Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Court ruling on military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. Court ruling on military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy!!

    This ruling has not ultimately settled this issue of the notorious policy once and for all yet, but it sure is a promising step forward in removing discrimination in military.

    U.S. Court ruling and "don't ask, don't tell"

    By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
    Wed May 21, 10:49 PM ET

    SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.

    The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

    The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

    Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

    When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

    But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.

    Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.

    Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

    She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

    The appeals court judges disagreed.

    "When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

    One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."

    Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.

    Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."

    "If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"

    An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.

    Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."

    Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

    A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."

    Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

    "I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

  • #2
    AHEM! Zero posted replies from others?
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is good.

      When the JAG office interviews on campus, we always say "He's gay" just as the door opens to the room so the interviewer theoretically has just been 'told'.

      I'm not sure how official that makes it but I can say very few law students from our school have been offered positions...
      "lol internet" ~ AAHZ

      Comment


      • #4
        AHEM! Zero posted replies from others?
        Another circlejerk thread?
        Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
        "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
        2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

        Comment


        • #5
          Military folks typically aren't allowed to sue the military to begin with, so...

          ...Basically one more person who thinks "The rules don't apply to me"?
          Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lonestar
            Military folks typically aren't allowed to sue the military to begin with, so...

            ...Basically one more person who thinks "The rules don't apply to me"?
            So then the judge who allowed the lawsuit to go forward is in deep ****??
            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

            Comment


            • #7
              I was thinking more along the lines of the servicemember, who had to have been briefed on what the rules are before she joined, that went ahead and sued.

              It's typically easy to find a sympathetic judge, just file in an district where the judge hasn't thrown it out before.
              Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
                This is good.

                When the JAG office interviews on campus, we always say "He's gay" just as the door opens to the room so the interviewer theoretically has just been 'told'.

                I'm not sure how official that makes it but I can say very few law students from our school have been offered positions...
                "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #9
                  ... through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
                  The Hardwick decision was reversed?! I must have missed that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I can't for the life of me understand the military. If they don't want gay people to join, then they shouldn't have the uniforms and the shiny buttons. No heterosexual man would wear that.
                    Only feebs vote.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lonestar
                      I was thinking more along the lines of the servicemember, who had to have been briefed on what the rules are before she joined, that went ahead and sued.

                      It's typically easy to find a sympathetic judge, just file in an district where the judge hasn't thrown it out before.

                      But how could a judge, anywhere, and regardless of judge's sympathy, have the authority to accept a case if it's not permissible in the first place?
                      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's the ninth, as in San Francisco district.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MrFun



                          But how could a judge, anywhere, and regardless of judge's sympathy, have the authority to accept a case if it's not permissible in the first place?
                          That's what appellate courts are for.
                          "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                          "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wezil


                            That's what appellate courts are for.
                            So then what's the point of the military's rule about not allowing recruits to sue, if there is a way for recruits to sue through appellate courts?
                            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MrFun


                              So then what's the point of the military's rule about not allowing recruits to sue, if there is a way for recruits to sue through appellate courts?
                              Typically they get their families to sue for them.
                              Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X