'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
10+ Year Member
Federal judge rules 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is unconstitutional
Gays, military: Federal judge calls 'don't ask, don't tell' policy unconstitutional - latimes.com

The judge plans to issue an injunction preventing the government from barring openly gay service members. The Justice Dept., which defended the policy during the trial, can appeal the decision.

A federal judge in Riverside on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional, saying the "don't ask, don't tell" policyviolates the 1st Amendment and due process rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy does not preserve military readiness, contrary to what Justice Department attorneys and many supporters have argued, because evidence shows that the policy in fact has had a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the Justice Department, which defended "don't ask, don't tell" during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.
Thursday's ruling came in a case filed in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay GOP political organization. It is the first successful legal challenge to the policy since Congress enacted it in 1993.

In her 85-page ruling, Phillips offered a scathing critique of the ban on gays serving openly. She noted that the military has since permitted more convicted felons to enlist and that both President Obama and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have called for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

The judge found convincing evidence that the military's own actions showed that having gays and lesbians in the service did nothing to impede military capabilities. The branches have routinely delayed discharging service members suspected of violating the policy until they have completed their deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the number of discharges has declined significantly since the start of the Afghanistan war in 2001.

Phillips said the evidence showed that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy had harmed military capabilities. The policy has hindered recruiting efforts, led to the discharge of service members the military considers "critical" — including medical professionals and Arabic and Persian linguists — and has caused the military to enlist recruits who earlier would have been rejected because of their criminal records or lack of education or because they were out of shape, she said.

The policy also violates the right to free speech because heterosexual service members are free to state their sexual orientation, while homosexuals face discharge if they do the same, she said.

The ruling comes just over a month after a federal judge in San Francisco tossed out California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, providing back-to-back victories for gay rights advocates seeking policy changes in the courts that have eluded them in Congress and at the ballot box.

"As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane 'don't ask, don't tell' statute violates the Constitution," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican service members, but all American service members."

Justice Department officials did not provide a response to the ruling Thursday.

Former President Clinton, who nominated Phillips to the federal bench in 1999, adopted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1993 as a reform to the military's practice of seeking out and discharging gays and lesbians. Under the policy, as long as gays and lesbians keep their sexual orientation secret, they are allowed to serve.

More than 13,000 service members have been discharged under the policy.

Phillips' ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" that remains stalled in the Senate despite support from Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.

"I think it's a very, very interesting and sound opinion, and I think it will place a lot of pressure on Congress to move on this issue," said constitutional scholar Kenji Yoshino of the New York University School of Law. "From a gay rights perspective, it's a very exciting development."

Yoshino predicted the case would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if Congress fails to act.

Obama has called the ban a threat to national security, and the House of Representatives in May passed legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" if an ongoing Pentagon study determines that the military can adapt to the change without harming defense readiness.

Despite Obama's criticism of the policy, the Justice Department vigorously defended it.

During the trial, Justice Department attorney Paul G. Freeborne argued that Congress — not a federal court — should have the authority and the responsibility to enact military policy.

The sole evidence presented by the Justice Department was the legislative history of the ban, which federal government lawyers argued showed the policy was properly adopted by Congress though a deliberative and reasoned political process. No witnesses were called.

Conversely, attorneys for Log Cabin Republicans called to the stand several decorated military officers discharged for their sexual orientation, including Air Force Maj. Michael Almy. Almy, deployed three times to Iraq, said his commanding officer attempted to force him to admit he was a homosexual after another service member, without permission, searched Almy's private e-mail and found a message discussing homosexual conduct. After fighting his dismissal for 16 months, he agreed to accept an honorable discharge.

"Now, with this ruling, all Americans will be able to serve in our country's armed forces without regard to their sexual orientation. This is an extremely important precedent," said Dan Woods, a Los Angeles-based attorney at the White & Case law firm representing the Log Cabin Republicans.

Woods said he would vigorously fight any attempt to stay the judge's injunction barring enforcement of the policy.

"If there was a stay, homosexuals would be denied their constitutional rights while they are fighting and dying for our country," he said.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
A Judge Lauded as No-Nonsense and Scholarly
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11judge.html

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
September 10, 2010

As a judge in the busy federal courthouse in Riverside, Calif., Virginia A. Phillips has presided over a rich and varied parade of cases through the years.

She overturned the conviction of a man accused of murdering his mother, and awarded damages to a nurse who was fired from a public health clinic for refusing to distribute contraceptives for religious reasons. She has handled trials of Ponzi schemers and civil suits by police officers whose superiors put hidden cameras in their locker room.

