"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Pages

This just in...

A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don't ask, don't tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.

Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.

Good.

I was half expecting the ruling to be, "it's illegal to deceive government personnel by not telling." This version is better.

Interesting approach. Ignore the discrimination angle and go at it from the free speech side. I obviously haven't been following this, has that argument been around awhile or is it fairly new?

I love it. This is going to be interesting with Prop 8 going up the chain, too.

I just dropped a note by someone I know who made a movie supporting this idea several years ago called Courage Doesn't Ask. I also will talk to my son in the Army when he comes by this evening. I wonder what their takes are going to be.

An article in the WaPo today reports that the Pentagon has been caught flat-footed by this. They were counting on getting their services-wide surveys done to figure out how to implement this in an orderly fashion, and now they might be told to just stop the policy immediately. This should be popcorn-worthy...

Hmm, I guess this means that portions of the UCMJ have the potential to be ruled as unconstitutional for limiting free speech as well. That plus the homophobe portion of the services tells me that they're going to fight this thing all the way and nothing will really happen until the supremes give their ruling.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Hmm, I guess this means that portions of the UCMJ have the potential to be ruled as unconstitutional for limiting free speech as well. That plus the homophobe portion of the services tells me that they're going to fight this thing all the way and nothing will really happen until the supremes give their ruling.

My experience has been that the only significant homophobe portion of the services resides in Congress. Yes, there are homophobes in the military (or at least there were in the 90's when I was in that world), but the vast majority of the military simply doesn't care, similar to the issues with women.

Aetius wrote:

My experience has been that the only significant homophobe portion of the services resides in Congress. Yes, there are homophobes in the military (or at least there were in the 90's when I was in that world), but the vast majority of the military simply doesn't care, similar to the issues with women.

I got out in 2003 and there were plenty. I even remember a couple of guys getting roughed up after word got out that they were being kicked out because they got caught in a shower together. The gays in the military subject came up sometimes and I'd guess that my unit was 75% "no way" and the rest were a mix of apathy and "equal rights. I never heard anyone come out strongly in favor though.

Hey CC, think of it as gun ownership. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you need to exercise it.

In my previous unit I would comfortably say that over 80-90% of the personnel did not care if someone was gay or not and quite a few were outspoken about the unfairness of the don't ask don't tell policy. Of course in intel we had personnel that were in general educated and more intelligent than the average high school dropout redneck you run into every once in a while in the Army. There was one guy that was a SSG that was as gay as you can get in the army without throwing up red flags. We called him "The Baker" because he would bake cakes, cupcakes, pies and desserts and then bring them into the office for everyone. Really nice guy and always scored 3/3 on his DLPTs.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

In my previous unit I would comfortably say that over 80-90% of the personnel did not care if someone was gay or not and quite a few were outspoken about the unfairness of the don't ask don't tell policy. Of course in intel we had personnel that were in general educated and more intelligent than the average high school dropout redneck you run into every once in a while in the Army. There was one guy that was a SSG that was as gay as you can get in the army without throwing up red flags. We called him "The Baker" because he would bake cakes, cupcakes, pies and desserts and then bring them into the office for everyone. Really nice guy and always scored 3/3 on his DLPTs.

Ain't nuthin' gay about bakin'. You're the ones who's gay for eating those penis shaped eclairs. In fact, it creeps me out just bein' around you.

Paleocon wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

In my previous unit I would comfortably say that over 80-90% of the personnel did not care if someone was gay or not and quite a few were outspoken about the unfairness of the don't ask don't tell policy. Of course in intel we had personnel that were in general educated and more intelligent than the average high school dropout redneck you run into every once in a while in the Army. There was one guy that was a SSG that was as gay as you can get in the army without throwing up red flags. We called him "The Baker" because he would bake cakes, cupcakes, pies and desserts and then bring them into the office for everyone. Really nice guy and always scored 3/3 on his DLPTs.

Ain't nuthin' gay about bakin'. You're the ones who's gay for eating those penis shaped eclairs. In fact, it creeps me out just bein' around you.

;)

But they have so much cream on the inside!

