DEMS Duck DADT for Another 2 Years.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
Merry Christmas! Dems Duck DADT
This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.
Jim Burroway
December 26th, 2008

How’s this for a Christmas present? The Roll Call is reporting that Congressional Democrats have decided to delay taking up the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for at least two years — that would be after the mid-term elections:

Key Democrats — even openly gay lawmakers — are quietly conceding to letting another two years go by before trying to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the controversial 1993 law banning openly gay people from serving in the military. Most fear that moving too quickly on such a divisive issue could backfire, and most would rather tread lightly, at least in the early months of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

<snip>


Democratic lawmakers regularly beg off questions about the contentious policy, arguing that other issues are far more important — such as winding down the war in Iraq or bolstering the economy. They also remember the political uproar when then-President Bill Clinton used the beginning of his presidency to try to overturn an outright ban on gays serving in the military. That effort tied his administration in knots in his first months in office, and Democrats fear a repeat performance.”

<snip>

The country has chanced a lot in the past fifteen years since DADT was put into effect. But the Dems haven’t. They’re just as cowardly as they always were, this time spooked by a fifteen-year-old ghost.

The Democratic party holds a commanding presence in the House, and a very strong one in the Senate. If they wait two years, we’re looking at after the mid-term elections — when the ruling party typically loses seats. After that, we’ll hear the predictable counsel that DADT will not be doable with the more conservative Congress. This is the strongest position the Democratic party is likely to be in for some time. As one famous politician who had no fear of shaking things up often asked, if not now, when?

And where is the HRC on this? Oh, I see. They’re fully on board with the timid wait-and-see approach. Are they representing our interests here? Or the Democratic Party’s?

<snip>

story via queerty: http://www.queerty.com/

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol'y+953#H1N6

Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Military
8/22/2008 11:16:00 AM

Cited: 14 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 953
<*pg 953>
SEXUALLY SPEAKING: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SHANNON GILREATH*

The "Defense is Different" argument is essentially a rationale for allowing government actions that would otherwise be blatantly unconstitutional, on the grounds that (1) the military is a very special environment requiring an especial surrender of personal liberty and (2) military officials have superior expertise to determine how the proper balance between uniformity and personal liberty is struck.45 Courts often embrace this argument through a policy of judicial deference to military decision-making -- even in the face of a constitutional challenge. Thus, any claim that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be declared unconstitutional as a violation of First Amendment speech rights will be more difficult than a similar challenge made outside the military context. However, no court has held that deference to the military is limitless.46

As it stands, the only soldiers who may speak in favor of the ability of gays and lesbians to live authentic lives while serving their country are straight soldiers, or gays who are secreting their authentic selves. It is a curious debate indeed when the only people prohibited from debating are the victims of the policy the debate addresses...

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ensures that the only viewpoint missing in the debate is the point of view of the gay or lesbian service member. But the central contribution of the First Amendment to American society is that it ensures every viewpoint has a chance to be heard. Surely, this philosophy is why the courts have held that viewpoint discrimination -- the very kind of discrimination wrought by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- is the greatest of First Amendment sins.43

At bottom, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is bigotry. And of course, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is extreme censorship --including censorship of speech that goes to the very heart of the First Amendment. That should be no surprise: hatred, intolerance, and suppression of speech have gone hand-in-hand throughout history. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" tells Americans that the very expression of a gay or lesbian identity is disgusting. It sends the message that, because gays are so disgusting, straight soldiers will not want to work with them and should not be required to do so. It provides a legal "heckler's veto" for service members who do not want to hear the unpleasant realities of a sexually-diverse America.

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336

Also see: Problem with Gays in the Military for relevant information on this subject.

>>We keep hearing about personnel losses that have occurred since 1994 when military personnel announce that they are homosexual, and are honorably discharged. In comparison to discharges for other reasons, such as pregnancy or violations of weight standards, these numbers are relatively small. <14> They could be reduced to near-zero if the Defense Department stopped issuing misleading information about the eligibility of homosexuals to serve in uniform. The routine inquiry about homosexuality can and should be reinstated now; no additional legislation is required. <<

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol'y+953#H1N6

Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Military
8/22/2008 11:16:00 AM

Cited: 14 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 953
<*pg 953>
SEXUALLY SPEAKING: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SHANNON GILREATH*


A couple of years ago, a good friend of mine, a man who is involved with a male enlisted member of the military, watched his partner leave for Iraq. Naturally, my friend and his partner are involved in a very discreet relationship because of the military's ban on openly gay service members -- the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. My friend phoned me to express how painful their parting was. Interestingly, the most stinging part for my friend was his detachment from the heterocentric drama unfolding around him at the military base. Everywhere he looked, it seemed, opposite-sex couples embraced, and some wept openly and kissed. But as the transport carrying my friend's partner of five years left Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he could only stare silently. My friend and his partner could not share one last embrace or one last goodbye kiss because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Such public displays of same-sex affection trigger separation proceedings under current military regulations.1

At that same time, across the country in Washington State, Major Margaret Witt was finding herself at the mercy of those same regulations.2 In 2004, the military began separation proceedings against Witt -- a reservist and decorated nineteen-year veteran with the Air Force -- when an anonymous tip revealed that she was in a long-term lesbian relationship. By all accounts, Witt was an exemplary service member. She was a stellar operating-room and flight nurse; President Bush awarded her the Air Medal for service in the Middle East and, later, the Air Force Commendation Medal. Even as the military scrambled to find qualified nurses to fill open positions, Witt was discharged.

In 2006, a federal district judge dismissed the suit that Witt brought to get her job back. Witt argued that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was unconstitutional "as applied" to her, and that Lawrence v. Texas3 and United States v. Marcum4 <*pg 954> established a liberty interest in the off-base private conduct for which she was punished. The judge disagreed:

<snip>
Having arrived at the appropriate level of scrutiny, why does "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fail to pass muster? The government has consistently argued two reasons why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is necessary for the function of the military: privacy of the soldier and unit cohesion. Each of these reasons amounts to a lot of puffing. Certainly, they do not amount to compelling interests accomplished by the narrowly-tailored means required by the First Amendment when quintessentially political expression is targeted because of its message.

<snip?

Professor Tobias Wolff explored a related point in his assessment of the scope of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which he concluded reached far beyond the <*pg 961> military setting.35 Wolff details the case of Steve May. From 1999 to 2002, May, a gay man, served as a Representative in the Arizona legislature.36 While on reserve status in the Army Reserves, May rose to challenge a particularly virulent anti-gay speech by another legislator, who supported a bill that would prohibit state agencies from providing domestic partnership benefits to same-sex employees.37 In his speech on the floor of the Arizona House, May employed a very effective rhetorical tool: He explained why the anti-gay bill was a bad idea and offered himself, a stable, successful, non-promiscuous, state Representative as the foil to the picture of gays as depraved moral degenerates painted by the opposing Representative.38 This courage cost May his position in the military. Just a few months later, based upon his speech, the military began separation proceedings against May.39 The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy's unlimited scope, applying "24 hours each day" to expression "on or off base" and "on duty or off duty,"40 reached even the political speech of an elected representative of the people of Arizona.41

May's story is a drastic example of the damage that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does to the public debate about what is perhaps the defining civil rights issue of our day -- equality for gays and lesbians in the United States