freepable study data is reviewed).
Well a little birdie dropped a transcript from 1996 into the Americablog inbox:

I've just been sent a White House transcript from 1996 showing the Clinton administration, explaining in detail, how it was not going to defend in court any cases kicking HIV+ service members out of the military because it believed the law requiring such discharges to be unconstitutional.

This is exactly what we have been arguing for a year and ahalf, and what the Obama administration and its apologists have been denying: The President has the power to not appeal a case if he so chooses.

Obama apologists, please tell me how this information doesn't put your man in the equality doghouse? Read the full transcript first and come back and give it your best shot to explain how this President is doing his best to be a fierce advocate. He has had choices to make and he's made them for his own political safety and to preserve political capital, not stand for civilrights for all.

[oafishcad]

01:52 PM on 10/15/2010

Schwartzenegger, a Republican, had the guts NOT to appeal the overturning of prop 8 by the courts. Obama has CHOSEN to continue defending DADT in court till it gets to the four confirmed homophobes on the USSC, needing to convince just one justice to keep it law. He says he wants the Congress to overturn it, but is waiting until there are more Republicans in Congress to do it. Gay people aren't stupid, and will only take being slapped in the face and insulted by Obama so many times. Why gay Americans would want to serve and defend a nation that treats them as sub-human is beyond me.

[toldyeso]

08:33 PM on 10/15/2010

amen

fanned

[oafishcad]

01:42 PM on 10/15/2010

When it comes to gay citizens, Obama is to the right of Goldwater. He has two years. No movement on his promises, No gAyTM to run to for more money. Progressives may stand for the abusive treatment they receive from the president. Gay Americans won't. Rev. Warren, comparing gays to pedophiles in lawsuits, steadfast against gay citizen equality on marriage. That's abuse. The gay people I know are POed. He doesn't have to appeal this ruling. He chooses to appeal it. With four confirmed homophobes on the USSC, what is he thinking beyond being able to wash his hands of gays, like Pontius Pilate did to Jesus?

[toldyeso]

03:14 PM on 10/15/2010

And this has been clear from the beginning. In 2008 in SC Obama campaigned with anti gay clerics and gospel stars to pump up the fervor of anti gay phobia and bigotry amongst african american churchgoers during the 2008 presidential primaries.

I havent forgotten and i never will forgive this.

“Obama won't back down from SC concert with homobigot ex-gay Donnie McClurkin

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3383

Reverend Donnie McClurkin isn't the only homophobe on the bill with Obama

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3392/

Gay Rights Group Pushing Obama To Drop Ties with Donnie McClurkin

http://www.whudat.com/newsblurbs/more/gay_rights _group_pus hing_obama _to_drop_d onnie_mccl urkin_1681 023071

[new beginning]

04:29 PM on 10/15/2010

Aren't there rules about reposting the same old same old over and over and over in a single day?

[CessnaDriver]

01:03 PM on 10/15/2010

Questions to all the Obama-Bashers out there:

Do you really think that an order by one Federal District Court judge is going to stand as the law of the land in America without the higher courts taking it up?

Do you really think that the Gang of Five on the USSC isn't going to uphold DADT?

If the LCR is actually interested in gay rights, why isn't the word "gay" in their title, while "Republican" is?

[inorbit]

03:34 PM on 10/15/2010

He still doesn't have to order the Justice Dept. to appeal this. He can simply tell them to ignore it.

[CessnaDriver]

06:35 PM on 10/15/2010

Durrrrrrrrr....

Who would you rather have appealing DADT to the Supreme Court-the DOJ or Focus on the Family?

[toldyeso]

10:02 PM on 10/15/2010

exactly

[ctcadguy]

01:01 PM on 10/15/2010

Obama=Republican

[Kevins]

05:20 AM on 10/19/2010

Funny, the Republicans don't seem to have been told. They keep calling him a socialist.

[Kevins]

05:23 AM on 10/19/2010

In fact, the Republicans recently fillibustered the Democrats' repeal of DADT in the Senate, preventing the Democrats from overturning it....

[Howey]

12:39 PM on 10/15/2010

If Abraham Lincoln hadn't signed the Emancipation Proclamation, an Executive Order, Obama wouldn't be around to be so wishy-washy.

Grow a pair, Mr. President, and sign an Executive order NOW directing Congress and the DOD to implement whatever laws, rules and regulations necessary within 6 months to end bigotry in our military and allow gay servicemen and women the chance to serve equally!

http://theworldofhowey.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/with-the-stroke-of-a-pen/

[CessnaDriver]

01:12 PM on 10/15/2010

If you weren't so blinded by partisanship, you might have noticed that Mr. Obama is not a descendant of the African slaves.

Question: Are you willing to hand the control of the US Government over to the repugs in the backlash of such an executive order, just so you can have your way?

[toldyeso]

03:15 PM on 10/15/2010

on gay rights issues...seriously...whats the difference?

[Howey]

04:03 PM on 10/15/2010

Huh? Blinded by partisanship? I was using an example. If there had never been an Emancipation Proclamation there's a good we would still have slaves in this country and blacks (as well as women) wouldn't have the right to vote.

As far as me being "willing to hand the control of the US Government over to the repugs", that's already been done. Months ago. When the President and the Democrats in Congress stepped down and allowed the Republicans to make a mockery of how our government's run.

I support the President in many ways, just not this one. The simple fact is he's pandering to the right through his inaction when he should be doing what he promised - repeal DADT.

[ShaolinFingerJab]

04:20 PM on 10/15/2010

So, gay is a race now? I'm sick of hearing priviledged suburban gays comparing the struggles of African-Americans with their issues. You have the right to be angry at the president for not delivering on putting an end to DADT in the manner and pace that you would approve of, but you don't have the right to compare this issue with the struggles that Black Americans have had to endure. Blacks didn't have the option to conceal race, blacks didn't have the option that Clinton gave gay people when reaching the compromise between not allowing gays at all and DADT. You can be angry and all of that but stop the comparisons, gay is not a race and gays have not suffered anything near what blacks have gone through in this country. Gays got it good in this country, and the biggest gay haters are whites. Blacks may not be as politically correct as whites but blacks are probably the most forgiving, tolerant and open-minded people in this country.

[lotus321]

11:16 AM on 10/15/2010

Let see the current argument is that allowing gay to serve would be a moral buster for the military. The argument in 1948 against black integrating with whites in the military was it would be a morale buster for white men.........either way it appears straight whites guys are scared of feeling inferior while naked in the showers with gay or black men...

[Rt Rev Thurgood Goodlove]

10:04 AM on 10/15/2010

GGA100.com Lawd, Lawd… Once all of the straight soldiers have been killed I might consider allowing gay soldiers to serve. However, the privilege of risking your life for $40,000 a year is a privilege that we must defend with our own lives. This is waaaaayyyyyy to good for the gays!
~ the Right Reverend Dr. Thurgood Goodlove, the Savedest man in the history of the Republican party
youtube/facebook/google legend

[magnoliabird]

03:35 PM on 10/15/2010

Both gay men and woman have been serving for years. They are just not speaking about their lifestyle for the most part. Some have even died for their country. So what is your point?