|
Columns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court[b:8bb078e2af]'Don't ask' challenged in federal court[/b:8bb078e2af] http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/07/08/1 A federal court in Boston heard arguments Friday in the first major attack on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 gay rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Cook v. Rumsfeld was filed in December 2004 by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) on behalf of 12 ousted gay and lesbian military personnel. In response to the suit, the government asked the court to dismiss the case as a matter of law. But as the complainants pointed out in their opposing briefs, the case is filled with questions of fact that the government did not address in court papers. Even more questionable, the SLDN brief said, was the government's use of old case law that predated the Lawrence decision. All of the previous "don't ask, don't tell" federal court decisions relied on the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick to uphold the military's ban on homosexual conduct. But Bowers, which allowed states to criminalize homosexual conduct, was expressly reversed by the Lawrence ruling. Writing for the Lawrence majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stressed that Bowers "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to be binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be, and is now, overturned." The demise of Bowers left the government's defense of "don't ask, don't tell" standing on one shaky legal leg, the idea that the courts should defer to Congress matters of national security and military policy. But deference, wrote the plaintiffs' lawyers, "is not abdication." Deference, they continued, "operates within the constitutional inquiry, not as a replacement for it." As to the disputed facts, there are dozens. Are gay men and lesbians a threat to unit cohesion? If so, why have gay and lesbian discharges declined during the war on terror? Do they create, as Congress said, "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline?" If so, why do so many of our allies all have integrated militaries? Do they contribute to an uncomfortable sexual tension in the barracks? If so, why aren't gays and lesbians completely banned from the services? Argued on Friday by co-counsel Stuart F. Delery of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Cook v. Rumsfeld is the first frontal assault on the Clinton policy in over a decade. Because of the Bowers precedent, previous cases have challenged an element of the policy, but this case confronts the entire statute, as well as the regulations contrived by the various branches to enforce it. The SLDN is asking Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. to declare the law and regulations unconstitutional, and to declare them unconstitutional as applied to each of the 12 plaintiffs. Further, the suit asks the court to order the U.S. military no longer to enforce any aspect of "don't ask, don't tell," and to reinstate the plaintiffs at their previous rank and pay scale. While Cook v. Rumsfeld continues what will presumably be a long road through the federal courts, the military's anti-gay policy is under attack in two other contexts. Last November, the Army's top court relied on Lawrence v. Texas to strike Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the sodomy ban that outlaws private consensual oral and anal sex for both heterosexual and homosexual personnel. Ruling in a separate matter, the highest military court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, had also implied that Lawrence may well demand the repeal of Article 125 (although not in that particular case). Finally, two cases have asked courts to decide whether Congress had the right to strip federal funds from colleges that refuse to cooperate with military recruiters on civil rights grounds. The main one, FAIR v. Rumsfeld, was brought by a consortium of 31 law schools (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights) in federal court in New Jersey. The schools won on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a decision that will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its next term. According to the SLDN, some 65,000 active members of the U.S. Armed Forces are closeted gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, while another 10,000 have been kicked out of the military in the last decade or so. "'Don't ask, don't tell,'" wrote the attorneys, "has harmed and continues to harm plaintiffs and other service members, their families and our country. [It] has shattered careers, deprived the United States of dedicated and skilled professionals and belittled all service members' capacity for tolerance and professionalism. " Submitted by Harpy (9559 posts) on July 8, 2005 - 8:35pm. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
Yay! It's about bloody time.
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
[quote:8b81fec8c3="ronia"]I don't think straight people realize how hard it is to "not tell." How often do the following come up in conversation:
*Are you seeing anyone?
*What are your plans for this weekend?
*Would you be interested in going out with (opposite sex person)? Oh really? Why not?
*Seen any good movies lately?
*Whatcha reading?
*What's your favorite tv show?
[/quote:8b81fec8c3]
Not to mention
* where did you get that love bite :oops: :twisted:
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
[quote:8b490ecc67="a_peanut"]Not to mention
* where did you get that love bite :oops: :twisted:[/quote:8b490ecc67]
:lmao:
Yeah, well..... especially difficult to explain if you're a man living in barracks with 400 other men and no women in sight. 8O
Thanks very much for the link to the article, [b:8b490ecc67]alainnmaggie[/b:8b490ecc67] - it is very encouraging to hear of any progress at all on that front. I especially liked this quote:
[quote:8b490ecc67]"Today's resolution is not just a condemnation of the current ban on gays serving openly, but also an affirmation of the more than 1 million gay veterans who have already served honorably and with distinction. The best way to thank them for their service would be to end the gay ban."[/quote:8b490ecc67]
:yeahthat:
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
People are so goddamned weak it's funny. This whole thing is stupid and silly.
Hello people. We're in the military to learn how to shoot guns. Not to learn how to have sex.
These are [i:560bccc45d]entirely[/i:560bccc45d] unrelated issues, and who someone has sex with does not contriubte to or detract from his or her ability to PULL A TRIGGER.
