Mil Recruiters told to accept gays.

[SirNitram]

Link

Top Pentagon commanders spent Thursday working on new guidelines aimed at clearing up the confusion over who can enlist in the military.

A federal appeals court froze a judge's order to immediately end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which allows gay men and women to serve in the armed forces "only" if they keep their sexual orientation secret. The judges sided with Justice Department attorneys who argued that the law should be changed by congress, not by the courts.

A gay Republican group sued to end it now. They argued that ordering men and women in uniform to stay silent about their sexual orientation violates their first amendment rights.

President Obama has said "Don't Ask Don't Tell will end under his watch. But the government is concerned that an immediate end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" through the court system would harm troop morale at a time when the military is fighting two wars.

After the first court decision the Pentagon told recruiters to start admitting people who were openly gay into the military. Then on Wednesday the second ruling sent commanders back to the drawing board to come up with a new policy. The Pentagon is preparing for the change but didn't expect it so fast. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that by December he'll have a plan to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

For now recruiters have more questions than answers about 'who' is allowed to serve in the armed forces.

A new CBS News poll shows most Americans agree its time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; 56-percent of the people surveyed said they're in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.Top Pentagon commanders spent Thursday working on new guidelines aimed at clearing up the confusion over who can enlist in the military.

A federal appeals court froze a judge's order to immediately end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which allows gay men and women to serve in the armed forces "only" if they keep their sexual orientation secret. The judges sided with Justice Department attorneys who argued that the law should be changed by congress, not by the courts.

A gay Republican group sued to end it now. They argued that ordering men and women in uniform to stay silent about their sexual orientation violates their first amendment rights.

President Obama has said "Don't Ask Don't Tell will end under his watch. But the government is concerned that an immediate end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" through the court system would harm troop morale at a time when the military is fighting two wars.

After the first court decision the Pentagon told recruiters to start admitting people who were openly gay into the military. Then on Wednesday the second ruling sent commanders back to the drawing board to come up with a new policy. The Pentagon is preparing for the change but didn't expect it so fast. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that by December he'll have a plan to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

For now recruiters have more questions than answers about 'who' is allowed to serve in the armed forces.

A new CBS News poll shows most Americans agree its time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; 56-percent of the people surveyed said they're in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.

And ping-pong continues for those in the closet. This is why I support the legislative fix: Courts are not ideal and you get ping-pong. Worse, consider this:

Obama's nominations to the bench on all levels are getting blocked by the GOP, like everything. As time goes on, those who are on the bench from before Bush II's politically based nominations are going to be the ones left working. The courts are shifting to the Right(Like you couldn't tell by the repeal of all campaign contribution limits).

[Dominus Atheos]

This is why I support the legislative fix

I get if McCain had won and McCain was the one appealing, you'd support a judiciary fix.

[SirNitram]

This is why I support the legislative fix

I get if McCain had won and McCain was the one appealing, you'd support a judiciary fix.

hurhurhur.

No, I'd not. Frankly, that's insulting. What next, call me a homophobe?

[Dominus Atheos]

Of course it's insulting, it was an insult. You know damn well that if it were a Republican president appealing this decision you and most of the other people in this thread wouldn't be so quick to defend it.

[SirNitram]

Of course it's insulting, it was an insult. You know damn well that if it were a Republican president appealing this decision you and most of the other people in this thread wouldn't be so quick to defend it.

I don't suppose you'll prop this up with anything but insults, hmmm? Or are you just here to troll and insult?

[Flagg]

I don't see how anyone who rejects DADT can support this politically or morally. Not appealing is a fucking win-win both ways. Obama gets to keep his promise by simply doing nothing.

[Bakustra]

I don't see how anyone who rejects DADT can support this politically or morally. Not appealing is a fucking win-win both ways. Obama gets to keep his promise by simply doing nothing.