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

In my previous unit I would comfortably say that over 80-90% of the personnel did not care if someone was gay or not and quite a few were outspoken about the unfairness of the don't ask don't tell policy. Of course in intel we had personnel that were in general educated and more intelligent than the average high school dropout redneck you run into every once in a while in the Army. There was one guy that was a SSG that was as gay as you can get in the army without throwing up red flags. We called him "The Baker" because he would bake cakes, cupcakes, pies and desserts and then bring them into the office for everyone. Really nice guy and always scored 3/3 on his DLPTs.

Ain't nuthin' gay about bakin'. You're the ones who's gay for eating those penis shaped eclairs. In fact, it creeps me out just bein' around you.

;)

But they have so much cream on the inside! ;)

Big Bob's Bakery is open for business.

There are two types of troops, Support and Combat. Do Support troops care? In general, not really. Do Combat Troops care? In general, yes. Everything the Military does is focused on making the Combat Troops as "f*cking awesome" as possible, and removing women and gays from their ranks is a part of that. Is it 2010 Socially acceptable? Not really. Is it the right thing to do to have even a .05% more efficient force? If your life depended on it, which way would you vote?

The Pentagon's stance on these issues has always focused on removing distractions from the Combat Troops. 'Gays' and 'Women dieing on the battlefield' have been distractions for American troops. Other cultures handle this better. Of course, other cultures will allow boobs on network TV. We are who we are, and until the greater society has accepted something for a generation, trying to force it on a "special culture" that's even more restrictive and regressive is a little cart before the horse, IMHO.

I would love for every individual to be able to fight for our country, however, I also know we have the most "f*cking awesome" force on the planet, and we have done certain things a certain way to keep it that way.

While I'm not big on appealing to the lowest common denominator, I will agree that a battlefield is no place for sensitivity training. However, I don't think the answer is to simply let it be. Maybe it's something we can ease in (:D) during training stateside or in other situations where we can afford the hit to morale without anyone dying.

At the very least they could find SOME place for gay soldiers. I recall hearing a while back they kicked out some Arabic-speakers because they were gay. No matter how "f*cking awesome" our army is, that seems like a stupid thing to do when those guys could be very useful on the support side.

LobsterMobster wrote:

While I'm not big on appealing to the lowest common denominator, I will agree that a battlefield is no place for sensitivity training. However, I don't think the answer is to simply let it be. Maybe it's something we can ease in (:D) during training stateside or in other situations where we can afford the hit to morale without anyone dying.

At the very least they could find SOME place for gay soldiers. I recall hearing a while back they kicked out some Arabic-speakers because they were gay. No matter how "f*cking awesome" our army is, that seems like a stupid thing to do when those guys could be very useful on the support side.

And maybe that would be a "better" solution, allow gays in support roles, just like we allow women there. I don't think anyone is jostling for this position, but it would allow for a more gradual transition. Like I said before, in a perfect world I don't think this should be acceptable (segregation, essentially), but it's not a perfect world, and the greater society is still very conflicted on homosexuality.

Though I can see what you're saying in principle, I think it is worth pointing out that if we didn't integrate the military until folks were ready for it, we would still have racially segregated units. At a certain point, it is just the right thing to do to tell people to act like mature adults.

Shoal07 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

While I'm not big on appealing to the lowest common denominator, I will agree that a battlefield is no place for sensitivity training. However, I don't think the answer is to simply let it be. Maybe it's something we can ease in (:D) during training stateside or in other situations where we can afford the hit to morale without anyone dying.

At the very least they could find SOME place for gay soldiers. I recall hearing a while back they kicked out some Arabic-speakers because they were gay. No matter how "f*cking awesome" our army is, that seems like a stupid thing to do when those guys could be very useful on the support side.

And maybe that would be a "better" solution, allow gays in support roles, just like we allow women there. I don't think anyone is jostling for this position, but it would allow for a more gradual transition. Like I said before, in a perfect world I don't think this should be acceptable (segregation, essentially), but it's not a perfect world, and the greater society is still very conflicted on homosexuality.

