iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

DADT Repeal: Obama Vows To End DADT, While Seeking Stay Of Repeal Ruling

Dadt Repeal

PETE YOST and ANNE FLAHERTY   10/15/10 12:12 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — After two days of silence, the Obama administration urged a federal judge on Thursday to let the military press on with its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military. Still, President Barack Obama insisted the policy that has divided the nation for two decades "will end on my watch."

The Pentagon said the military "will of course obey the law" and halt enforcement while the case is still in question. But gay rights advocates cautioned gay service members to avoid revealing their sexuality in the meantime.

A federal judge abruptly threw out the Clinton-era ban on Tuesday, setting in motion a legal, political and human-rights back-and-forth that put the administration on the spot just two weeks before crucial midterm elections. Obama has consistently argued against the ban, approved by Congress in 1993. But he says it is up to Congress to repeal it.

The policy, summed up as "don't ask, don't tell," refers to guidance that gay or lesbian Americans can serve in the military but not openly. Their superiors are forbidden to ask about sexual orientation, but service members can be thrown out or denied enlistment if they talk about being gay or let it be known that they engage in homosexual acts.

Obama's Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips to stay her ruling that overturned the ban while the government prepares a formal appeal. Asking the judge for a response by Monday – "given the urgency and gravity of the issues" – the government said that suddenly ending the ban would be disruptive and "irreparably harm the public interest in a strong and effective military."

Obama, challenged Thursday at a town hall meeting by a Howard University faculty member who questioned his "alleged commitment to equality for all Americans, gay and straight," said his stance has not wavered. He can't end the ban with the stroke of a pen, he said, but "we're going to end this policy."

Even as the administration was arguing to keep "don't ask, don't tell" in place for now, the Pentagon's top lawyers were telling troops that the military intends to comply with the court order lifting the ban.

Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that the Defense Department "will of course obey the law." He said any changes were effective Tuesday when the ruling was first issued.

The Pentagon would not say what would happen if the judge grants the government's request for a temporary stay. But it is assumed the military would comply with that as well, reinstating the ban

In its filing with the California judge, the Justice Department argued that repeated and sudden changes in policy regarding "don't ask, don't tell" would be "enormously disruptive and time-consuming, particularly at a time when this nation is involved in combat operations overseas."

The Obama administration also filed a one-page court notice that it is appealing the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

If Phillips agrees to suspend her ruling, "justice will be delayed, but it will not be denied," said Christian Berle, deputy executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, the group that sued and won her ruling overturning the government's policy.

Berle urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "to do what it takes in the lame duck session (after the Nov. 2 election) to end 'don't ask, don't tell' legislatively."

Obama agreed.

Speaking at an event sponsored by entertainment networks MTV, BET and CMT, he said, "Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy." He called on the Senate to join the House in passing legislation that would let him end the ban.

"We have, I believe, enough votes in the Senate to go ahead and remove this constraint on me," he said. He added, "Anybody should be able to serve – and they shouldn't have to lie about who they are in order to serve."

The president did not discuss his administration's response to the judge's order.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president had been "very involved" in discussions about the judge's ruling, including holding meetings with the White House counsel's office to discuss the implications.

"I don't think we're deferring to Congress," Gibbs said. "The president has been active in encouraging and imploring Congress to do the right thing and end a harmful, discriminatory, unjust law."

A person in the government familiar with the case said the White House involvement in the Justice Department's handling of the case figured in the delay in responding to the judge's order.

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 now back on track.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on whether to repeal the law should be made by Congress and not the courts.

Gates has said he wants more time to prepare for a circumstance in which, for the first time, gay members of the military could declare their sexual orientation without fear of dismissal.

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

The uncertainty extended overseas. When asked by a reporter whether the ruling had had any impact, 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.