Through them all, she has maintained a relatively low profile — until Thursday, that is, when she declared the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law governing gay and bisexual members of the military unconstitutional.

“Honestly, I did not expect it to get as much attention as it did,” Judge Phillips said. “During the course of the case, there wasn’t a lot of attention paid to it.”

In her 86-page opinion, she called the law, passed by Congress in 1993, an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantees of substantive due process.

Though the law is nearly 17 years old, the challenge has been building for some time, said Casey Pick, a lawyer who serves as a programs officer for Log Cabin Republicans, which brought the suit.

The law has been challenged in the past by people who claimed that their own dismissals were unfair. This, however, was the first suit to challenge the law on its face, she said.

The lawsuit, Ms. Pick said, became viable only after a 2003 Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which declared a state sodomy law unconstitutional as a violation of substantive due process rights.

The opinion defined that right in the context of the Texas law as the “autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.”

Ms. Pick said that the case “changed the legal status of lesbian and gay relationships” under the law so that they were protected.

With a right to “intimate conduct” established, Log Cabin Republicans saw an opportunity to take on don’t ask, don’t tell, and assembled plaintiffs and a case.

That lawsuit was filed in 2004, made its way through procedural twists and turns for several years, was argued in July and ruled on Thursday. Judge Phillips, 53, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, cited the Lawrence opinion prominently.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, law school, called the decision “stunning in its thoroughness,” and lauded the judge’s “careful job of explaining why don’t ask, don’t tell violates both due process and the First Amendment.”

Others were not as impressed. Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in a statement, “Once again, homosexual activists have found a judicial activist that will aid in the advancement of their agenda.”

But Judge Phillips is anything but an ideologue, said Arthur Littleworth, her mentor at the Best, Best & Krieger law firm early in her career. “She is balanced,” he said.

Mr. Littleworth recalled being impressed with the quality of a “scholarly treatise” that Judge Phillips wrote on the power of the federal government in a major water-rights case, and noted that “now, in this current case, she held for the rights of the individual.”

Colleagues say that Judge Phillips devotes long hours to her caseload.

“She’s just one of the hardest-working judges I know,” said Stephen G. Larson, who served on the federal bench with her in Riverside for 10 years before returning to private practice last year. “No matter how early I came in, no matter how late I stayed, her car would still be there.”

Appearing in her courtroom can be a daunting experience, said William J. Genego, who represented Bruce Lisker, the man wrongfully convicted on the basis of tainted evidence in 1985 of killing his mother, and who was released after 26 years in prison. “She’s a very strict, no-nonsense judge who is always completely prepared, and expects the same from the lawyers who appear before her,” he said. “If she gets anything less, you will know it.”

Bruce E. Disenhouse, the lawyer who represented the health clinic in the case of the nurse who refused to provide birth control to patients, said: “Every now and then there’ll be some levity in her courtroom, but it’s rare. I don’t think you can put a label on Judge Phillips. She does what she believes the law directs her to do.”

Virginia Ettinger Phillips was reared in Orange County, Calif., the fourth of eight children. Her father worked in the burgeoning world of theme parks as a marketing director for Disneyland and then for Universal Studios and Sea World.

Judge Phillips, a widow, lives with two wire-haired fox terriers, Mick and Taffy — she refers to them as “my walking enforcers” who help prepare her for the annual vacation, when she and a group of friends enjoy European walking tours. Members of the group have trekked in Ireland, France, Italy and elsewhere.

Judge Phillips said she loved serving at the level of federal trial court, which provides “the variety of human drama — every day, there’s a new case.”

And so, she says, it should not be so surprising that she was surprised by the reception to Thursday’s decision.

“This may sound corny,” she said. “I really try to treat every case as the most important case. Because it is the most important case to the parties involved.”
 
about time already. i'm troubled by assertions on this matter and on the matter of torture, whereby some try to assert that the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction n that the US military is solely under the purview of the Executive with a smidge of Congressional oversight. pure bullshit, the Tri-Partite system is governing in all aspects of the Federal system. Congress makes the Law, the President enforces it, and the Courts ultimately say what the law means and strike down lesser laws that conflict with our primordial laws derived from the US Consitution.
 
about time already. i'm troubled by assertions on this matter and on the matter of torture, whereby some try to assert that the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction n that the US military is solely under the purview of the Executive with a smidge of Congressional oversight. pure bullshit, the Tri-Partite system is governing in all aspects of the Federal system. Congress makes the Law, the President enforces it, and the Courts ultimately say what the law means and strike down lesser laws that conflict with our primordial laws derived from the US Consitution.