I doubt that this would fly. Assuming that the ruling holds, and DADT is struck down at a constitutional, judicial level, these rulings will pretty much invalidate rear-guard attempts to delay integrating openly gay soldiers into the armed forces.

Paleocon wrote:

Though I can see what you're saying in principle, I think it is worth pointing out that if we didn't integrate the military until folks were ready for it, we would still have racially segregated units. At a certain point, it is just the right thing to do to tell people to act like mature adults.

This. I'm sure that at some point having other races in your unit was a distraction that could shave off that 0.05% awesomeness, too.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Though I can see what you're saying in principle, I think it is worth pointing out that if we didn't integrate the military until folks were ready for it, we would still have racially segregated units. At a certain point, it is just the right thing to do to tell people to act like mature adults.

This. I'm sure that at some point having other races in your unit was a distraction that could shave off that 0.05% awesomeness, too.

We act under the assumption that integration was a good thing, and I believe it was, but let's assume for a moment that the loss of 0.05% awesomeness actually cost someone their life. Now I don't mean to suggest it was the fault of a black soldier for being black, and in fact it's possible that the person who died, died because he couldn't get over his own racist attitudes. He didn't die because of integration, he died because he was a racist. It's very easy to say it was well worth the cost, and I in fact would say that. I wonder though, what does that matter to the dead soldier's parents? All they know is that their son is dead.

0.05% awesomeness is a very small cost. It is still a cost. What if we could avoid that cost by waiting a year? Five years? How many more lives would be lost by waiting and denying our armed forces that manpower? I'm not going to advocate any course of action here. It's just something to think about.

LobsterMobster wrote:

0.05% awesomeness is a very small cost. It is still a cost. What if we could avoid that cost by waiting a year? Five years? How many more lives would be lost by waiting and denying our armed forces that manpower? I'm not going to advocate any course of action here. It's just something to think about.

To sort of toss that around the other way how much of a cost have we paid in manpower and lives because we have the anti-gay(and women in combat) agenda in the military? How many highly intelligent and effective people have we lost because they were gay, female?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

0.05% awesomeness is a very small cost. It is still a cost. What if we could avoid that cost by waiting a year? Five years? How many more lives would be lost by waiting and denying our armed forces that manpower? I'm not going to advocate any course of action here. It's just something to think about.

To sort of toss that around the other way how much of a cost have we paid in manpower and lives because we have the anti-gay(and women in combat) agenda in the military? How many highly intelligent and effective people have we lost because they were gay, female?

They had skills that the military didn't need at the time...like being able to speak Arabic or Farsi. It's obviously better to not understand what the people who's country you're occupying are saying than it is to risk that 0.05% awesomeness by having those icky gays around.

I would love for every individual to be able to fight for our country, however, I also know we have the most "f*cking awesome" force on the planet, and we have done certain things a certain way to keep it that way.

And that way is not affected by in the forced inclusion of previously excluded groups, according the Rand Corporation.

The main argument that military leaders use against lifting the ban on homosexuals is that the presence of homosexuals in the force would significantly disrupt unit cohesion. The research team found no scientific evidence on the effects of open homosexuals on a unit's cohesion and combat effectiveness. Any attempt to predict such effects was acknowledged as necessarily speculative. However, there was a good deal of literature on unit cohesion. The RAND team conducted a critical review of this research and its implications for the policy debate on homosexuals in the military. Their principal conclusion was the commonsense observation that it is not necessary to like someone to work with him or her, so long as members share a commitment to the group's objectives. This conclusion was also borne out in the review of racial integration mentioned above.

“Cohesion” is a term that is generally used in the military to refer to the forces that bind individuals together as a group. It is helpful to think of it in two ways: (1) social cohesion, which refers to the nature and quality of the emotional bonds of friendship, caring, and closeness among group members; and (2) task cohesion, which refers to the shared commitment among members to achieve a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group.

Research reviewed by the study team showed that unit performance is clearly correlated with task cohesion. This finding is entirely consistent with the results of hundreds of studies in the industrial-organizational psychology literature on the crucial role of goal-setting for productivity. Social cohesion, on the other hand, bears little relationship to performance. Indeed, studies have shown that high social cohesion sometimes interferes with unit performance.

