Post User Polls

Should the Obama administration appeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction?

A California federal judge has issued an injunction stopping the military from enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in uniform.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled Tuesday that the policy "infringes the fundamental rights" of military service members and prospective service members and violates their rights to due process and freedom of speech.

By Abha Bhattarai  |  October 12, 2010; 6:27 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should public schools be serving dinner to kids? | Next: Grade Michelle Rhee's progress

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Poll?
Don't ask me cause I'm not telling...

I'm sure will have a better stronger Military now, Huh?

I wonder why men and women don't bunk together?

Posted by: dforce | October 13, 2010 12:19 AM

Unless documentation shows that being gay makes one a less quality soldier, or significantly reduces the effectiveness of their unit. then the argument against them being in the service is false. The only argument against their being soldiers is then a narrow religious one.

Posted by: jamesrichard3 | October 13, 2010 12:45 AM

Men don't like to take showers with men that like to take showers with men!

Posted by: A-COL | October 13, 2010 3:09 AM

While it will take congressional action to repeal DADT it would help if President obama showed even a little bit of interest than "an interesting discussion." Why does Obama think that every issue is an opportunity for discussion instead of an opportunity for action. Will he ever understand how average Americans feel about this or any other war related issue?

Posted by: sedlakjf | October 13, 2010 5:15 AM

the codes of conduct of the UCMJ make any outburst a crime...
and coming on to any young recruit a trip to leavenworth for life...
so as long as they wear the uniform and act as taught, not many changes will happen...
no two soldiers in uniform will be holding hands any time soon...

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 13, 2010 7:02 AM

It continues to amaze me (and amuse me) that American soldiers, arguably the toughest and bravest military on the planet, are sent screaming like little girls at the thought of who might be in the shower room with them.

And believe me, if you think our mighty soldiers don't peek out the corner of their eye scoping "the competition" in the shower, you've got another think coming.

Posted by: dastubbs | October 13, 2010 8:24 AM

The "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy already answers the question as to whether gay and lesbian troops can be effective within the overall force.

This policy and the attitudes of many in the services are left-overs from the "John-Wayne-ing-it," macho mentality most recently exhibited by Sen. Jim Webb (D, VA).

It's over, boys. Now, grow up.

Posted by: mini2 | October 13, 2010 8:29 AM

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/08/buried-truths-about-gays-in-th

Not only have many of our allies allowed gays to openly serve without incident, We suspended our rules against gays during the Gulf War without a single problem.

Absolutely nothing will change, except the blood pressure of a bigot.

Posted by: trident420 | October 13, 2010 8:39 AM

The administration has no choice but to appeal. There is not really precedent for a circuit court judge negating national policy. this is of course EXACTLY what the Log Cabin gay republicons want right before the election. Even though the republicons have homophobes galore, religious zealots who think being gay is somehow a "disease" and flat out bigots this issue will drive a wedge in the gay community support for Democrats who are actually working to promote equality for gays and everyone else.

The judge in this case was very injudicious.

Posted by: John1263 | October 13, 2010 9:13 AM

Time to repeal DADT.Time for all citizens to have full and equal rights in every aspect of life. Step up Obama, and do the right thing...We are watching.....

Posted by: 10bestfan | October 13, 2010 10:07 AM


OTHER: this is Woe v. Raid all over again.

The only way to settle this issue is for Congress to pass a law making DADT a thing of the past.

Perhaps the administration should appeal for this reason?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | October 13, 2010 10:14 AM

The military commanders should simply thank the judge for his imput to national security and continue following the legal regulations and guidelines set by Congress and the Commander in Chief until such time one of them directs a change. Once the Commander in Chief directs the new guidance the US Military will implement that guidance with dignity and will do what is necessary to give every American the privilage of serving their country as themselves. The military is not a social program or experiment it is a DEADLY serious business, espeically right now. The Military has a legal system and it follows it. It has a Commander in Chief. It has led the US in its efforts on all major social issues. In this case there are housing issues, dependent issues, and other major issues that need to have civilian leadership solve before the Military can institute the change...all while they are engaged in fighting on two fronts (Iraq still is engaged in spite of what Obama says). The judge just needs to sit back and relax as does all the activists. The Military will do it right.

Posted by: staterighter | October 13, 2010 10:22 AM

One must have faith to understand why one stands on their faith when addressing issues such as these. If you truly practice and follow your faith, not your religion, anyone can be "religious", then you do not support the lifestyle. Sorry. A nation that "believes", practices it's faith, should not be accepting of certain practices that go against it's belief/faith. No offense, not a sermon, just sharing a belief that most U.S. born citizens believe. Most.

Posted by: ajackson3 | October 13, 2010 10:30 AM

Obama should not appeal this decision merely as a practical political matter.

Hey, it wasn't Obama that removed DADT, it was the courts. This way he gets credit for having had it done on his watch, and little of the blame.

Of course there's the religious fanatics all panty-twisted over this, but then they're always crying about something. And none of them were going to vote for him anyway, so who cares what they say ...

I sometimes wonder how many gay American soldiers have died for their country in the past 200+ years.