I find it hilarious that whoever's in charge of these policies has such a hard time with homosexuality that he thinks it's more 'dangerous' to the integrity of American national defence than say, oh I dunno, the shit storm of foreign policy that Clinton and Bush created over the past decade?
Eye on the freakin' ball, please.
/end rant
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
If you go to this part of the HRC's website, here:
[url]http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Special_Projects&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=53&ContentID=13200[/url]
there are some really interesting real-life stories, both from GLBT veterans who have served, and from straight people who have served with them.
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
With Miers out, O'Connor will
hear gay rights case
High court will consider protest of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
WASHINGTON (AP) | Oct 27, 5:37 PM
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement has been delayed again, putting her at the center of upcoming Supreme Court debates on abortion, the death penalty and gay rights.
The Supreme Court will take up an appeal on Dec. 6 that involves gay rights, as part of a protest against the Pentagon's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. (AP file photo)
Until Thursday, the White House had been pushing to have Harriet Miers confirmed before the court took up some of the most contentious cases of the year. Miers' withdrawal means O'Connor will hear those cases — and could control the outcome.
She is a moderate who has backed abortion rights and limits on capital punishment. And she has not been hesitant to oppose the Bush administration.
Nearly four months after O'Connor, 75, announced that she was stepping down to care for her ill husband, it's unclear when she will actually retire. She has said she will stay until a successor is confirmed.
She could quit before then, but that is unlikely because it would leave the court with just eight members and the potential for deadlocks.
O'Connor has been hearing cases and voting at closed-door meetings. But if she leaves the court before decisions are announced, her votes will not count.
"She remains the pivotal figure on the court," said David Alistair Yalof, author of a book on Supreme Court vacancies and a University of Connecticut professor.
Justices have already heard one major case, the administration's challenge to Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, and O'Connor seemed ready to support the law.
On Nov. 30, the justices will review a state abortion law, and on Dec. 6 they will take up an appeal that involves gay rights, as part of a protest against the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Two death penalty cases are scheduled for Dec. 7.
As long as O'Connor is on the court, she should actively participate in cases, Yalof said.
"It would look bad for the institution if they were manipulating opinions to avoid one of the justice's influence," he said.
O'Connor said in an interview with The Associated Press last month that she was willing to remain "a little longer because of the circumstances that unfolded on the death of our chief justice, which was not anticipated by any of us."
"It's OK," she said of the additional demands, although she made clear that, after 24 years on the Supreme Court, she was looking forward to more time for family and travel.
Until this year, the Supreme Court had no turnover for a record-setting 11 years. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died of cancer in September, and President Bush named John Roberts to the job. Before Rehnquist's death, Roberts had been named to succeed O'Connor.
A Senate vote on Miers had been expected in November, so many people thought O'Connor would be on the bench just a few months longer. The court's term began Oct. 3 and runs through the end of June.
"I very much think Sandra Day O'Connor will indeed remain a 'real' justice," said David Garrow, a legal historian at Cambridge University.
O'Connor is a notoriously fast opinion writer, and in the cases that have been argued at the high court this month she has been an energetic questioner.
Her involvement in the abortion case next month would be particularly influential. She is the architect of a 1992 compromise that barred abortion restrictions that impose an "undue burden" on women, and she was expected to be a key vote to strike down New Hampshire's parental notification law. The law lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
OK COME ON, Sandra Day O'Connor, let's have an end to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell!'
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
not sure if this was already posted elsewhere ... sorry if I'm repeating it >:O)
[b:1d9f4f70cd]CSSMM (Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military)[/b:1d9f4f70cd]
Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Canadian Military Performance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel1.htm
18 April 2000 - SANTA BARBARA, CA. A new 44-page study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian military has found that after [b:1d9f4f70cd]Canada’s 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces, military performance did not decline.[/b:1d9f4f70cd]
The study is the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled and reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research. Its title is "Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence".
The study was written by Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol. Belkin is Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. McNichol is Doctoral Candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley and Director of ELM Research Associates, a non-partisan research firm in Berkeley.
Key findings are as follows:
Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
[b:1d9f4f70cd]The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.[/b:1d9f4f70cd]
Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.
The study is available on the world wide web at www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu.
interesting that harassment for the wimmin dropped 46% after the ban was lifted ...
I thought since the study was preformed by an American team - that this would in fact, change policies for your military ...
<^^>`~`~
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
I didn't know it was possible for me to be any more proud of Canada...
:D
God Bless Canada!
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
Legislation is also being introduced that would protect civilian federal employees from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.
Up until now, the Civil Service Reform Act has been interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But the current administration been straying from that policy. And so the need for the present bill...
More here:
[url]http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=27681&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm[/url]
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
Another interesting side note to this story...
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=93110
[quote:977772d02f]Gay vets challenge `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in court
By Laurel J. Sweet
Saturday, July 9, 2005
[b:977772d02f]The Air Force taught Dr. Laura Galaburda to believe in ``one mission, one team.'' But on Valentine's Day 2002 she came clean about being a lesbian, and the service clipped her wings.
