AP:
A federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.
Phillips says the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.
[…]
Government lawyers argued Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and the issue should be decided by Congress.
The injunction was sought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members.
This is, it seems to me, an issue that turns not on homosexuality per se, nor on whether or not one has a right to express or acknowledge their sexuality — but rather on whether or not that right (such as it is) is one that can or cannot be a mitigating factor for inclusion in the US Armed Forces.
The judge’s ruling — that the policy has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services — is presumably backed up by at least some evidence; too, presumably the judge was reacting to evidence that militated against the Government’s claim that open sexuality troubles military readiness.
So here is the question that I take away from this — the question I find most interesting: if, it turns out, military readiness is troubled by open homosexuality in the military; and if, it turns out, the “direct and deleterious effect” the don’t ask-don’t tell policy in question has is simply one of damaging the self-esteem of those affected; is the ruling then proper?
That is, at what point is our military — charged as they are with defending the nation — permitted to set its own standards for accepting volunteer candidates? What criteria are allowable and what aren’t? And most importantly, why?
The question comes down to this, it seems to me: what is the nature of homosexuality? Is it a life choice? Is it a physical condition? Is it something entirely other?
How we answer that legally would seem to have enormous importance. So perhaps that is the question we should be asking and answering before we begin making rulings that could, once pressed, lead to categorical problems (eg., if having open homosexuals in the military can’t be said to bother military readiness, how do we defend keeping out, say, the physically disabled, etc.)?
Discuss.
For the purposes of the military, I would go with homosexuality is a behavior. It doesn’t matter if it is natural or not. (Much like women are, you know, born female, but that femininity still translates into a set of behaviors that are not well suited to military service.)
C’mon, Jeff. By now you should know that “unconstitutional” = “raaaaacist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, and hateful. And islamophobic.”
I’d say leave the present policy alone. During my service time, gays weren’t allowed in the military. Right or wrong, that’s just how it was. Have to say, I’m not aware of anyone I served with being gay, the subject simply never came up. DADT indeed.
Most importantly, the military isn’t intended for social experimentation. Repealing DADT is opening a worm can best left alone.
I agree that the question is a very broad one, and that the points you have raised are the only criteria we should be concerned with. If having openly gay people in the military causes a problem with readiness, it shouldn’t be allowed. We know that there have always been gays in the military, but they had to keep quiet about it, so being gay in and of itself is apparently not a serious issue. Also, it’s likely that most know who is gay and who isn’t, at least in a unit. Ultimately, it should be up to the military to decide.
To be a Devil’s advocate, in the past one might have made the same arguments about the “races” as well, but I believe that military segregation was more imposed from without than within. I could be wrong about that, though, and I’m too lazy to research it.
I think the question “Is this going to make your squadmates more likely to get killed?” is the operative one. With the understanding that this involves a lot of social “science,” and compelling evidence one way or the other may be hard to gather. But still, I mostly care about mission effectiveness and minimal friendly casualties. Self-esteem and social engineering programs don’t belong in the Dept of Education, much less the Dept of Defense.
Did everyone suddenly get stupid on this issue. The Military DOES NOT BAN gays. Congress did that. Its the law that the Military is following. DADT is simply the Clinton Executive order that said “we will not ask and you don’t have to tell” with regards to enforcement of this LAW.
It is not a Military policy.
Silly Jeff G. The purpose of the military has nothing to do with defending the nation against enemies what intend to kill us and break our stuff.
The purpose of the military is to make sure everyone who is in it gets an extra special heaping helping of self-esteem. But not because of we approve of them for risking their lives to defend the nation against enemies what intend to kill us and break our stuff. ‘Cause that’s bad for children and other living things.
Who said anything about banning gays, Jeff? I think what I was talking about was open sexuality as a kind of right, and what that bespeaks legally.
Ed Whelan’s view of the background to the proceeding, political and otherwise.
“That is, at what point is our military — charged as they are with defending the nation — permitted to set its own standards for accepting volunteer candidates?”
We don’t, really, Congress does. Prez is CinC, Congress sets the UCMJ, etc.
I don’t remember seeing anything about the judiciary having a role in the Command and Control structure of the Armed Forces. Pure judicial overreach in seeking a desired outcome. Right now the Army is going through a massive commentary period, with every single Soldier being asked to give their input…but not fast enough for the judge in this case. or maybe he is afraid that the “wrong” result may be reached. Not that anyone should actually listen to those serving, that is.
Be of good cheer,LTC John,sir- it’s not as though they ever HAVE listened.
LTC John, setting aside the question of homosexuality for the moment, I wonder what action does the military typically take when two members of a unit have shown through repeated mutual confrontations or conflicts that they, the two, simply cannot get along to their own mutual benefit and that of their unit? Are they ultimately separated by transfer to other units? Are they punished and then drummed out as being incapable of living up to a proper standard? Or are they left to further erode unit cohesion?
