Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Republicans Strike Another Blow for Gay Rights

Republicans Strike Another Blow for Gay Rights

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

While gay activists on the left are urging Senate Democrats to repeal the Military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, gay Republicans have beaten them to the punch with a court ruling which may put an end to the policy without legislative action.

Ruling on a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, federal District Judge Virginia Phillips declared the ban on gay service memers to be an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment protections and due process and that it had a “direct and deleterious effect” on conditions in the military. She wrote:

“All of these examples demonstrate that the act’s restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government’s substantial interests, but also actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals.”

She also issued an injunction to stop the military from discharging any further openly gay service members.

The scenario in this case is remarkably similar to the recent ruling against California’s Propositon 8. Once again, Republican activists and organizations backed the lawsuit while Attorney General Holder and the Obama administration defended established anti-gay policies. Although President Obama has said he would like to see the policy repealed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued that the military should be allowed to delay any change in policy while waiting for a study on the issue to be completed.

R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans observed:

“As an American, a veteran and an Army Reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don’t Ask Don’t Tell statute violates the Constitution.”

This victory for the Log Cabin Republicans adds another milestone in the Republican Party’s rapid transition towards increased acceptance of its gay members and advocacy for civil liberties regardless of sexual orientation. This change has been demonstrated by these recent legal initiatives, the inclusion of gay activist groups in the recent CPAC conference and the general lack of controversy when former GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman “came out” last week. While Republicans generally do not believe in giving special rights to minority groups, they believe strongly that all people should be equal under the law, including gay Americans.

The “don’t ask don’t tell” policy was initiated by the Clinton administration and has resulted in the dismissal of over 13,000 service men and women who were perfectly capable of performing their duties. It has drained the military of talented personnel at a time when it is overextended and they are badly needed.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Fingal O’Flahertie

    I read with interest The Washington Post article linked in your second paragraph.

    It left me feeling discouraged.

    This is a decision at the trial court level, meaning it must now “work its way through the federal appeals court system,” as The Post says. We all know that could take years, and possibly wind up in the Supreme Court, which ain’t exactly renowned for its libertarian bias.

    The Post quotes one activist who thinks this trial court decision “could well be the catalyst” for a vote on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by the U.S. Senate. But that sounds like wishful thinking. And even if the Senate does vote, do you honestly think they’ll repeal the law? Especially since the Republicans look to score big gains in November’s elections, I can’t see that happening. Unless, of course, all those new GOP senators are Log Cabin Republicans. But as far as I know, none of the current crop of GOP hopefuls is anything of the sort.

    In other words, this is a nice symbolic victory for opponents of DADT, but let’s be honest. It will have no practical effect.

  • Cannonshop

    It will only lack practical effect, if it is left behind where it is at, and not pursued.

    Seriously.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Dave,

    I’m placing this here as a primer. This way, by the time I read and comment on your thread you’ll be prepared:

    You know, A person is not required to know rocket-science in-order to have an opinion in this section. This isn’t Sci/Tech, it’s Politics. I think you play your “I don’t know what Jeannie is talking about!” as a ploy to dodge my questions and minimize my relevance to the conversations here. These are not good traits to display in your position, are they?

    JD

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Votes are Votes. To the GOP it wont matter where they are coming from until after they win or loose. Then you’ll see their true colors again, and they’re not rainbow

    Also, people were systematically-court-marshaled for being gay(openly or not) before Clinton. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that he was able to get in place, back then, was the best that any one could get through the two stogy Houses.

    JD -If you need me to interpret this, Just ask don’t tell.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    misspelled word, sue me.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Votes are Votes. To the GOP it wont matter where they are coming from until after they win or loose. Then you’ll see their true colors again, and they’re not rainbow…

    Which is why we had no problem with Ken Mehlman who everyone knew was gay running the party for years and years. Give me a break. Gay Republicans are a major force in the party and after all of the developments we’ve seen this year they aren’t going away.

    Dave

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    He hid that fact from everyone, Dave.

    If anything, it shows what a great lier he is. Also, the religious-right aren’t going to hold their arms wide open

    To some *sinners* it’s OK as long as you hide it, in a men’s public restroom.

    I’m not saying being gay is a sin. I’m not the religious right.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Gay Republicans are a major force in the party

    Define “major force,” Dave. I have a feeling your definition differs somewhat from mine.

  • Jordan Richardson

    As to Mehlman, he denied he was gay in 2006. According to the New York Daily News, he said “I’m not gay, but those stories did a number on my dating life for six months.”

