Obama Administration Wants "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Reinstated
Wednesday 20 October 2010
by: Mike Ludwig, t r u t h o u t | Report
(Photo: Adam Fagen / Flickr)
The Obama administration filed an emergency request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday asking for a stay on a federal judge's injunction that stopped the military from enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay members, according to new reports.
US District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional in September and, last week, she ordered a stop to the ban. On Monday, Phillips rejected the government's request for a temporary stay on her injunction.
The Pentagon has ordered military recruiters to begin accepting openly gay applicants.
President Obama wants Congress to repeal the ban, but Senate Democrats failed to pass repeal legislation last month. His Justice Department is generally expected to defend US laws in court and is arguing that immediately stopping "don't ask, don't tell" jeopardizes national security.
The "don't ask, don't tell" appeal is not the only gay rights issues pending in the appeals court. On Monday night, the plaintiffs in the case that overturned California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages filed their briefs with the Ninth Circuit, and a member of the legal team said their case has implications for the Obama administration.
Theodore Boutrous, a plaintiff attorney in the Proposition 8 case, said President Obama could take a note from California Attorney General Jerry Brown. In September, Brown refused to appeal Chief Justice Vaughn Walker's sweeping ruling that struck down Proposition 8 because he believes the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
"It happens every once in a while on the federal level," Boutrous said. "It would be appropriate for the Obama administration to say yes, 'don't ask, don't tell' is unconstitutional."
Conservative groups failed at forcing Brown and the state of California to defend its law and appeal the Walker ruling and are defending Proposition 8 themselves.
Keep advertising-free journalism alive! Please support Truthout today.
Proponents of Proposition 8 filed their appeal briefs last month, arguing that Walker ignored evidence that procreation is an "animating" purpose of marriage. They also argued that Walker's ruling was heavily one sided.
Walker's historic ruling established several important facts, including that homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation and children stand to benefit from gay marriage.
Boutrous said the proponents distorted what happened during the trial and failed to prove that gay marriage damages children. He said the facts are on the side of the plaintiffs.
"Our record is overwhelming," Boutrous said. "For an appeal to have that kind of factual record to work with against an appeal without one is giving us an advantage."
Boutrous and his team represent two gay couples who wish to be married, but could not under Proposition 8.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Obama's people should choose
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 15:18 — Anonymous (not verified)Obama's people should choose their fights more carefully. This stance smacks of pandering to the military yet again. This does not add to Obama's credibility or address his promise to deliver change. This president needs to grow a bigger pair and start acting like a person that gives shit about the people that handed him the white house. We, as a nation, are in serious trouble and Obama's weak kneed approach to the right wing will not help us.
Since when Obama cared about
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 15:55 — Anonymous (not verified)Since when Obama cared about anybody but himself?
Obama's administration is
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 16:31 — =Eric (not verified)Obama's administration is filled with conservative Dems and left-over Republicans who control much of his re-election campaign strategy and current public policy. -He- is not supporting DADT, his handlers are. What he's doing here is creating deniability for socially conservative supporters.
But yeah. He needs to get a little starch.
And what ever happened to the use of 'Executive Order'? to get things done?
"Let well enough alone"
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 17:07 — fred fep (not verified)"Let well enough alone" seems a saying that Obama doesn't buy. Here, two weeks before an election supposedly crucial for him. Yet her, he opposes what he campaigned on, and feeds the base into further ambivalence towards him as a progressive facade, a charade of liberalism, Chumps for change
Perhaps this possibility of Republican control pleases him. He'll better be a ble to cop to "bi-partisanship" in giving Republicans carte blanche whatever they will crave. Which won't be much good for anyone but the 1% of slugs up top.
This is much more
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 18:05 — Anonymous (not verified)This is much more complicated than some people seem to think. Obama has stated time again that he wants to see DADT repealed and that it will be. He's trying to do it the right way and make sure it stays repealed. It would be foolish for those who considers themselves to be progressive, liberal, or moderate to turn their back on this President and the Democrats and allow the Republicans to take power again. Changes have already happened and more are coming if we show some patience and perseverance. It hasn't even been two whole years. DADT is going away. If Republicans were in charge we'd be looking at even more restrictions and targets on the backs of gay people. Let's not throw in the towel because progress doesn't happen over night.