Are you deliberately ignoring the points made above? The law is still on the books, and so a future Congress can simply make the policy more restrictive or reinstate it. A legislative solution is more permanent in several important ways. I don't think appealing was the best way to do so, but it may be the only way to get people to vote for a law altering DADT permanently. Otherwise they may well argue that it's moot.

This is why I support the legislative fix

I get if McCain had won and McCain was the one appealing, you'd support a judiciary fix.

I see that you have picked option two in my little scenario.

[dragon]

more on it now only the secretaries of each branch can discharge.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has raised the level at which gay and lesbian troops can be discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ordering that it only be done by the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, a senior Defense Department attorney said Thursday.

In addition, the senior defense attorney hinted that the Pentagon is preparing for the possibility that the policy banning openly homosexual soldiers could change through the U.S. courts.

"We are planning for multiple scenarios," said the attorney, who spoke on condition of not being identified by name.

The move comes a day after a federal appeals panel temporarily stopped a lower court injunction that prohibited the military from enforcing "don't ask, don't tell." The appellate panel indicated it would fully consider the case as soon as next week, but it was unclear when the legal proceedings involving a court challenge to the policy would be completed.

In a memo written to the heads of all the military services, Gates said his action was taken in direct response to the legal uncertainty that currently exists surrounding "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy, including last week's injunction and the subsequent temporary stay Wednesday by the 9th Circuit panel.

"Effective immediately and until further notice, no military member shall be separated ... without the personal approval of the secretary of the military department concerned, in coordination with the under secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness and the general counsel of the Defense Department. These functions may not be delegated," Gates wrote.



Video: Obama adviser on 'don't ask' anger
RELATED TOPICS
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Gays in the Military
LGBT Issues
Robert Gates
The Pentagon
The general counsel of the Defense Department also wrote the heads of each branch, saying, "This latest twist highlights the legally uncertain period in which we now find ourselves with respect to DADT, and the need to further ensure uniformity and care in the enforcement of the law."

The senior defense attorney said in a briefing to reporters at the Pentagon that "this authority was in the hands of lots and lots of people. We wanted the separation authority in the hands of fewer people."

The attorney used an example to describe the process, saying the secretary of the Army would present a candidate for discharge to both the under secretary and the Pentagon's top lawyer and say, "Here's the decision I intend to make. What's your view?"

In response, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Aubrey Sarvis, said Thursday that the change ordered by Gates could help reduce the threat of being discharged for gay and lesbian soldiers.

"The Pentagon appears to be saying to the court and to service members that it will provide all service members the protections already afforded officers, but with no delegation of that authority: All proposed DADT discharges, regardless of grade and rank, will be reviewed at the highest civilian levels," Sarvis said in a statement. "This can be a major constructive development for gay and lesbian service members."

However, Sarvis said, the move does not end "don't ask, don't tell," and gay and lesbian service members should not reveal their sexuality until a full repeal occurs.

The conservative Family Research Council condemned the federal court injunction against "don't ask, don't tell" and praised the Obama administration for appealing it so that an orderly transition from the policy can occur in the future.

"In the middle of two wars, it's wrong to treat the military as a political yo-yo," said a statement by council President Tony Perkins posted on the group's website.

The senior defense department attorney also expressed frustration with the legal process.

"It is not desirable to have to send out as many as three of these [directives] in the course of a week and a half. It's unfortunate we have to send out multiple messages," the attorney said. He also said that troops and officials may be confused at this point as to how to interpret the legal proceedings, saying: "Is there potential for service members to get mixed messages because of this? Yes."

Because of the legal wrangling, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was effectively repealed for eight days before the appellate panel ruling Wednesday night. That period influenced the Pentagon working group studying how a repeal of the policy might affect the military, and how openly gay and lesbian troops would be integrated.

"The eight-day period highlights that if this law changes suddenly like that, the first place we will see its impact is at the recruitment centers," the senior defense attorney said.