___

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Ben Feller and Julie Pace in Washington, Julie Watson in San Diego, Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., and Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — After two days of silence, the Obama administration urged a federal judge on Thursday to let the military press on with its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the...
WASHINGTON — After two days of silence, the Obama administration urged a federal judge on Thursday to let the military press on with its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,321
  • 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 »  (53 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
> there is no endless growth
04:48 AM on 11/11/2010
DADT Repeal: Obama Vows To End DADT, While Seeking Stay Of Repeal Ruling


Don't you love the middle way?
QuietLightTraveler
Scientist, Teacher, Naturalist, Photographer
09:46 PM on 11/08/2010
Listen, I'm no activist for gay rights. However, we all know that DADT is unconstitutional and wrong. I blame Obama for the fact that it is still in effect. As Commander and Chief he should have banned it, period ! As usual the powers that be make Obama do what they want. Oh what I wouldn't give for a president who has a backbone. Who was your daddy Barack that he didn't teach you to become a real man.
05:37 AM on 10/21/2010
Obama's constant bowing to the right should be more surprising than it is and it is hard to imagine that HRC would have been so submissive.

Perhaps she'll give us another chance in 2012.
03:01 AM on 10/17/2010
I still don't understand. WTH does openly serve mean? So when they introduce themselves to the squad/platoon they will say ..'Hi I'm Private Dan and I'm gay" ? Any job I had it would be considered unprofessional for someone to talk about their sex life and could be considered harassment.
05:26 AM on 10/17/2010
'Hi I'm Private Dan and I'm gay?" this is wrong on so many levels. Did Private Dan say Hi, I got best sex of my life with a dude last night. His "sex life"?

Hi I'm Private Dan and my fiancee Cheryl and I will be getting married tomorrow. Any job I had it would be considered unprofessional for someone to talk about their sex life and could be considered harassment. He's obviously straight. How dare him shove his sex life down other people's throats! definitely harassment.

Did that sound ludicrous?

Gimme a break! Your post is ridiculous.
12:16 AM on 10/19/2010
I dont care if someone is getting married period. When you go to do a job do the job. At my job i have no interest if Bob is marrying Dan, it's irrelevant and it would p*ss me off because i will feel nauseas the whole day.
12:45 AM on 10/17/2010
"we must continue to fire gays, so that we can stop firing gays." on a lighter note, May I offer you an Orwellian koolaid?
12:41 AM on 10/17/2010
The President said that he couldn't issue an executive order ending Don't ask Don't Tell. He is correct. He can however issue a stop loss order halting all discharges (fancy word for you are fired) Such an action could be later reversed by a President Palin, but after 2 years of open service even she wouldn't fire thousands out of the military, it would be logistically impossible, not to mention destroy the military.

So when the President says he can't issue an executive order it is comparable to Bush saying he never said Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and when Clinton quibbled over what the definition of is, is.
01:08 AM on 10/17/2010
§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) SEPERATION OF THE MEMBER WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ARMED FORCES.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
W Santiago
12:33 PM on 10/16/2010
Ending DADT, allowing deep water drilling to resume, allowing police free access to text messages without a warrant. What other things will he do? When Bush Jr was acting just as idiotic we called for his head on a platter, but Obama does it and it's OK.
12:33 AM on 10/17/2010
NO. it is NOT ok. Where is the line for disaffected Democrats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
banjokuzi
12:14 AM on 10/21/2010
vote palin
11:22 AM on 10/16/2010
One objection to the 1993 Eligibility Law is the issue of the service member's right to free speech.

After doing some investigation, it would seem that courts, in general, have held that the Eligibility Law does not constitute "viewpoint discrimination," a violation of free speech.

In Thomasson v. Perry, for example, the court upheld the discharge of the service member in that case based upon the mere statement that the plaintiff was a homosexual. Despite the plaintiff’s arguments that the dismissal violated his First Amendment rights, that court held that the statute did not target the speech or the professed viewpoint of homosexuality. Instead, “it targets homosexual acts and the propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, and permissibly uses the speech as
evidence.” And so the homosexual viewpoint is not the cause of the dismissal, but rather only evidence leading to dismissal, which basically means that the law does not discriminate based upon a homosexual viewpoint.

Also, courts have recognized that First Amendment rights in the military may be more restricted than those rights in a civilian context.

Just some food for thought.
12:34 AM on 10/17/2010
thought?
02:05 AM on 10/17/2010
Yes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
11:19 AM on 10/16/2010
If Congress passed a law re-establishing Segregation of Blacks in public schools, would Obama say that it was up to Congress to change its mind?

Segregation is morally evil, but DADT is far worst than segregation it is Exclusion. Gays are not sent off to a Gay Only unit like the military used to do with Blacks; it kicks them out altogether. We are Excluded.