I am SICK and TIRED of the
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 20:01 — Ianto S. (not verified)I am SICK and TIRED of the BS about "doing it the right way".
We are talking about basic human rights here -- you do it any way that works -- sometimes progress is made in the legislature, sometimes in the executive, and OFTEN IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
Obama seems more concerned with PROCESS than with PEOPLE, and its just idiotic to suggest we just need to be patient when DADT was already over and Obama could have let it stay dead!
Let's impeach Obama, we've
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 20:15 — Homo Warfighter (not verified)Let's impeach Obama, we've been patient enough. and this isn't an attempt to do things the "right way" as the insane fanboys continue to say. His entire administration has been another Republican disaster, DC is nothing but a bipartisan sleaze fest where the only constituents that matter are Mega Corps and the FIRE industry.
The reason Obama wants
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 22:39 — Liced-Christ (not verified)The reason Obama wants Congress to repeal DADT is that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN THERE. He's playing politics. He's a real asshole of the highest order, given that all he needs do is NOTHING for it to become law and that he's playing conservative political obstruction games as a "Democrat." Obama is swill - a two faced, lying son of a bitch from hell. I hope the Republicans get in in 2010 and take this nation even deeper down the toilet.
Anonymous 23:05 is exactly
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 00:40 — Paul in Minneapolis (not verified)Anonymous 23:05 is exactly correct. By pushing this up decision up through the court system, the administration intends that it will get upheld by increasingly higher levels of the judicial branch. The Justice Department is not trying very hard to make a case against the decision; this is just procedural. Folks, please study the Constitution. This is how it is supposed to work - it isn't meant to be simple, and nobody gets to ride in on a white horse and save the Republic. Obama has a very long-term view, the exact opposite of the cable news and talk radio crazies, and even more to the point, of the instant-gratification corporate structure that has brought this republic to the eve of destruction.
Obama is pandering to 2012
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 02:04 — Anonymous (not verified)Obama is pandering to 2012 and the DLC. He has no desire to repeal DADT. Obama knows all to well that the Democratic Party majorities are over (not that they were ever going to aid him in his agenda) and that DADT will never be passed in both the house and the senate.
Obama has failed at doing something that would have linked his name forever to human rights and individual freedoms.
Then again, in order for Obama to not appeal the court ruling would require him to actually be as liberal as his political enemies have labeled him. Just another example of how Obama isn't anymore liberal than Bill Clinton.
Well, so much for our
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 05:57 — mj (not verified)Well, so much for our president's campaign promise to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT equality. It figures that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would grant a stay since they are mostly (allegedly) "conservative" jurists. Be certain that this will make it to the Supreme Court. Be even more certain that the Robert Court will find a way (5-4) to uphold DADT, thus enshrining discrimination against a group of natural-born U.S. citizens who wish to serve their country who happen to have been born gay. Keep your passports handy, folks. You may need them.
"The Obama administration
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 06:16 — Anonymous (not verified)"The Obama administration filed an emergency request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday asking for a stay on a federal judge's injunction that stopped the military from enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay members, according to new reports."
As a straight man and a liberal Obama supporter, this administration just lost points in my book. What happened to "delivering change"? Standing in the way of change happening is not delivering it!
Ladies and gentlemen, The
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:35 — Drache (not verified)Ladies and gentlemen,
The TeaPartiers are half-correct. Obama was a Manchurian Candidate. Just not a muslim/socialist one. He is just another part of the corporate problem, destroying this country.
It sucks to be able to say
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 21:32 — Anonymous (not verified)It sucks to be able to say "I told you so", when it comes right down to it. Obama should NEVER have won the Democratic nomination or the Presidency. And I am a lifelong Democrat. It was glaringly obvious during Presidential campaign that this man had NO real plan for anything. Sure, he gave wonderfully inspirational speeches about "hope" and "change", but he managed to avoid explaining precisely how he would affect any change. And this move just confirms that change was just a word he appropriated to win an election in a country that obviously wanted change after the previous 8 years. Like it or not, we would have been undeniably better off with a President Hillary Clinton - who had the guts to say exactly what she intended to do in office and didn't hide behind fuzzy words. My only solace is that it actually could have been worse. We could have gotten President McCain to lead us further down the path of destruction blazed by Bush/Cheney. With few exceptions, every politician disgusts me at this point. What happened to representing your constituency and looking out for their better interests?