The official said the Pentagon witnessed "incidents and issues" as openly gay candidates came to begin the enlistment process, but he did not clarify or give examples. The Pentagon expects the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to make a final ruling on the policy sometime in 2011.

Omar Lopez, who was discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" in 2006 with three months left on his five-year contract, walked into a recruiting office in Austin, Texas, last week to try to re-enlist after a federal court judge put an injunction on enforcing the policy.

"I didn't get far enough because they had not heard anything from the DoD or the Pentagon saying that the federal judge has lifted the ban," Lopez said in an interview Thursday with CNN.

When he was rejected by the recruiters, "that's when it struck me there was another slingshot that hit my heart," he said. "But I can't let it hit me emotionally because I have to be strong and we have to keep fighting."

Lopez said he is frustrated with the Obama administration's appeal of the federal court's injunction.

"I'm totally disappointed because when he was running and campaigning, I was pro-Obama and everything like that," Lopez said of Obama's opposition to the policy implemented during the Clinton administration. "Now it's turned into his law because he's pushing against it."

Recruiters were sent instructions on October 15 directing them to accept recruits who said they were gay. That guidance is no longer valid because the appeals panel's ruling means "don't ask, don't tell" is again in force. Pentagon officials seemed unclear what to do about any openly gay recruits whose applications were accepted during the pause in the policy.

Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen have both said they prefer "don't ask, don't tell" be repealed through an act of Congress, not the courts. Legislation that would repeal the policy after a military review to be completed in December and approval from the president, Defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman has cleared the House and is awaiting Senate action

link

[Flagg]

I don't see how anyone who rejects DADT can support this politically or morally. Not appealing is a fucking win-win both ways. Obama gets to keep his promise by simply doing nothing.

Are you deliberately ignoring the points made above? The law is still on the books, and so a future Congress can simply make the policy more restrictive or reinstate it. A legislative solution is more permanent in several important ways. I don't think appealing was the best way to do so, but it may be the only way to get people to vote for a law altering DADT permanently. Otherwise they may well argue that it's moot.

It doesn't mean you cannot still get rid of the law, stupid. It just makes it that much easier to strike it off the books when it's held as unconstitutional.

[Bakustra]

I don't see how anyone who rejects DADT can support this politically or morally. Not appealing is a fucking win-win both ways. Obama gets to keep his promise by simply doing nothing.

Are you deliberately ignoring the points made above? The law is still on the books, and so a future Congress can simply make the policy more restrictive or reinstate it. A legislative solution is more permanent in several important ways. I don't think appealing was the best way to do so, but it may be the only way to get people to vote for a law altering DADT permanently. Otherwise they may well argue that it's moot.

It doesn't mean you cannot still get rid of the law, stupid. It just makes it that much easier to strike it off the books when it's held as unconstitutional.

You're still ignoring me, my good man. My point is that the law was not declared unconstitutional, but only the DADT policy. The laws banning homosexuals from the military are still on the books, but the attitude that it has been solved already would hinder efforts to get those laws repealed. It's almost as though you're desperately grasping for points and hurling insults to disguise that fact.

[Flagg]

You're still ignoring me, my good man. My point is that the law was not declared unconstitutional, but only the DADT policy. The laws banning homosexuals from the military are still on the books, but the attitude that it has been solved already would hinder efforts to get those laws repealed. It's almost as though you're desperately grasping for points and hurling insults to disguise that fact.

Provide evidence that that is the case. What I'm trying to convey is that it does more harm to continue ejecting gays while weakly working to change the legislation than it does to simply not appeal the ruling. A legislative solution is all well and good, but to override a judicial one would require a new DADT bill to be passed which is about as likely as the moon exploding into popcorn.

[Bakustra]

You're still ignoring me, my good man. My point is that the law was not declared unconstitutional, but only the DADT policy. The laws banning homosexuals from the military are still on the books, but the attitude that it has been solved already would hinder efforts to get those laws repealed. It's almost as though you're desperately grasping for points and hurling insults to disguise that fact.