I WISH the courts struck down laws that conflict with the Constitution. Since the Marshall court this has definitively not been the case. As Jefferson and Madison reminded us in 1798 the Tri-Partite system is a falsehood. The final arbiter of the Constitution has always been the states. Even the anit-Federalists admitted defeat. If the federal government over-reaches its power, the states have recourse - it's called nullification and has been successfully used in the past. You don't hear about it in school because the federal government most stridently does not want you to know about it. However, it is now making a comeback with the use of nullification for the REAL ID act, medicinal marijuana, and soon it will be healthcare. Texas is already kicking off a nullification battle with the EPA with a letter worded so strongly that EPA lawyers said a state had not spit in the federal government's face in this way in over two hundred years. With the arrival of Tom Wood's Nullification - How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, people are finally beginning to understand how the SCOTUS has absconded with our rights through loose interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. Historically it was made clear to the states during ratification that NONE of these clauses would lead to a stronger federal power.

The federal government has only certain enumerated powers. If the ultimate decision by the SCOTUS is to grant the Congress and President unlimited power then why would there be a need for enumerated powers to begin with. This is a question most people do not ask. They are also not aware that the meme of federal supremacy is false.

I also wonder how many people know that a Sheriff has more authority in his country than any federal official? Even over the FBI or CIA or any other agency? Sheriff Mack understands this and many other Sheriff's are picking up on this as well. It's about time.
 
I WISH the courts struck down laws that conflict with the Constitution. Since the Marshall court this has definitively not been the case. As Jefferson and Madison reminded us in 1798 the Tri-Partite system is a falsehood. The final arbiter of the Constitution has always been the states. Even the anit-Federalists admitted defeat. If the federal government over-reaches its power, the states have recourse - it's called nullification and has been successfully used in the past. You don't hear about it in school because the federal government most stridently does not want you to know about it. However, it is now making a comeback with the use of nullification for the REAL ID act, medicinal marijuana, and soon it will be healthcare. Texas is already kicking off a nullification battle with the EPA with a letter worded so strongly that EPA lawyers said a state had not spit in the federal government's face in this way in over two hundred years. With the arrival of Tom Wood's Nullification - How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, people are finally beginning to understand how the SCOTUS has absconded with our rights through loose interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. Historically it was made clear to the states during ratification that NONE of these clauses would lead to a stronger federal power.

The federal government has only certain enumerated powers. If the ultimate decision by the SCOTUS is to grant the Congress and President unlimited power then why would there be a need for enumerated powers to begin with. This is a question most people do not ask. They are also not aware that the meme of federal supremacy is false.

I also wonder how many people know that a Sheriff has more authority in his country than any federal official? Even over the FBI or CIA or any other agency? Sheriff Mack understands this and many other Sheriff's are picking up on this as well. It's about time.

ur position is shortcircuited by the first Civil War, and despite the whole Tea Party/Black-President-named-Hussein present confluence, ur really not talking about Revolution across all these threads...ur talking about mere Insurrection.

one wins, one loses. we're not at the stage of Revolution yet.
 
ur position is shortcircuited by the first Civil War, and despite the whole Tea Party/Black-President-named-Hussein present confluence, ur really not talking about Revolution across all these threads...ur talking about mere Insurrection.

one wins, one loses. we're not at the stage of Revolution yet.

Not even close. The first Civil War was NOT fought over slavery or in the name of keeping the union together. The first person to expose this was Lerone Bennett, Jr. - long-time editor of Ebony magazine. Many other have picked up on this since. Read all the details here: Wolves of Liberty | Category Archive | Education-History. Start with part 1. And nullification is not insurrection. You want to debate Jefferson and Madison I'll take them over you every time. Nullification has been used historically and is nothing but a forgotten tool of the states. Lincoln did not end that practice.

The fact that ratification of the 14th amendment was a requirement for Confederate States to re-enter the union puts to rest the lie the Civil War was about holding the Union together. Lincoln was, and has been shown conclusively, to be a tyrant. If the Union won the war then ipso facto the Confederate States could never have left the union IF that was the purpose of the war. So why force ratification unless one was willing or just did not care if the uncomfortable truth that the war had nothing to do with holding the Union together was exposed? And it was not a Civil War. A Civil war is a war where two sides fight for control over a single government. This is another misnomer It was a War for Southern Independence. Remember the Revolutionary War? It was also a war for independence. Lincoln is on record stating that states should have the right to resist federal intrusion into their lives - when it suited him.