And maybe we should just ask all those gays who want to go into the military to instead become catholic priests ... there seems to be lots of room for them there.

Posted by: eezmamata | October 13, 2010 10:49 AM

The Obama administration wants to end the policy.

The question is facetious at best.

Usually the courts would defer to Congress, but since Congress has shown that the far right will block the legislation, the court made the ruling.

It would have been better if it had been repealed by Congress but that was blocked by the Republicans, several times, and just recently wasn't even allowed to be the subject of debate, referring to such a proposal as a "political ploy" (??!!) which was idiotic at best.

The Republicans left no legislative priority that would have allowed for the proceeding of an appeal, and they weren't about to.

There was no other way to proceed with banning this practice.

Posted by: jKO2010 | October 13, 2010 10:51 AM

I chose Other - it should go through the appeals process, but not because the ruling is flawed. It needs to go before SCOTUS, win or lose. The matter is too important to be resolved in a lower court.

I trust the present bench of the Supreme Court in matters of the rights of individual citizens about as far as I could throw their building, but nonetheless, matters of national scope need to be settled by the highest court in the land.

Posted by: paulhume | October 13, 2010 10:51 AM

One must have faith to understand why one stands on their faith when addressing issues such as these. If you truly practice and follow your faith, not your religion, anyone can be "religious", then you do not support the lifestyle. Sorry. A nation that "believes", practices it's faith, should not be accepting of certain practices that go against it's belief/faith. No offense, not a sermon, just sharing a belief that most U.S. born citizens believe. Most.
*****************************************
The Armed Forces are Government institutions. Do you believe in the First Amendment or not?

As for faith, who are you to tell me what it means? If you believe God abhors homosexuality, that is a RELIGIOUS conviction. Objections to gays serving in the military have nothing to do with faith.

And for the information of many members of the military, the Armed Forces are not the private preserve of those who serve. They belong to ALL the people. You do what you are told to do by the elected CIC regardless of your personal preferences.

Posted by: st50taw | October 13, 2010 10:53 AM

"then you do not support the lifestyle."
"A nation ...should not be accepting of certain practices"

Being attracted to members of the same sex is no more a 'lifestyle' than being being attracted to members of the opposite sex. And simply 'being' gay is not a 'practice' any more than simply being straight is a practice.

The problem with debating over this issue is that one side of the fence is arguing with FACTS; the other, fiction steeped in bigotry and cognitive dissonance. Here is something that *should* (hope springs eternal) dispel this 'lifestyle' canard once and for all:

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.abstract

"These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes"

What more do people need?!? All the scientific community is lacking now is the discovery of an actual gay gene. And if they find one, we'll still have bigoted nut jobs who insist on calling homosexualty a lifestyle. YAWN

Posted by: robfried | October 13, 2010 11:11 AM

The "Good Christians" on the right HATE Gay's & lesbians and think they ALL belong in prison far away from them. Christians don't think Gay's & lesbians are capable to teach children, Marry or even adopt children.

To the "Good Christians" Gay's & lesbians are third class citizens with NO RIGHTS PERIOD!

The "Good Christians" think that Gay's & lesbians are an abomination to mankind and should be wiped off the planet and out of existence!

It's amazing just how much PURE HATE Religion in America has now!

IT'S TIME WE END RELIGION IN AMERICA AND MOVE FORWARD PAST THE LIES, HYPOCRISY AND PURE HATE AS A SOCIETY!

For the good of the children!

Posted by: imZandor | October 13, 2010 11:29 AM

Men don't like to take showers with men that like to take showers with men!
Posted by: A-COL | October 13, 2010 3:09 AM
*************************************************************************
Men don't like to take showers with men...PERIOD.

Posted by: lgaide | October 13, 2010 12:05 PM

the codes of conduct of the UCMJ make any outburst a crime...
and coming on to any young recruit a trip to leavenworth for life...
so as long as they wear the uniform and act as taught, not many changes will happen...
no two soldiers in uniform will be holding hands any time soon...
Posted by: DwightCollins | October 13, 2010 7:02 AM
*****************************************************
Have you EVER been in the military? Please do not spout such obvious nonsense.Your knowledge of the UCMJ is definitely lacking.

Posted by: lgaide | October 13, 2010 12:09 PM

A-Col, they are already taking showers with them, they just don't know exactly who those are. Being an ostrich in sand is not a pretty position to be in.

Posted by: recalcitrant | October 14, 2010 6:54 AM

They have to appeal. One of the jobs of the Justice Department is to defend the laws of the US as enacted by Congress, if they agree with them or not. What happens if a judge in a different district court decides that DADT is constitutional? Then you have one area where it is legal and another where it isn't.
Let it go to the 9th and then to the Supreme Court and be decided once and for all.

Posted by: rchayes | October 14, 2010 8:21 AM

DADT is a blatant civil rights violation. Not only will it be overturned in courts, DoD will be liable for billions in back pay, restored benefits and punitive damages. The government is ruining the lives of soldiers for a backwards, discriminatory policy that violates the Constitution.

Posted by: AxelDC | October 22, 2010 10:31 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company