Provide evidence that that is the case. What I'm trying to convey is that it does more harm to continue ejecting gays while weakly working to change the legislation than it does to simply not appeal the ruling. A legislative solution is all well and good, but to override a judicial one would require a new DADT bill to be passed which is about as likely as the moon exploding into popcorn.

People were treating this as a permanent solution! There's the evidence for you. Politicians are not any smarter than the average person, and many of them will treat this as a solution rather than as a temporary panacea. Overriding this solution merely requires mandating segregated units or forbidding homosexuals from serving in the combat services or any number of runarounds that preserve discrimination. The Murphy Amendment and other legislation would have negated that. While those runarounds would probably be successfully challenged as well, that's still years worth of work. This suit lasted six years from filing to hearings.

[Bakustra]

GHETTO EDIT: Specifically, USC 10,654 has 5 sections. Section b) is the DADT policy, and sections c)-e) are concerned solely with section b). Section a), however, is a resolution that homosexuality would be disruptive to the US military. The case only overturns section b), the actual ban. Section a) would be overturned by the Murphy Amendment. Section a), as it stands, could be used to justify segregated units or other discrimination, but that would vanish if it was negated by legislation. It also probably would be difficult to challenge in court, too, apart from time considerations.

[SirNitram]

I don't see how anyone who rejects DADT can support this politically or morally. Not appealing is a fucking win-win both ways. Obama gets to keep his promise by simply doing nothing.

Unfortunately, the DOJ is compelled to defend laws still on the books. Is this not computing in your head?

[Anguirus]

^ It may not be computing because according to what I've read, it isn't actually true at all.

more on it now only the secretaries of each branch can discharge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this put a significant freeze on discharges? I'm under the impression that the secretaries of each branch have shit to do and won't spend their days reviewing cases of alleged gayness.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I don't see how anyone who rejects DADT can support this politically or morally. Not appealing is a fucking win-win both ways. Obama gets to keep his promise by simply doing nothing.

Unfortunately, the DOJ is compelled to defend laws still on the books. Is this not computing in your head?

This is not necessarily true.

[SirNitram]

^ It may not be computing because according to what I've read, it isn't actually true at all.

more on it now only the secretaries of each branch can discharge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this put a significant freeze on discharges? I'm under the impression that the secretaries of each branch have shit to do and won't spend their days reviewing cases of alleged gayness.

To the first, I would like very much to see the source. What I've heard is that you have to let the DOJ oppose it because it's part of their duties. Doing otherwise involved Nullification nonsense. So I would like to hear the sources you've read.

As to the second, yes. It will massively restrict the enforcement of DADT. Coupled with the ruling from the 9th court establishing the Witt Standard(There must be actual disruption), we could be seeing the effective killing of it. I'm not calling this a victory until the laws stopping gays from serving are purged, but it's a big step forward.

Re: Pinto: I see. I would point out two facts: The government has never put much effort into opposing anything Christian. And this was a circuit court of appeals ruling, while the DADT one was a district court. This may change the situations. But, either way, we've just seen a pair of serious restrictions on DADT, and I am glad for that, HOWEVER it came to be.

[Alyeska]

Of course it's insulting, it was an insult. You know damn well that if it were a Republican president appealing this decision you and most of the other people in this thread wouldn't be so quick to defend it.

Why don't you consider contributing to the thread instead of posting inane commentary.

[RogueIce]

more on it now only the secretaries of each branch can discharge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this put a significant freeze on discharges? I'm under the impression that the secretaries of each branch have shit to do and won't spend their days reviewing cases of alleged gayness.

Yes. Another aspect is that even fairly bigotted commanders will likely see which way the winds are blowing on the DADT issue, in that the top brass are speaking against it (Obama, Gates, Mullen). So this new policy could make them think twice about trying to process a discharge against a gay soldier: do they really want to put their name up to a level where the service Secretary and senior DOD civilians are going to see them trying to kick out gay soldiers, when the top leadership is at least supportive of the idea to allow gay persons to serve openly? That may not be something they want to put themselves out on.