Now the military wants the former second lieutenant from Andover to give back the scholarship money she earned for her service to attend medical school at Boston University.[/b:977772d02f]
Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan argued before a packed courtroom yesterday that Galaburda - though a casualty of the federal government's 12-year-old ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy - is not a victim of prejudice as she claims in her suit.
Nor, he said, are any of the 11 other gay and lesbian former service members she has allied with in a civil action challenging the policy, which they hope will permit them to again serve their country in the war on terror.
The policy was instituted under President Clinton, and is backed by President Bush.
Like Galaburda, the five other women and six men from across America who served in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard were discharged after their respective branches found out they were gay.
The group contends ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is unconstitutional because it requires them to live a lie to save their military careers, denying them their rights to privacy, free speech and equal protection.
``We don't mean to disparage in any way the records of any of the 12 people in this case,'' said Quinlivan, who is trying to get the Boston-based suit dismissed on the grounds it is a battle better fought on Capitol Hill.
He said sexual tension poses a threat to the cohesiveness necessary for an effective fighting machine, and that while the military can separate men and women, it cannot do the same with gays and lesbians.
U.S. District Court Judge George O'Toole Jr. has taken the matter under advisement.[/quote:977772d02f]
You can see a picture of the woman here: http://tinyurl.com/boap6
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
I don't think straight people realize how hard it is to "not tell." How often do the following come up in conversation:
*Are you seeing anyone?
*What are your plans for this weekend?
*Would you be interested in going out with (opposite sex person)? Oh really? Why not?
*Seen any good movies lately?
*Whatcha reading?
*What's your favorite tv show?
Not to mention the worries about being seen in/around gay clubs, bookstores, community centers, or whatever. And forget attending Pride.
This policy doesn't simply ask lesbians and gays not to "tell" - it isolates them terribly and more or less forces them to lie.
I can't believe they're trying to make her repay the scholarship money after subjecting her to three years of that.
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
ronia - what a great post. I totally agree with everything you've said there.
Now, if we could only lure George W. onto the AfterEllen forum to read it... *looks thoughtful*..... I know! Why don't we promise free booze to everyone who joins!
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
[quote:08132f0729="Claudia"]Now, if we could only lure George W. onto the AfterEllen forum to read it... *looks thoughtful*..... I know! Why don't we promise free booze to everyone who joins![/quote:08132f0729]
Well that would certainly get his daughters to visit. :lol:
But I agree, that was an excellent post Ronia. Not that I ever understood Don't Ask, Don't Tell's "morale saver" idea anyway, but how can that much oppression [i:08132f0729]help[/i:08132f0729] anyone? *Sigh*
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
While reading another "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" article, I found these statistics. They are the dismissals (called "separations") of gay soldiers, sorted by year. It's difficult to ignore how much the numbers dwindle when there's a war or two (i.e. "we don't want to acknowledge you, but we don't mind you dying for us"). If the "morale argument" is so true, wouldn't the numbers go up and not down? :?
N.B. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, following the September 11th attacks. They have been engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq ever since.
Total number of "homosexual separations" from 1997 to 2004, according to the Department of Defense:
1997 — 997
1998 — 1,145
1999 — 1,034
2000 — 1,212
2001 — 1,227
2002 — 885
2003 — 770
2004 — 653
"The Pentagon, of course, has a great need for bodies to fight, a great need for manpower," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. "And in this war, just as was the case in Vietnam, and Korea, and Persian Gulf I, and World War II, the Pentagon is ceasing to discharge gay service members because it needs gays to serve in combat."
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Being Challenged in Federal Court
California Assembly Passes Resolution Calling for Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) today applauded the passage of a California State Assembly resolution calling for the repeal of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell� ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. The resolution, introduced by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), is the first to be passed by a state legislature. The resolution was sponsored by Equality California, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. It passed the Assembly on Wednesday.
“(T)he Legislature of the State of California,� the resolution reads, in part, “respectfully urge the President and Congress of the United States to adopt the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 1059) to end the discriminatory federal policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’�
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in March by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA) and currently has 94 co-sponsors, including 22 members of California’s Congressional Delegation – more than any other state. The resolution puts California, the nation’s most populous state, on record as officially opposing the military’s ban. The state joins numerous other jurisdictions that have urged Congress to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ including the cities of Chicago, New York, San Francisco and West Hollywood.
“‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ compromises the safety and security of every American in every community,� said Kathi S. Westcott, senior counsel for law and policy for SLDN. “Our military is better able to protect and defend our nation when every qualified American is allowed to serve, regardless of sexual orientation. The passage of this resolution sends a strong message of appreciation to the more than 65,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans currently on duty in our armed forces and the 1 million lesbian, gay and bisexual veterans living in the United States, of which 137,000 live in California. SLDN commends the California State Legislature, Senator Kehoe and Equality California for working towards the repeal of this discriminatory policy.�
The statewide resolution was passed by the Assembly with a 44-30 vote.
For more information on the resolution, visit Equality California online at www.eqca.org.
WHOOHOO! This could be wonderful news!! :bunny: (celebratory dance)
St. Louis stands up...
http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=2437