    Then Bill Maher “outed him” on Larry King, but Maher’s comments were edited out of the broadcast.

    Four years after denying it, he finally came out. And when he did, Mehlman still backed the Republican anti-gay social policies orchestrated by the likes of Karl Rove. He didn’t start standing up for gay issues until he was able to do so in his private life.

    Christ, Dave. A simple Google reveals this stuff in like five seconds. What a crappy example of someone “everyone knew was gay running the party.” Give me a break, indeed.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave continues gleefully to rewrite history, always sliming Democrats and always pretending Republicans are blameless, pure, and sweet-smelling.

    Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a reluctant compromise forced by massive resistance to the Democratic president’s talk of integrating gays into the military by executive order, a la Truman and blacks.

    The resistance came from social conservatives like Jesse Helms and even moderate Republicans like Colin Powell. It was not an idea embraced enthusiastically by Democrats. It was an attempt to put an ugly political fight to rest.

    Of course, you need not bother to mention one syllable of this actual history in your revisionist propaganda.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    When the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to approve repeal of DADT in May, the votes in favor were 15 Dems and 1 Republican [Susan Collins].

    The full House of Representatives has voted for repeal also, around the same time, and it was also along party lines, most Dems voting for repeal and Republicans voting against repeal [234-194].

    What were those Republicans striking a blow for, Mr. Nalle?

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    I must ask the same question. There you go again, Dave. When one reads the U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips’ decision, one finds the following on page 45:

    “After taking office in 1992, President Clinton directed Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to review his department’s policy regarding homosexuals serving in the military. Congress undertook its own review and, in 1993, enacted the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act, which regulated the service of homosexual personnel in the United States military.”

    By the way, who were the Log Cabin Republicans striking that blow against? That would be the Senate, where all the action isn’t.

    And, another oh by the way, substantive due process is the 5th Amendment in this case, not the 14th Amendment which the Republicans seek to rewrite.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jordan, your own examples point out that I’m correct about the general knowledge about Mehlman being gay. Now we just have to see how long it takes for Karl Rove to come out too.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Tommy and Handy don’t seem to grasp the difference between Republicans in Congress and the rest of us out here trying to reclaim the party. The LCR is part of the reform wing of the party and clearly their goals are very specific and very different from the folks in Congress who have served us so poorly. But we’re voting them out as fast as we can this year and we’ll get rid of more of them next year. And we’ll keep doing it until our representation in Congress more closely resembles what the grassroots wants.

    Dave

  • Jordan Richardson

    Dave, are you honestly trying to tell me that the Republicans were okay with Mehlman’s homosexuality? Because that’s the point you were trying to prove initially and Mehlman’s own behaviour seems to disprove it outright.

    Your idea that “everybody knew” about his homosexuality sure does stink in the face of his continued denial so that he could “fit in with Republican values.”

    How do you deal with this obvious discrepancy?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Oh, I can tell the difference all right. Can you?

    Dave, you’re talking about…maybe 90% of the Republicans in Congress. How many GOP incumbents do you expect to defeat this year? I mean, I think you want to take Congress from the Dems, don’t you? And I don’t recall this “defeat GOP incumbents” theme as a dominant one in your other recent articles.

    There may be a considerable number of Tea Partiers who are at least neutral on this issue. But Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul are not among them.

    And many of the far-right GOP Congressmen and women are both pro-tea-party and pro-DADT. Admit this, please. It’s true.

    And…nearly all the Democrats in Congress agree with you on this issue. And on several other social issues. Yet you slime them repeatedly.

    Twistin’ like a pretzel, you are.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, are you honestly trying to tell me that the Republicans were okay with Mehlman’s homosexuality? Because that’s the point you were trying to prove initially and Mehlman’s own behaviour seems to disprove it outright.

    You’re saying that he has basically severed ties with the GOP by coming out, when that’s clearly not the case. Take a look at the LCR website sometime. Their functions are attended by all sorts of prominent Republican politicians.

    I particularly refer you to the guests at their 2006 convention which was in DC and included as guests: Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), VP Dick Cheney, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Rep. Michael Huffington (R-CA), Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI), Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) and others.

    Your idea that “everybody knew” about his homosexuality sure does stink in the face of his continued denial so that he could “fit in with Republican values.”

    I’m sure there are some Republicans whose values he could not fit in with, but I have to point out that he still supports the GOP and there has been little or no public furor about his revelation.

    How do you deal with this obvious discrepancy?

