DOJ asks judge to 'defer ruling' in DADT case because of legislation that hasn't passed and doesn't repeal the law

This is rich.

The Obama Department of Justice, which has aggressively defended the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell law is now arguing that a judge shouldn't rule in a DADT because of the legislation currently working its way through Congress. The problem with that is, of course, that the legislation 1) hasn't passed: 2) doesn't repeal DADT; and 3) no one, not even the Obama DOJ, can say when the discharges will end. DOJ notes, "The House and Senate bills contain identical language and are attached hereto Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, for the Court’s convenience and review." But, that ignores the Senate floor process where we know opponents of repeal intend to offer killer amendments. This brief reads like something a first-year law student wrote.

I find it interesting that the DOJ argues that the court should defer ruling in a case when the DOJ chooses to defend laws like DADT and DOMA when it's not absolutely necessary to defend those laws.

But, thats's our DOJ at work:

Congress's steps toward repeal of the ban on gays in the military should bring a halt to a federal lawsuit challenging the current policy, the Justice Department said in a legal brief filed Wednesday afternoon.

Though Congress has not yet passed a bill providing for conditional repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, government lawyers contend the prospect of such a measure's passage should be sufficient for the courts to stay out of the issue.

"Defendants urge this Court ... to stay all further proceedings in this case because the political branches have taken concrete steps to facilitate repeal of the DADT statute," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed in a suit brought in California by the Log Cabin Republicans.

Amendments to repeal the policy contingent on a report from the Pentagon that such a repeal could be implemented without significant adverse impact on the force passed the floor of the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 27. (While the underlying defense bill also passed the House, the full Senate has not voted on either the amendment or its version of the underlying bill.)

Read More...

Gay citizens with foreign partners make tough choices

A touching, and rather horrific, story about gay Americans and their foreign partners, and the lies they must tell in order to stay together. The first page of the story, in which a man's Korean partner was interrogated by the feds at O'Hare, is chilling. Read it.

Wonder what Fierce Advocate is doing to rectify this? Oh that's right, he "supports" the legislation. That's nice. How about lifting a finger to actually get it passed? Read More...

DOD vows to continue kicking out gay service members

It's not like they have anything better to do, like winning a few pending wars.

Let this be a clear warning to everyone: DADT has not been repealed, and the current compromise being debated in Congress won't repeal it either. The discharges are going to continue until the President figures out that he's actually the boss of the Secretary of Defense, and not the other way around. A little backbone would go a long way.

From SLDN:

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), responded today after a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to the Denver Post that investigations and discharges of gay and lesbian service members will continue. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson, said: "The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process." SLDN issued warnings to gay and lesbian service members before and after the recent House floor and Senate committee votes on an amendment that would allow for the repeal of the law. Gay and lesbian service members with questions are urged to contact the SLDN hotline:202-328-3244 x100 or email legal@sldn.org. Any service member with questions about DADT can schedule an appointment for free, confidential legal advice with an SLDN attorney.

“The Pentagon is being very clear that they will continue the discharges and gay and lesbian active-duty service members, including those in the reserves and the national guard, remain at risk,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “Even with the recent votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the discharges are continuing. Qualified men and women of our armed forces will continue to be fired from their jobs and it is putting our national security at risk. And even despite the new ‘more humane’ Pentagon Instructions, we are aware of an ‘O-7’ – a one-star general – signing off on a discharge very recently. Congress and the Pentagon need to stay on track to get repeal finalized, hopefully no later than first quarter 2011.”

Read More...

Big wins for openly gay candidates in yesterday's primaries

The Victory Fund has the list of candidates who won. Read More...

Skelton wants to keep DADT so 7-year-olds don't hear about 'the gays'

Senility comes to mind.

Ike Skelton, the 78 year old chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opposes repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in part because if we change the military's personnel policy, it might result in 7-year-olds hearing about gays in the news.

So let's get this straight, as it were. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee makes national defense policy based on the preferred dinner conversation of second graders. That's pretty pathetic. It's also pretty homophobic and bigoted, in addition to a tad demented.

But this goes beyond Skelton being a bit too old, and too bigoted, to have such an important committee chair. Skelton is the man who joined forces with Secretary Gates to screw President Obama two months on DADT . Skelton asked Gates for a letter saying that Gates didn't want Congress to do anything on DADT this year. They did this in order to undercut the President. And sadly, we're not done with Skelton yet. If the DADT compromise (weak as it is) passes the Senate some time over the next month, it will then need to be conferenced. In that conference, four men will be making the decision as to what to do with DADT: Levin & McCain (Senate Armed Services), and Skelton and McKeon (House Armed Services). The only one who isn't an avowed homophobe is Levin.

Skelton will continue to wreak havoc in our lives unless and until he's unseated in the fall, or Speaker Pelosi tells him to cut the crap. Read More...

Uganda Bishop 'blamed U.S. Christian evangelical groups Tuesday for fomenting anti-gay hatred'

The Ugandan anti-gay bill is making a come back and a Bishop from Uganda blames the religious right for pushing homophobia in his country:

A leading Anglican bishop who fled Uganda after receiving death threats blamed U.S. Christian evangelical groups Tuesday for fomenting anti-gay hatred in his native country.

"Often these visitors do more harm than good," Christopher Senyonjo told a conference on gay rights in Uganda sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress.

The Ugandan government is considering legislation that would impose a life sentence in prison or the death penalty on gays and lesbians convicted of having sex and on those diagnosed with HIV.

After signs last year that the government was backing away from the bill amid threats by Western countries to withdraw aid, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni last week told the New Vision, Uganda's leading pro-government newspaper, that he was asking the clergy and African leaders "to guard against Western culture, warning that the continent will end up eaten by homosexuality if they relax."

And, don't forget, the Family Research Council is lobbying against the resolution to condemn the execution of gays in Uganda. That can only mean one thing: FRC supports the death penalty for gays. I have no doubt that they'd support it in the U.S., too, if they could. Because, really, from their perspective, what other "solution" is there for homosexuality? Read More...

Prop. 8 news: Interview with Olson, closing arguments schedule and questions from the judge

Lots of Prop. 8 trial related news over the past couple days.

Mike Signorile posted his interview with lead lawyer, Ted Olson, here. Mike wrote:

Was an interesting discussion, and I must say that if you asked me just three years ago if I'd be speaking with George W. Bush's solicitor general about gay equality and how to advance it, I'd say you were nuts. But on LGBT rights, times, and people, do change.

I'll admit it. I'm glad Ted Olson is on our side.

Karen Ocamb has the schedule for the hearing:

The court just released the schedule for those arguments:

10:00 AM – 11:30 AM Plaintiffs (argued by Ted Olson and David Boies)

11:30 AM – 11:45 AM City and County of San Francisco

11:45 AM – 12:00 PM Governor, Attorney General and county defendants

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch

1:00 PM – 3:15 PM Proponents (argued by Charles Cooper)

3:15 PM – 3:45 PM Plaintiffs’ rebuttal

The closing arguments will be followed by news conferences, presumably from at least the Plaintiff and Proponents side.

And, yesterday, Rick Jacobs, from the Courage Campaign, wrote a post on Judge Vaughn Walker's questions to the attorneys for both sides:

The questions are stunning in their breadth, complexity and essence. Here are just a few:

What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?

The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?

Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?

What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37

I am not a lawyer, but I can without doubt say that never before has homosexuality been on trial in America in this way.

The decision in this case could be life-changing. And, it will undoubtedly set us on a path to the Supreme Court. That's where the LGBT community may have the best chance to achieve full equality. Because, politicians aren't helping us get there. Read More...