That Britain was able to solve the issue of slavery without firing a shot is proof that we could have done the same. The above link puts to rest that Lincoln cared about slavery at all - it was a tool for him. The fact that Marx and Hitler pay homage to Lincoln should raise one's eyebrows as well. Not to mention that the Chinese leader quoted Lincoln to Clinton when discussing the issue of Taiwan. Hmmm.....

Question: Who did the emancipation proclamation free? Southern slaves, norther slaves, or both. Answer: only Southern slaves and it was signed only when the north needed new troops to turn the tide. Lerone Bennett, Jr. - who even Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson won't dare debate - clearly shows, as does the post above, that Lincoln was a virulent racist.

The mask is coming off the tyrant president. The question remains are you willing to open your eyes to the facts or just swallow the standard narrative hook, line, and sinker.

A little research next time before regurgitating the Civil War talking points.
 
Not even close. The first Civil War was NOT fought over slavery or in the name of keeping the union together. The first person to expose this was Lerone Bennett, Jr. - long-time editor of Ebony magazine. Many other have picked up on this since. Read all the details here: Wolves of Liberty | Category Archive | Education-History. Start with part 1. And nullification is not insurrection. You want to debate Jefferson and Madison I'll take them over you every time. Nullification has been used historically and is nothing but a forgotten tool of the states. Lincoln did not end that practice.

The fact that ratification of the 14th amendment was a requirement for Confederate States to re-enter the union puts to rest the lie the Civil War was about holding the Union together. Lincoln was, and has been shown conclusively, to be a tyrant. If the Union won the war then ipso facto the Confederate States could never have left the union IF that was the purpose of the war. So why force ratification unless one was willing or just did not care if the uncomfortable truth that the war had nothing to do with holding the Union together was exposed? And it was not a Civil War. A Civil war is a war where two sides fight for control over a single government. This is another misnomer It was a War for Southern Independence. Remember the Revolutionary War? It was also a war for independence. Lincoln is on record stating that states should have the right to resist federal intrusion into their lives - when it suited him.

That Britain was able to solve the issue of slavery without firing a shot is proof that we could have done the same. The above link puts to rest that Lincoln cared about slavery at all - it was a tool for him. The fact that Marx and Hitler pay homage to Lincoln should raise one's eyebrows as well. Not to mention that the Chinese leader quoted Lincoln to Clinton when discussing the issue of Taiwan. Hmmm.....

Question: Who did the emancipation proclamation free? Southern slaves, norther slaves, or both. Answer: only Southern slaves and it was signed only when the north needed new troops to turn the tide. Lerone Bennett, Jr. - who even Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson won't dare debate - clearly shows, as does the post above, that Lincoln was a virulent racist.

The mask is coming off the tyrant president. The question remains are you willing to open your eyes to the facts or just swallow the standard narrative hook, line, and sinker.

A little research next time before regurgitating the Civil War talking points.

:D ah, the mask comes off the 'hyperlibertarian'. "Lincoln was a tyrant, so was Teddy, FDR should have let Hitler have Europe etc etc". no wonder ur spouting off.
 
:D ah, the mask comes off the 'hyperlibertarian'. "Lincoln was a tyrant, so was Teddy, FDR should have let Hitler have Europe etc etc". no wonder ur spouting off.

I'm so far from being a Libertarian its not even funny. Limited government yes, nonintervention no. The later disqualifies me as a libertarian.

And I don't see a refutation of any of my points. Are you agreeing that the Founders intended for a strong central power. Make your case and I will gladly tear it apart.
 
Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell
Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

October 12th, 2010

A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy on Tuesday.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

The judge had previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members Fifth Amendment rights but delayed issuing the injunction.

The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

An appeal by the Department of Justice is anticipated.


Federal Judge Blocks Military From Enforcing DADT
Federal Judge Blocks Military From Enforcing DADT | TPMMuckraker


As promised, a federal judge has issued an injunction blocking the military from enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Judge Virginia Philips last month found the policy unconstitutional in her ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans and said she would issue an injunction blocking the Defense Department from enforcing the policy and discharging openly gay servicemembers.

The Justice Department objected.

"A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe," attorneys said in their objection, filed in U.S. District Court in California.

In her injunction today, Philips ordered the DOD "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Act."

She also wrote that DADT "infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers."

In an amended opinion filed with the injunction, Philips wrote that although "judicial deference" to Congress is at its peak concerning the armed forces, "deference does not mean abdication."