OK Mr. G … my bad … I confused your linked text with your later thoughts …
I have a hair trigger about the Military getting bashed for Congresses law …
Maybe the quickest way to end this kind of judicial meddling is for the military to announce the following:
“Okay, we’ll end DADT. However, there will henceforth also be no segregation between the sexes either in the barracks or in the field. That means 1) no privacy rights for anybody, 2) everybody uses the same ‘honey bucket’ and shower facilities, 3) there’ll be no special ‘sensitivity’, and 4) woe to any gay or lesbian accused of sexual harassment. Now, you black-robed gods, since you wanted ‘equality,’ we’ll make sure things are EQUALLY f***ed up across the board.”
Really, if sexual preference becomes a readiness issue, what about that cannot be addressed by a “no fucking each other” kind of rule?
Well, you used to be able to kick people out for simply looking fat.
In what circumstances and in which units does/would homosexuality affect readiness?
In those units, they should ban gays and mixed sexes on the simple grounds that any possibility of that kind of fraternization is detrimental to the unit’s mission.
In other types of units, such a ban would not be in effect.
Just another case of judicial over reach. How is it that no other judge ever noticed this flaw in over 200 years? Now using the judge’s reasoning how can the military ban someone for being overweight or having a criminal record?
Isn’t that unconstitutional?
Hush, meya. You are a fucking idiot.
I think that a federal judge is the appropriate party to determine this. Those bloodthirsty warmongering bloodthirsty killbots cannot be expected to know what is best for them.
Of course, this cloud may have a silver lining: I fully expect enough claims of “sexual harassment”, especially of the “hostile environment” variety, that something will have to give. Either they will have to enhance the evidence required from “he said, (s)he said”, or they will shortly have a lot fewer gays in the military.
A little more info:
In other words, the Obama administration basically refused to defend it, because they wanted this result – doing away with DADT – but didn’t have the balls to do it themselves.
Yes, Barry, we see what you did there.
they were busy suing az
I believe all that is addressed in the Ed Whelan link sdferr offered above.
What I was asking was something else.
Okay. But really I was only trying to separate everyone else from the judiciary when it comes to determining policy.
I’ve been thinking a little, and I don’t think that the nature of homosexuality matters in this instance. The only thing that matters is the effect of it. That is, whether it’s nature or nurture is irrelevant to the conversation. For instance, there are people who are physically and/or emotionally incapable of performing in the service. The source or cause of those conditions doesn’t change the fact of them.
i like how judges get power now. they steal it piece by piece
because openly discussing your sexual orientation at work makes you a better shot when taking out a jihadi at 100 meters
I’ve mixed and evolving feelings on homosexuals in the military. But the bottom line is, if gays want to be considered an equal ‘identity group’, I suppose having representatives of their ‘identity group’ on the front lines and taking fire if necessary isn’t such a bad thing. And make sure condoms are part of their mess kits.
Having Judges changing laws and policy with a pen-stroke, now, that’s deeply wrong AFAIC. These Judges, they’re like the simplest of machines, the lever, finding positions in cracks and crevices created in our Constitution and legal frameworks by previous leveraged rulings, leveraging new cracks and crevices for later Judges to continue the leveraging and crumbling. Before long we’ll find what was our solid Constitution and foundation on which we built this nation just a heap of broken rocks. So much for ‘American Exceptionalism’, that now-evil concept which delivered us to where we were, just a few decades back. Slip-slidin’ away, it seems, a pen-stroke at a time.
which freedom is most important: speech or assembly? can you give rights in order to voluntarily assemble in a gov’t sanctioned activity?
Given that the military has experienced a lot of trouble with co-ed outfits, and a B-52 pilot getting cashiered for knockin’ boots with another Air Force member, I’d say this probably isn’t a proper arena for judges from California.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDayhw65cOk
progg amerikkka
#12 – depends on who is at fault – usually can be cured with a quick Article 15 non-judicial punishment, transfers, etc.
Jeff, I hear you – I just feel so helpless about this because we literally have no say – Congress and the CinC decide everything. We just endure. And fight. One would hope that those who go out and fight would get some input to Congress’ decisions – but they don’t seem to have been in any sort of mind the past 4 years to pay any attention to us dumb killbots and Halliburtondupes. In our Artmed Forces, we are, literally, at the mercy of our elected officials as to deciding who serves, and who cannot. I would hope the PC nonsense would stop, but have little hope for the immediate future… This made me so unhappy I ran out and drank a bunch of Candian whisky – not so good a recourse, as I have Guard tomorrow and Sunday.
[…] “Judge: Military’s ban οח gays іѕ unconstitutional” […]