Last month a federal court judge ruled that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) is unconstitutional. It was a huge step forward. But now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has the option to appeal this ruling and turn back the progress we have made.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and I are leading a push to urge the Department of Justice to let the ruling stand. We've written a letter to the DOJ, and we are asking our fellow Senators to co-sign.
I need you to urge my colleagues to sign onto this letter.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an outmoded law that hurts our military readiness and is inconsistent with our values as Americans.
Yet a couple of weeks ago, the Senate Republicans filibustered the 2011 Defense Authorization Act — the bill which provides our fighting men and women with the resources to stay safe while fighting overseas — because they oppose repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Senator Gillibrand and I understand that only action by Congress can bring real finality to this issue. However, we believe an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back efforts in the Senate to repeal DADT.
We believe the most important factor the DOJ must weigh in deciding whether to appeal the judge's ruling is whether or not an appeal furthers a legitimate governmental interest.
Senator Gillibrand and I believe an appeal in this case does not.
Too many brave men and women have been hurt by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We must not lose one more service member because of this nonsensical law. As the judge ruled, DADT actually hurts our national security — and that is unacceptable at a time of two wars.
We need to reach 10,000 signatures to show our strength. Sign the petition to the DOJ today.
Follow Sen. Mark Udall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarkUdall
I'm a democrat. I used to be a proud one. But the lack of leadership over the last few years on this (and several other) issues is pathetic, and I'm holding on by a string.
Thank God for the courts because we sure as hell can't count on our elected officials.
Why not have Obama create the first "All Gay Brigade" and drop them in the Afghanistan or Iraq.. If they can kill as well as a straight soldier then let them in. If they can't well then our Afghan or Iraqi allies will gain a better fashion sense..
And if you people want to keep talking about the GOP obstructing everything then it just makes liberals look even more incompetent as liberals control both Congress and the White House.. If you can't pass all your liberal policies right now then you never will...
Why would you automatically assume that a gay person has an inabilty to "kill people or break things" (I'd have loved to see that defense used in the Gacy, Kunannan or Dahmer trials---"Your honor, please, this man is gay! Everyone knows they can't kill.")
As to your point about GOP obstruction and Democratic incompetence, re-read my post. We are on the same page there.
sad, really, that in order to serve these people have to compromise their integrity.
First of all thanks for your service to the country and keeping us safe .
Second of all just because you gave up rights willingly doesn't mean others should be discriminated against .
"When they decide that certain conduct (including sexual conduct) is a problem, so be it."
That is just if historical president wasn't enough that in every war and armed force in the worlds history there have been gays and has not been a problem there is also report after report done by our own military saying there is no measurable negative effect then why is this law still on the books .
It is archaic , discriminatory and an affront to everything the USA is supposed to stand for ! it is a denial of basic human rights and a slap in the face to everyday human decency !
Good for you Senator stand up for what you know is right and just !
Why is it when activists cannot get what they want from their elected legislative officials they attempt to force their way through the judicial branch?
And all civilized first world countries allow gays to serve openly.
He bravely refused to defend Proposition 8 in Court believing it was unconstitutional.
THAT is a fierce advocate.
Now compare that with our stand-for-nothing President who tacitly endorsed a vile and disgusting legal brief to uphold DOMA comparing gays to incest, pedophilia and bestiality -- signed off by HIS appointee in HIS Justice Department -- this in spite of a pledge for a COMPLETE repeal of DOMA.
He also refused to stop loss the soldiers getting discharged under DADT. In fact, instead of putting pressure on Maine's Senators not to filibuster he hid under his desk all day. Why didn't he go to Maine? Why did Lady Gaga have to be our "fierce advocate"?
Face it, the President is just another shady politician who played us.
I now think that whole vote last week where the President hid under his desk was just stage managed to get the GayTM to open again, not to actually pass DADT or do something that requires courage and leadership.
If the President were really a "fierce advocate" he would have long sinced stopped loss the soldiers getting discharged.
In any event, Jerry Brown has proven himself to be a genuine "fierce advocate". Don't waste your money or your time on Obama and his Obamapologists. Support REAL fierce advocates like Jerry Brown, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich.
Think of it this way: when you sign up for the military (like I did), you will inevitably forfeit several of your constitutional rights as a citizen. You will lose your right to due process (Captain's Mast has exactly as much process as the Captain wishes), you lose your right freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (in the barracks), you lose any right you may have expected to a safe workplace or to any quantity of time off... the list goes on forever.
Bottom line is, you're not a regular citizen with regular protections. Your job, your very existance, is first and foremost to protect and defend the country. Anything that gets in the way of that, as deemed by those appointed above you, is a problem. When they decide that certain conduct (including sexual conduct) is a problem, so be it.
If the court were to have the authority to make this decision, what practical limits does it have on setting rules or limits on military service? It would certainly have enough to effectively eliminate the country's military effectiveness; which may suit some people just fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to derail a body they would never volunteer to serve.
In ruling in favor of Major Witt, Judge Leighton -- same Judge Leighton that previously ruled AGAINST her in an earlier round before being asked to weigh the impact of the individual plaintiff -- ruled that it was her REMOVAL that caused the disruption to unit cohesion and effectiveness. The judge noted that the government presented NO EVIDENCE that her presence was disruptive, and presented NO EVIDENCE that her removal would further the military's own stated interests.
I thank you for your service, and would venture to guess that if you ever needed emergency medical assistance, say by a highly trained helicopter evac unit, you wouldn't first ask the sexual orientation of a one of 'em.
Your suggestion--that the military should be above the reach of a country's court (and therefore it's constitution)--has been the model for countless military coups in the past. Think Peronism.