A spokeswoman for the DOJ said the department is reviewing the injunction and has no comment.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
I'm so far from being a Libertarian its not even funny. Limited government yes, nonintervention no. The later disqualifies me as a libertarian.

And I don't see a refutation of any of my points. Are you agreeing that the Founders intended for a strong central power. Make your case and I will gladly tear it apart.

i am "agreeing" that Hamilton won out over Jefferson as regards a strong Federal entity...i'm also agreeing with the proposition that u tend to flail when cornered. u declared nullification to be the ultimate trump card for States to play against DC, Dr. Scally cited for u the SCOTUS decision rejecting nullification when certain States attempted to fight desegregation, and u retreated to the idea that nullification would 2nd or 3rd option for States to reject universal healthcare legislation.

i have my doubts that u could tear up a sheet of kleenex. :)

Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell
Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

October 12th, 2010

A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy on Tuesday.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

The judge had previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members Fifth Amendment rights but delayed issuing the injunction.

The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

An appeal by the Department of Justice is anticipated.


Federal Judge Blocks Military From Enforcing DADT
Federal Judge Blocks Military From Enforcing DADT | TPMMuckraker


As promised, a federal judge has issued an injunction blocking the military from enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Judge Virginia Philips last month found the policy unconstitutional in her ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans and said she would issue an injunction blocking the Defense Department from enforcing the policy and discharging openly gay servicemembers.

The Justice Department objected.

"A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe," attorneys said in their objection, filed in U.S. District Court in California.

In her injunction today, Philips ordered the DOD "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Act."

She also wrote that DADT "infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers."

In an amended opinion filed with the injunction, Philips wrote that although "judicial deference" to Congress is at its peak concerning the armed forces, "deference does not mean abdication."

A spokeswoman for the DOJ said the department is reviewing the injunction and has no comment.

i'm glad to see the judicial order was issued, and that the LCR took a significant lead role...i wish they could have done it years ago however.:cool:
 
I served. There is no room for (any) sexuality in the armed forces. It will of course slip through, but efforts should made to keep it contained.

There were gays, they kept it under wraps. Things ran smooth(er) that way.
 
I dont belive in putting anyone down because of there sexuality its a personal choice . But i strongly belive moraly that man and wife adam and eve not adam and steve....
 
DOJ Asks For Stay Of DADT Injunction Pending Appeal
DOJ Asks For Stay Of DADT Injunction Pending Appeal | TPMMuckraker

[While this might be confusing to many, this is the proper path for the eventual overturning of DADT. In a nutshell, a ruling by a District Court, both state and federal, have little to no precedential value, really zero. This case needs to be appealed to have any authority. This is also true for the PPACA.]

October 15, 2010

The Department of Justice today asked a federal judge to allow the military to continue enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, pending the DOJ's appeal.

The federal government filed the request with Judge Virginia Philips, who earlier this weekordered the military to stop enforcing DADT, to stay her injunction pending appeal.

The DOJ also filed a notice of appeal, meaning they will appeal the ruling. According to court documents, the lawyers say they may also seek to expedite appeal.

The DOJ, in its request, points out early on that President Obama supports the repeal of DADT.

"The President strongly supports repeal of the DADT statute that the Court has found
unconstitutional, a position shared by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," it reads.

"As the President has stated previously, the Administration does not support the DADT statute as a matter of policy and strongly supports its repeal. However, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here," it says.

But, the government argues, instituting repeal abruptly would disrupt the Pentagon's ongoing policy review of DADT, to be completed in December.

"The immediate implementation of the injunction would disrupt this review and frustrate the Secretary's ability to recommend and implement policies that would ensure that any repeal of DADT does not irreparably harm the government's critical interests in military readiness, combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, good order, discipline, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces," the request reads. "Accordingly, a stay should be entered while defendants appeal the Court's entry of a worldwide injunction."

"The precipitous changes to military policy required by the Court's injunction would result in a host of significant and immediate harms to the recognized public interest in ensuring that the Nation has strong and effective military operations," the government argues.

In the request, the DOJ says if it doesn't get a stay by noon Pacific Time on Monday, it will file for a stay with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear any potential appeal.

You can read the request, and the proposed order, here:
 

Attachments

OPINION
Yoav Sivan
November/December 2010

Israelis Don’t Ask. They Tell
http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2010/12/Opinion-Sivan.html

America’s controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy has led to the dismissal of 13,500 uniformed men and women since 1993. Although the policy seems destined to change, myriad political obstacles remain.