The presence of a known homosexual in a unit could reduce social cohesion. In extreme cases, it could lead to ostracism or violence. However, both research and the experience of foreign militaries and domestic organizations suggest that a number of factors can minimize social disruption. First, leaders play a key role in promoting and maintaining unit cohesion. Second, military roles, regulations, and norms all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work cooperatively with homosexuals. Third, external threats enhance cohesion, provided that the group members are mutually threatened and there is the possibility that cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.

The RAND study suggests that although the presence of a known homosexual may affect social cohesion, it is unlikely to undermine task cohesion, provided that the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit's mission. Therefore, researchers conclude that the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance.

They also found that in cities which had adopted non-discrimination policies regarding gays in police and fire units, the performance of the services was not affected by the presence of gays.

Shoal07 wrote:

There are two types of troops, Support and Combat. Do Support troops care? In general, not really. Do Combat Troops care? In general, yes. Everything the Military does is focused on making the Combat Troops as "f*cking awesome" as possible, and removing women and gays from their ranks is a part of that. Is it 2010 Socially acceptable? Not really. Is it the right thing to do to have even a .05% more efficient force? If your life depended on it, which way would you vote?

The Pentagon's stance on these issues has always focused on removing distractions from the Combat Troops. 'Gays' and 'Women dieing on the battlefield' have been distractions for American troops. Other cultures handle this better. Of course, other cultures will allow boobs on network TV. We are who we are, and until the greater society has accepted something for a generation, trying to force it on a "special culture" that's even more restrictive and regressive is a little cart before the horse, IMHO.

I would love for every individual to be able to fight for our country, however, I also know we have the most "f*cking awesome" force on the planet, and we have done certain things a certain way to keep it that way.

I've seen some extremely racist and bigoted "Combat" Soldiers. I know they hate and feel uncomfortable when those that aren't white are there. They just need to focus on the mission and not their prejudices. The same goes for when homosexuals are allowed to be openly homosexual and serve which will happen soon.

Plus I know plenty of women MPs that were "support" but were doing daily combat patrols in Iraq on a 50 cal on top of Humvees.

Robear wrote:
I would love for every individual to be able to fight for our country, however, I also know we have the most "f*cking awesome" force on the planet, and we have done certain things a certain way to keep it that way.

And that way is not affected by in the forced inclusion of previously excluded groups, according the Rand Corporation.

The main argument that military leaders use against lifting the ban on homosexuals is that the presence of homosexuals in the force would significantly disrupt unit cohesion. The research team found no scientific evidence on the effects of open homosexuals on a unit's cohesion and combat effectiveness. Any attempt to predict such effects was acknowledged as necessarily speculative. However, there was a good deal of literature on unit cohesion. The RAND team conducted a critical review of this research and its implications for the policy debate on homosexuals in the military. Their principal conclusion was the commonsense observation that it is not necessary to like someone to work with him or her, so long as members share a commitment to the group's objectives. This conclusion was also borne out in the review of racial integration mentioned above.

“Cohesion” is a term that is generally used in the military to refer to the forces that bind individuals together as a group. It is helpful to think of it in two ways: (1) social cohesion, which refers to the nature and quality of the emotional bonds of friendship, caring, and closeness among group members; and (2) task cohesion, which refers to the shared commitment among members to achieve a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group.

Research reviewed by the study team showed that unit performance is clearly correlated with task cohesion. This finding is entirely consistent with the results of hundreds of studies in the industrial-organizational psychology literature on the crucial role of goal-setting for productivity. Social cohesion, on the other hand, bears little relationship to performance. Indeed, studies have shown that high social cohesion sometimes interferes with unit performance.

The presence of a known homosexual in a unit could reduce social cohesion. In extreme cases, it could lead to ostracism or violence. However, both research and the experience of foreign militaries and domestic organizations suggest that a number of factors can minimize social disruption. First, leaders play a key role in promoting and maintaining unit cohesion. Second, military roles, regulations, and norms all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work cooperatively with homosexuals. Third, external threats enhance cohesion, provided that the group members are mutually threatened and there is the possibility that cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.