You may still see somebody trying it, but I think most commanders won't be willing to have SECARMY/SECNAV/SECAF personally see their names trying to discharge gay soldiers when the President, SECDEF and the CJCS have all said they support repealing DADT.

[Duckie]

The President can instruct the DOJ not to appeal whenever he pleases. Bush did it several times. Clinton, rather amazingly in a direct parallel, ordered the DOJ not to appeal a case that invalidated the ban on HIV+ soldiers. With that said, it's ugly. I simultaneously loathe Obama for appealing and understand that a legislative repeal is required for permanent repeal. With that said, I don't think he appealed out of the goodness of his heart.

He appealed DOMA, which is even more controversial but essentially an immediate fail as his support for gay rights goes, as that will never be repealed by congress in a million years. He appealed various gay immigration cases too. Ones that nobody gave a shit about, and there'd be no controversy for. Didn't push for ENDA or attach it to anything either, despite having a real chance for it (56 confirmed votes in the Senate and a pass in the House!). Publically states he doesn't support gay marriage. Doesn't even mention or campaign in Maine or California against their bans. Invites anti-gay preacher and supporter of genocide to speak at his inauguration. And that's just going backwards over the highlights- there's bunches of nitty gritty court cases, bigoted documents submitted by the DOJ, or stupid statements from press secretaries someone seriously versed in LGBT politics and law could bring up, but it'd distract from the main point:

The administration is either horrifically tone-deaf or just too stupid to hide the fact that it knows gays are forced to vote for democrats even though democrats don't do much of anything for them, so it figures it can get away with pleasing the blue dogs by not forcing them to vote for gay rights (nor does the white house care to spend political capital like threats of non-funding on stuff like LGBT rights. Though then again, they never threatened anyone, not even former republicans and people who voted with republicans more than democrats, with any negatives, so who knows what they would spend political capital on.).

I think he appealed because he doesn't give a shit about LGBT Americans beyond their votes and dollars and doesn't want a bad media spotlight before the midterms to rile up the right any more (even though it won't make one difference in the end). It fits with everything the administration has done to bend over to avoid controversy and bad media attention, like reactively firing that one Dep.Agri lady for having a video edited of her to make her sound racist by Breitbart/Fox News or filling the stimulus with sexy-sounding shovel-ready jobs and tax cuts. Which is awful.

Further, it's not like legislative repeal can pass, so the fact that this cowardly and vile action could actually serve the greater good by pure accident is moot. The Democrats failed a cloture vote on the defense bill already. They're not going to take it up before november. And in 370 Hours, they won't control the House. Sure, the House already passed the bill that had DADT and the Dream Act on it. But the new Republican House will pass an identical defense bill, maybe with some extra money to the Nebraska National Guard, and no DADT Repeal or DREAM Act, and the Senate will jump all over itself to pass that one instead.

[Dominus Atheos]

I ...understand that a legislative repeal is required for permanent repeal.

Why? Most states didn't repeal their anti-abortion laws after Roe v. Wade, or the Jim Crow laws after Brown v. Board of Education. I don't understand why people keep saying this requires a legislative repeal when other court cases didn't.

[Duckie]

Mostly because I don't believe we can trust the Military to deal with this maturely, not with the completely mixed signals it's been giving from the DoD to the Secretary to the high ranking officers. I do not believe for a second if DADT were repealed and then the rest were left to the military to change their UCMJ that they would actually reform. (I'm not sure why gays and lesbians would like to be in the military despite it hating them, but apparantly some do, so they need that right. And America has a hard-on for soldiers, so it'd make a lot of social and legal progress in other areas).