Obama finds Segregation of Blacks from Whites to be unconstitutional but he does not believe that Exclusion of Gays is unconstitutional. Obama does not see that Gays have any constitutional rights; for him, Gays only have the rights which Congress may from time to time allow them to have.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:20 PM on 10/16/2010
"If Congress passed a law re-establishing Segregation of Blacks in public schools, would Obama say that it was up to Congress to change its mind?"

Probably. I mean what are the blacks going to to? Vote Republican?

Obama doesn't care about blacks anymore than he cares about gays. The only thing he cares about is himself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:57 AM on 10/16/2010
It seems Obama believes that progressives suffer from beaten-wife syndrome when he addresses progressives -- expecting us to support him and the Democrats as he viciously smacks us around. Equally abhorrent is his condenscending attitude -- dealing with progressives as if we're stupid. If Obama couldn't get "don't ask, don't tell" and the "offense to marriage act" repealed on "his watch" when he had 59 Senators in the Senate Democratic Caucus and an 80 vote Democratic majority in the House, how can we possibly believe he'll get those despicable, anti-American, homophobic acts repealed with one or both Houses under Republican control, or, at best, slim majorities in both Houses?The answer -- he can't and he knows it. But he relies on progressives continuing to suffer from "wife beating" syndrome so that we'll vote for him even though he beats us.He's come out of the closet as a homophobe by authorizing the "don't ask, don't tell" and "offense to marriage act" appeals. He had already come out of the closet as a warmongerer sanctioning the deaths of young Americans, Afghans and Iraqis by expending a trillion, depression-deepening, deficit-ballooning dollars for those anti-US interests wars and his funding of a bloated defense budget that is greater than the combined defense budgets of the next 14 most powerful nations in the world.Obama is out of the closet -- a raging homophobe, denying his homophobia while he personally denies gays the right to serve in the military or get married.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
banjokuzi
12:15 AM on 10/21/2010
vote palin
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pingufan
NJ "Blue Dog" Prolife Dem
10:11 AM on 10/16/2010
It's about time that the Congress has its feet held to the fire, and pass legislation that will end this travesty.
08:29 AM on 10/16/2010
A 'post-it' note composed with a stroke of the pen and reading: " Don't appeal ! " , swiftly conveyed to the legal muffins lounging on standby duty over at the Justice Dept. would indeed do the righteous trick as far as DADT is concerned, despite what our ever evasive Prez contends. His ultra- lame, ' I can't this do all by myself ...' approach kinda' reminds me of the 'Little Engine That Could'... BEFORE the diminutive locomotive got his sh*t together and chugged on up that mountain. Unfortunately, our guy doesn't look like he's gonna' get off the dime and do the right thing here even if we all start chanting, " We know you can , we know you can..." . What's his prob? For awhile, I thought he was just suffering from a bad case of Cliche -dependency, maybe something a couple months at the Betty Ford Center could help get rid of... but now I figure he's the disingenuous unreal deal, a sad sack combination of Willy Loman and Ronald Reagan. Arrggghhh. - John A. Joslin ( Detroit)
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
liberal123
06:21 AM on 10/16/2010
To all the posters who say that Obama is compelled to enforce the law and have the DOJ appeal this ruling - - you're wrong. Here is a link to a Palm Center legal analysis that explains why Obama could have decided to direct the DOJ not to appeal:

http://rennacommunications.com/file_download/42

To all the posters asserting that Obama couldn't have suspended enforcement of DADT via executive order (pending legislative repeal) - you're wrong. A panel of experts on military law at the Palm Center determined that he could have.
photo
shothot
same, same, but different
06:32 PM on 10/17/2010
You've missed the point. But then, explaining it would give you cause for replying, and I sincerely beleive 'it is what it is with you". Think you could be blinded by the light.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
liberal123
10:42 PM on 10/17/2010
believe, not beleive
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AnotherTry
Tell me again why we can't be equal?
03:58 AM on 10/16/2010
This president has ZERO game. What is more important: ending discrimination or following the rules that have been broken by ever administration that has preceded this one?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScapeGoat
Facts are stubborn things. Science Rocks!
08:58 PM on 10/15/2010
There is actually a legal reason for him to appeal the ruling:

See Rachel Maddow:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39679402