The RAND study suggests that although the presence of a known homosexual may affect social cohesion, it is unlikely to undermine task cohesion, provided that the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit's mission. Therefore, researchers conclude that the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance.

They also found that in cities which had adopted non-discrimination policies regarding gays in police and fire units, the performance of the services was not affected by the presence of gays.

That's an interesting perspective, and I can see and agree with their point. I was iterating the military's POV, I wasn't promoting it.

I still find it shocking that people are expecting a culture which lags behind (about a generation behind) society's culture to "just deal with it" when society cannot. It would be different if Gay marriage and rights were all equal, and then we were expecting the military to change. I still think it's a little cart before the horse. Glass houses and all.

Shoal07 wrote:

I still find it shocking that people are expecting a culture which lags behind (about a generation behind) society's culture to "just deal with it" when society cannot. It would be different if Gay marriage and rights were all equal, and then we were expecting the military to change. I still think it's a little cart before the horse. Glass houses and all.

How long after Loving v. Virginia did it take the military to integrate?

Seth, I hardly think gay men are interested in loving Virginia, whoever she is.

Seth wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I still find it shocking that people are expecting a culture which lags behind (about a generation behind) society's culture to "just deal with it" when society cannot. It would be different if Gay marriage and rights were all equal, and then we were expecting the military to change. I still think it's a little cart before the horse. Glass houses and all.

How long after Loving v. Virginia did it take the military to integrate? :)

My favorite court case, selected for irony.

Seth wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I still find it shocking that people are expecting a culture which lags behind (about a generation behind) society's culture to "just deal with it" when society cannot. It would be different if Gay marriage and rights were all equal, and then we were expecting the military to change. I still think it's a little cart before the horse. Glass houses and all.

How long after Loving v. Virginia did it take the military to integrate? :)

The military was desegregated by executive order in 1948.

Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.

Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967.

At least so far as the civil rights movement is concerned, then, the military was actually ahead of the curve.

I saw an interesting* exchange on a clip from The View** regarding Lady Gaga's commentary. Miss Gunbra gave the idea that since it was the bigoted and angry straight troops that were supposedly the ones the law was trying to protect, why are we protecting violent bigots? We should instead just ship back those who can't keep their "love of country" ahead of their "need to punch a queer" rather than punish homosexuals who actually want to serve***.

I thought it was a pretty thoughtful commentary on how backwards DADT is, but then one of the screeching harpies circled around their wooden coffee-altar said, effectively, "HOW DARE YOU TELL A SOLDIER, WHO IS PUTTING THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE FOR YOUR FREEDOM, WHAT TO DO!!" Now, of course, the "how dare you talk bad about soldiers" thing was inevitable, just like thinking of the children, but the obvious flaw here is... isn't the homosexual a soldier, too? It's very chic right now to get all righteous and remind everyone in earshot, loudly, about how by God you better not slander the soldiers and they're beyond reproach because they buy your comfort with their sanity and blood****, but it was just hilarious that suddenly being gay removes that invisible rhetoric shield. To me it was just interesting* because the harpy in question didn't even blink and naturally the talk went to things like politics and can't we all get along, which was - when taken in context of what was just said - equally interesting*.

(*for all values of "interesting" that equal "oh god really people can say/do that and not realize how ignorant/hypocritical they are?")

(**LOOK, IT'S A SLOW WORK DAY)

(***No, she wasn't that clear, but I am adept at translating beach-drinking moonbaby to English)

(****All of which I agree with, mostly, so put the pitchforks down)

I'm in the army so I can talk bad about soldiers and say we should kick out those that are intolerant and commit hate crimes against homosexuals. Usually those are the people that will end up flipping burgers for a living because they couldn't make it in a place that requires tolerance. It's not like we are hurting for more people to join the army at the moment. Retention/recruiter personnel have an easy time getting their quota compared to just a few years ago.

My last unit had the retention nco hit his yearly requirement by the end of the first fiscal quarter.

Pages