And on the administration's gay rights stuff- Oh right, it did pass a Hate Crimes law. Granted, despite there being many, many murders of gays for hate crime reasons, there has not been hate crime prosecution in the country since it passed. Insiders say the DOJ does not intend to enforce it, and the Obama Administration's bargain with the blue dogs was that the law would be a "symbolic statement only". Good to know he's concerned about murders and whatnot. (and on the negative side, I forgot- the white house and democratic party have carefully edited out DADT and DOMA repeal from a few websites 3 times to date before reversing it after significant protests from bloggers and donors and whatnot. Also the President has switched with increasing consistency to "Changing DADT to be more fair" and "Changing the law" instead of the word "Repeal" in statements. That doesn't sound very committed.)

(Also, this is a minor gripe and not a serious criticism of the administration, but I felt like I should have tagged it on- wasn't there wide expectation and rumours of a lesbian supreme court judge? Was that just me making shit up? What happened to that? There was even a lesbian dean of an ivy league law school waiting in the wings. That's not something one can expect or fault for him, though he picked some meh authoritarian centrist aside, but it certainly would help boost my opinion of him. I might have actually gotten excited to have Obama as president for a while and forgiven one or two things, had they passed an inclusive ENDA, gotten a lesbian onto the supreme court. I could even swallow the concept of a tactically appealed DOMA and DADT with expectation of her and a future nominee tipping the balance as anything but an excuse.)

[Bakustra]

I ...understand that a legislative repeal is required for permanent repeal.

Why? Most states didn't repeal their anti-abortion laws after Roe v. Wade, or the Jim Crow laws after Brown v. Board of Education. I don't understand why people keep saying this requires a legislative repeal when other court cases didn't.

Hey, did you read what I wrote? For that matter, Jim Crow provides an excellent example. Brown v. Board of Education only negated education specifically. Later cases and laws had to address other cases.

stuff

I think that the lesbian Supreme Court justice was mainly dog-whistle rumors about Elena Kagan. But maybe this was something different. I think that Obama is motivated by two main things- 1, holding on to power in case of a minority government (which I am not convinced about yet) and 2, a genuine centrism. That is, given the justification used in the case, I think that it's mainly Bush appointees making the arguments and pushing forward the cases, and Obama merely isn't stopping them. Is he a weak president? Perhaps. But I think that he's trying for genuine compromises and potentially starting to realize that there aren't that many, judging by the tenor of his latest comments. Disappointing? Yes. Yes, very much so. But on the other hand, he was always going to have problems, not least because of race.

[Duckie]

I don't think so. There's an actual lesbian professor at stanford, a true-blue liberal who ghostwrote Koh a dissent for Bowers v. Hardwick (!) and who worked with the NAACP on minority voting rights. That to me sounds like the perfect nominee to make the base happy. That's who I heard rumours about for the Souter replacement, when Koh was too controversial and it was thought Kagan was a goldilocks thing to slot the actual nominee in. Maybe all the activists jumped to conclusions, but it seemed almost improbable that Obama wouldn't do something daring and cool like pick a lesbian law professor and dare the Republicans to make the argument about her sexuality rather than her legal knowledge. Everyone I know who was following supreme court law stuff for gays got real excited about having a super-qualified, nominee with all her progressive merit-badges who also happened to be a lesbian. Before, you know, the reveal that Obama didn't want to try to rebalance or even preserve the court's ideology.

Honestly, that's why I included the gripe- it's the most disappointing aspect, rather than infuriating or disgusting ones. I guess by way of explanation about the two nominations, there's a lot less racist democrats than homophobic ones, and a lot more Hispanics than Gays, and as far as #2 I refuse to believe Kagan for Souter one was about anything other than her being acceptable to liberal yet supporting expanded executive powers. Granted, I could be biased by political and sexual orientation.

[Bakustra]

That may be right, but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure that she would have been filibustered into oblivion, and to hell with anything like professionalism or pretending that it wouldn't be about her sexuality.