    I don’t see anything odd about it. There are some Republicans who have a personal problem with homosexuality, usually for religious reasons. The same is true of some Democrats. Even for them, knowing Mehlman was gay wasn’t a problem so long as he wasn’t blatantly public about it.

    Dave, you’re talking about…maybe 90% of the Republicans in Congress. How many GOP incumbents do you expect to defeat this year?

    With open seats we expect to see 20 to 30 house seats move into more libertarian hands. Plus an equal number of more establishment Republicans replacing Dems.

    I mean, I think you want to take Congress from the Dems, don’t you? And I don’t recall this “defeat GOP incumbents” theme as a dominant one in your other recent articles.

    The primary is mostly over at this point. Look farther back.

    There may be a considerable number of Tea Partiers who are at least neutral on this issue. But Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul are not among them.

    Rand Paul favors federal neutrality on gay marriage and leaving it up to the states. Same for Angle. I have this straight from the horse’s mouth in both cases.

    As for Palin, early in her tenure as Goveror she came out against gay marriage, but when Alaska passed a bill banning partnership benefits she vetoed it. And in the VP debate in 2008 she supported civil unions.

    I’ve got no interest in Rubio or O’Donnell. They’re ultra conservative and O’Donnell is borderline nuts. No reason why I should defend them.

    And many of the far-right GOP Congressmen and women are both pro-tea-party and pro-DADT. Admit this, please. It’s true.

    Sure, the far right is pro DADT. Obviously. They’re a shrinking and increasingly marginalized group within the party.

    And…nearly all the Democrats in Congress agree with you on this issue. And on several other social issues. Yet you slime them repeatedly.

    In the grand scheme of things gay marriage is not even close to the most important issue facing the nation. On far more vital issues the Democrats are consistently on the wrong side.

    Dave

  • Jordan Richardson

    You’re saying that he has basically severed ties with the GOP by coming out, when that’s clearly not the case.

    I didn’t say that at all, Dave, and you know it. I said that he didn’t come out because he was a prominent Republican. The facts clearly reflect this.

    I don’t doubt that Mehlman still supports the Republicans. I never suggested he didn’t, but it’s hardly surprising you’d shoot flares off into the air to draw attention away from the fire burning in your backyard.

    The fact is that the climate of the Republican party made it a gigantic political risk for Mehlman to come out of the closet. It’s not a small throng of fringe members that oppose homosexuality; it’s a systemic problem.

    there has been little or no public furor about his revelation.

    Public furor? Of course not, but that’s not the issue. We aren’t talking about whether the “public” has an issue with Mehlman as a homosexual. We’re talking about why he had to remain in the closet as a prominent Republican and that appears to be an issue you refuse to address directly. Fine.

    I don’t doubt that there are individual members of the Republican Party that are homosexuals. I also don’t doubt that there are individual members of the Republican Party that are widely accepting of homosexuality. I would never suggest otherwise.

    But there appears to be a systemic issue to the GOP if Mehlman viewed staying in the closet as a smart political move. And there appears to likewise be a systemic issue if Mehlman felt he had to stay in line with the party’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage in order to protect his political career. Wouldn’t you agree this symbolizes at least the hint of a problem with your idea of the Republicans as an accepting bunch?

    Even for them, knowing Mehlman was gay wasn’t a problem so long as he wasn’t blatantly public about it.

    I hope you’re joking, Dave.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    OMG, here comes the tired line, “my values are better than yours.” Do the GOP(who haven’t a clue as to their own members values) think that this ploy will work again?

    JD

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The last Republican president openly supported civil unions. His VP was very supportive of his openly gay child. Being openly gay is probably not a choice any active politician in either party is going to make if he can avoid it, but so long as he doesn’t become identified as gay first and republican second it’s not going to be a problem in the GOP. The evidence for that is ample.

    The LCR has 20,000 paid members and can raise the money to advertise here on BC and sue the government in federal court. They can get prominent non-gay Republican politicians to show up at their events. They’re influential and accepted.

    What the hell more do you want?

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The last Republican president used gay marriage as a wedge issue, with no visible ambivalence, during his 2004 reelection campaign. He may have done it reluctantly, but he did it, on orders from Kloset Kase Karl. And Mehlman was the chair of that campaign.

    And the wedge issue was nastily effective where it counted, in Ohio, which would have turned the election if it had gone for Kerry [the margin was quite close].

    Laura Bush even took W. to task about this in her recent autobiography.