The United States could learn from Israel’s experience as one of the first countries to integrate gays into the military. If you tried to enact a law like DADT in Israel today, you’d be laughed out of the Knesset. Whether or not they’re asked, Israelis tell. But it hasn’t always been that way. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had to go through its own “coming out” process.

While gays and lesbians have doubtless served in the IDF since its founding, they generally flew under the radar. Homosexuality was frowned upon in Israeli society and seldom discussed in the state’s earlier days. Although there was no specific prohibition against serving, soldiers discovered to be gay were usually discharged. Starting in 1983, they were allowed to serve but were required to undergo psychiatric evaluations and denied security clearances. These rules were implemented arbitrarily and inconsistently.

When the media released a photograph of a soldier—wearing his uniform—literally coming out of a closet constructed for Israel’s first gay pride event in 1993, the soldier was tried in a military court and forced to leave his unit. In February of that year, things began to change. The Knesset held its first hearing on gays in the military, where Uzi Even, the chairman of Tel Aviv University’s chemistry department, testified that he had been fired from his top secret position in Israel’s nuclear facilities because he was openly living with a man. The fact that he was dismissed after 15 years of service created a national outcry and inspired Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin to rethink the policy. Within three months, then-IDF chief of staff Ehud Barak signed the command banning military discrimination based on sexual orientation into law.

The next milestone came in 1998, a result of Adir Steiner’s battle for recognition as the widower of Colonel Doron Maisel. Maisel, who became a commander in the medical corps despite his sexuality, had died in 1991. Steiner’s lengthy legal campaign forced authorities to ascribe him status in official commemoration of his late partner and to endow him with substantial financial benefits and pension rights. The Steiner case cemented the army’s commitment to gays in two sensitive areas: memory and money.

The speed at which the policy has changed indicates that constantly embattled Israelis feel as if they have bigger fish to fry than squabbling over gays in the military. When then-editor of The Forward Seth Lipsky asked Ariel Sharon, a former general and minister of defense, for his take on gays in the army in the early 1990s, the question brought a “quizzical look to his face,” Lipsky wrote. Sharon had to ask an aide, “What is our policy on gays?” The aide didn’t know either. When Uzi Even was sworn in as the first openly gay member of the Knesset almost a decade later, the prime minister who warmly welcomed him was Ariel Sharon.

Indeed, the story of how the Israeli army opened up to gays and lesbians in less than two decades exemplifies how this seemingly rigid institution serves as an unlikely agent of progress. As a conscription army, the IDF theoretically mirrors Israeli society at large, but being that most Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews are excluded from the draft, progressives may be over-represented. America’s volunteer army, on the other hand, draws significantly on poorer economic classes. As a result, middle-class Americans come out while they are in college, while middle-class Israelis come out during military service.

I did not come out until my IDF service (between 1998-2001), despite having spent several years earning my degree at Tel Aviv University. When I became an officer in the navy headquarters, my peers, friends and even commanders helped me gradually step out of the closet. Unlike the American army, the Israeli army pushes its soldiers to shape it in their own image.

In 2002, the IDF’s reputation for diversity was bolstered by the film Yossi and Jagger, which recounted a love story between two male soldiers. But one should not mistake Israel’s progress with perfection. Homophobia and discrimination are still a challenge; we do not always hear about the privates who are bullied in non-elite units. Despite these imperfections, however, the United States can learn from Israel’s experience that inclusion serves both the army and society. Exclusionary policies make it difficult to recruit new soldiers and preserve valuable individuals. DADT, for example, has forced the dismissal of 700 people with “mission critical skills” like Arab linguists in the midst of two wars.

Proponents of DADT in the U.S. insist that Israel’s experience is not relevant because of organizational and cultural differences between the two armies, such as mandatory conscription. Study after study proves that these differences are irrelevant. Of the 25 countries that now have open military policies toward gays, not a single one has experienced the dreaded loss of morale or unit cohesion conjured by anti-gay politicians in America.

Yet emotionally-driven issues such as the common shower (that universal test of unit cohesion) preoccupy Americans. Federal Judge Virginia Phillips’s September 9th court ruling that DADT is unconstitutional cites, among other things, the fact that communal showers are increasingly rare in the American army. Israelis have a different perspective. Avner Even-Zohar, a retired IDF captain who lectures extensively on LGBT issues, says that “in officers' training in the Israeli army they told us that real soldiers hardly shower at all.”

Yoav Sivan is an Israeli journalist living in New York.
 
Back
Top