  • http://www.fourthestatepost.com/ Dean Stephens

    So… let me get this straight. Your argument is to forget the fact that the vast majority of republicans are against gay rights and never mind the fact repubs have been spewing anti-gay trite for several decades. Not to mention, the only reason DADT even exists is because repubs didn’t want gays serving in the military, and pres.Clinton was forced to appease them with this pragmatic (but misguided) law. Because a small group of republicans (who happen to be gay) want civil rights for themselves, the entire republican party is now the gay vanguard? Don’t take this the wrong way Dave, but I think your reasoning has some holes in it.

  • zingzing

    dean, the whole of his reasoning is a hole. it’s pathetic. it’s patently ludicrous. and even dave knows it. but he’s good a lying to himself, apparently.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yep, Dave, W. openly supported civil unions. He did this while saying crap like the following:

    “Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today’s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

    – November 18, 2003

    “The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith…Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.”

    – February of 2004, when he supported the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage while living the notion of civil unions up to the individual states.

    In supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal, Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services paid two columnists to promote the proposal. The Bush Administration paid Michael McManus, who openly opposes gay marriage AND civil unions, over $50,000 (at least $49,000 of that was a “donation” to McManus’ Marriage Savers group). And the Bush Administration paid Maggie Gallagher, former head of the National Organization for Marriage and another opponent of civil unions AND gay marriage, over $40,000 for similar writing in support of anti-gay marriage legislation.

    As for Cheney, he supported gay marriage on a “state-by-state basis” and, according to the Washington Post, “spelled out his differences with President Bush” by stating his view that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” Good on him.

    Being openly gay is probably not a choice any active politician in either party is going to make if he can avoid it, but so long as he doesn’t become identified as gay first and republican second it’s not going to be a problem in the GOP. The evidence for that is ample.

    You attach these ridiculous conditions that essentially suggest that being a closeted homosexual is just fine and dandy in the GOP, but somehow you fail to see how your own stated opinion reflects a problem in backing your misguided idea of an open and accepting party. And, of course, you refuse to ask the next logical question: WHY is it a problem to be openly gay and Republican?

    Interesting, too, that you mention the Log Cabin Republicans. Considering your mention of Bush, I’m certain you haven’t seen the 2004 film Gay Republicans. You might find it illuminating.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dean, the point is that the LCR accomplished something when others just talked. And their membership is not small and there are many more who are not members who also support them.

    They and their supporters are certainly as numerous as the small number of truly homophobic hate-spewers in the GOP who you choose to focus your attention on.

    Realistically, as with the general population, most Repblicans are somewhat indifferent to this issue because it really has no impact on them.

    That said, the reason I write articles like this is to remind people that the anti-gay minority does not speak for the GOP as a whole, and that the changes which are taking place in the party give groups like the LCR stronger position in the party than they have had before.

    Dave

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Realistically, as with the general population, most Repblicans are somewhat indifferent to this issue because it really has no impact on them.

    Which brings all of you back to my original comment:

    Votes are votes.

    JD

  • Jordan Richardson

    Dave, if “most Republicans” are indifferent to homosexuality, why is there such a demand for Republicans to stay in the closet and not be “blatant” about their sexuality while they’re under the tent of the GOP?

    I think if you were being honest with yourself, you’d note that being truly realistic requires a thorough examination of how GOP policies and social stances filter through the party as a whole. What message does the GOP send with respect to their policies on gay marriage and acceptance of homosexuals, for instance?

    If you really want to see change within the GOP on these issues, it’s best not to start from a position of denial.

    I don’t think the majority of Republicans are anti-gay, by the way. I do think, however, that the majority of Republican voters are anti-gay and Republican policies reflect that because a more accepting, welcoming party would deter the traditional “values voters” the GOP drools after.

  • Clavos

    I do think, however, that the majority of Republican voters are anti-gay…

    Sadly, I think the majority of the country is anti-gay, including,ironically, the majorities of such minority groups as African Americans and Latinos.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I am skeptical of classifying the Log Cabin Republicans as typical GOP members, or a vanguard of a larger, more open minded group of Republicans.

    I think most members of the LCR would be much more likely to align with fiscally conservative/socially liberal Democrats than with the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin wing of the Tea Party.

    Susan Collins would seem to be more the LCR type of Republican — and Dave has slimed her and permanently written her off because she voted for the stimulus.

  • Clavos

    I think most members of the LCR would be much more likely to align with fiscally conservative/socially liberal Democrats…

    And yet…

    They’re Republicans.

    Go figure.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Susan Collins is a Republican. Mark Warner is a Democrat. The differences between them are pretty narrow.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    There are still plenty of prejudiced and/or ignorant people, but recent polling shows 70% or more support repeal of DADT, and about half the country is now comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. That’s a big change from just a few years ago.

  • Clavos

    …recent polling shows 70% or more support repeal of DADT, and about half the country is now comfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

    Assuming, of course, they are answering the polls honestly — questionable, on such a volatile issue.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Whether they are precise to the last decimal point is another matter. But those numbers have moved steadily into the “more tolerant” range for years now.

  • zingzing

    “But those numbers have moved steadily into the “more tolerant” range for years now.”

    that’s because old people die. shrug. what? it’s the truth…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Ha. Yeah. Well, old liberals die too. But I take your point. There’s a strong generational difference on gay issues.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    DAVE!

    “Republicans strike another blow for gay rights”

    How’s the premise for your article compare with what YOU said in comment #1 in this article?

    And don’t pin your hopes on gay Republicans. They may be gay, but they aren’t going to move the basic agenda of the party to the left at all.

    The strongest base of the Republican party is Texas…and their 2010 state party platform includes:

    The Platform advocates the re-criminalization of sodomy, making it a felony to perform a same sex marriage, and opposes the “acceptance” and “normalization” of homosexual behavior. The GOP platform also opposes granting any legal privileges to homosexuals, including the ability to adopt children, same sex insurance, or retirement benefits. The GOP platform is an attempt by the conservative sector of the Texas Republican party to preserve the “traditional” family unit and curb the spread of communicable diseases in the population such as HIV/AIDS that stigmatizes the gay community.

    In your article you say one thing. In your comment to me you said another. Your own state’s party platform strongly opposes your article’s premise.

    I despise rank hypocrisy. That’s why I’ll never again be a Republican (unless they do a 180-degree change back to what they were under Lincoln).

  • http://rooferonfire.blogspot.com Mika Galipeau

    Unfortunately, with the current shift of the Republican party, it may become increasingly uncomfortable for openly gay Republicans to be welcomed.

    This shift could decrease the influence of the GOP’s previously diverse base. Imagine being a gay republican in Texas right now, where your party’s official platform states that you are a degenerate by virtue of your being.

    Open-minded Republicans are fast discovering that there is no longer a party that consistently represents their interests.

    Politics are fluid, and it is my hope that the Tea Party and theological sway comes full circle sooner rather than later.

  • Fingal O’Flahertie

    As I dolefully predicted in comment #1 to this thread, what you called “Another Blow for Gay Rights” struck by Republicans will have no practical effect, since today Republican senators defeated an attempt by Democrats to repeal DADT.

    Meaning the trial court decision that you extolled must now work its way through the federal appeals system. That could take years, and possibly wind up in the Supreme Court, which is as sure to defeat it as were Republican senators today.

    It’s a dismal situation. But looking for Republicans to fix it is just plain silly. It goes against the grain of everything the GOP stands for.

  • zingzing

    yay! republicans. idiots. a unanimous vote against! to their credit, however, reid attached all sorts of stuff republicans hate, like opening a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. i dunno why he’d do that, but that’s politics these days. reid plays too many games, methinks. the senate is one big bout of constipation.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The “Dream Act” [for immigrants] probably has more support than DADT, actually. I’m not sure Reid thought he would really push it through. Both he and the GOP are playing election-year politics.

    They will have to pass a Defense authorization sometime.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    where’s Dave’s article entitled “Republicans Strike Another Blow Against Gay Rights” discussing the Montana GOP’s platform where they list on their website: “We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal”?

    I am guessing it’s going to be a long wait.

  • zingzing

    “They will have to pass a Defense authorization sometime.”

    are you talking about that engine for that fighter jet? that one’s actually fought by obama. if it wasn’t the immigration act, i’m not sure what it was. reid attached a lot of shit to it though. there must be something in there that republicans can ALL say no to, as i don’t believe that all republicans are bigots. only some. a lot. many. most. nearly all. 99%.

    somewhere in there.

  • Fingal O’Flahertie

    DADT DOA? LOL! The latest wrinkle in this case is that the same District Court judge who last month ruled that the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members violates the Constitution, has today issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    This is yet another meaningless development. As I pointed out in my comments #1 and #39 on this thread, opponents of DADT have scored a nice symbolic victory that will have no practical effect. Next step? The U.S. Department of Justice simply appeals this ban, and the Appeals Court issues a stay while it considers the merits. If the ban is upheld, DoJ will undoubtedly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which just as certainly will overturn the ban once and for all.

    Meaning we’re right back at square one. The only way to get rid of DADT is for Congress to repeal that asinine law, and there ain’t a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening.