US Congress might decide on army gay ban today

[fredv3b]

Gay rights and abortion rights are only similar if you believe the unborn child isn't a person, doesn't have legal rights. If you believe that then abortion is just between a woman and her doctor and her right to determine what does or does not happen to her body. If the State shouldn't interfere with what consenting adults do in private, then it shouldn't interfere with abortion.

If however you believe that the unborn child does (or should) have legal rights then the situation is totally different to what consenting adults do in private.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Just in from Yahoo news.

Judge orders 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction.

By JULIE WATSON, Associated Press Writer Julie Watson, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago (below are extracts from her article).

SAN DIEGO – A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.

The injunction goes into effect immediately, said Dan Woods, the attorney who represented the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.

Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips' decision was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

Phillips is the second federal judge in recent weeks to throw the law into disarray.

A federal judge last month in Tacoma, Wash., ruled that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible. Barring an appeal, Maj. Margaret Witt who was suspended in 2004, will now be able to serve despite being openly gay.

Gay rights advocates have worried they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill last month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision.

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

Good news at last but we are not out of the woods yet. 60 days to wait.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

New Pentagon Procedures For Discharging Gays.

These extracts was taken from an article on the Los Angiles Times website today, article dated 21st October 2010.

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon said Thursday that decisions about discharging homosexual service members would now be made by the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, a move that officials said was as aimed at ensuring "uniformity" amid uncertainty about the 17-year-old law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military.

The new rules, which take authority for removing enlisted personnel found to be homosexual away from uniformed officers, came a day after an appeals court in San Francisco lifted a judge's order that had barred the Pentagon from enforcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Even with the statute now back in force at least temporarily, a senior Pentagon official said the flurry of legal decisions, more of which are possible as early as next week, had made it necessary to ensure there is no confusion about the law as the appeals process proceeds.

"We are clearly in a legally uncertain environment" said a senior Pentagon official, who briefed reporters on the new rules. "We wanted the separation in the hands of fewer people."

Discharge decisions are currently made by general or flag officers, hundreds of whom potentially have authority to kick out a service member under the "don't ask" policy. The new rules do not change the procedures for removing officers, who are already subject to removal only by the service secretaries.

That is not intended to be a substantive change in the decision-making," said the official, an attorney. "You should not interpret that as: we are going to separate more or less people. We are going to elevate these decisions to ensure uniformity and care in the enforcement of the law."

But Aubrey Sarvis, an Army veteran and executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said giving service secretaries authority over discharges could dramatically reduce the number of individuals kicked out.

The legal battle over the "Don't ask" policy will remain on hold until at least next week, as the three-judge panel in San Francisco considers whether to keep the law in effect indefinitely.

The saga continues, will we get the result we want?

[Wintereis]

New Pentagon Procedures For Discharging Gays.


The saga continues, will we get the result we want?

It is not a question of will but when. It will either be appealed to the Supreme Court or it will have to wait until an off election year for Congress to act. It is more likely that the court will deal with the issue rather than the legislature. The judges don't have to run for reelection.:biggrin:

[posterpicture]

It is not a question of will but when. It will either be appealed to the Supreme Court or it will have to wait until an off election year for Congress to act. It is more likely that the court will deal with the issue rather than the legislature. The judges don't have to run for reelection.:biggrin:

It 's true that it is not easy to sway the decision of Supreme Court but sometimes they change their mind. Justice Elena Kagan is a big fan of liberalism including gay rights. However, because of that, the Supreme Court is criticized by public opinion. If the Justices pick a strategy mode to follow, they will pick the safest way to avoid conflict.

[jimcrackcorn]

President Obama wants the repeal of DADT to be accomplished by Congress and not by the courts. There is a good reason for this as our Supreme Court may simply differ to the military on this matter and not act on it.

Presently, the repeal amendment for DADT is still attached to the National Defense Authorization Act which will be put up for a vote again in December during the lame duck session of Congress.

The National Defense Authorization Act has to be passed in order to fund the American military for the upcoming year - the political wrangling over the Defense Authorization Act isn't unusual, one side or the other will want to add their personal Amendments and if they are blocked, they can Filibuster in order to postpone a vote and hopefully get their amendments added at the next session.

What the Republicans really wanted was to add a bunch of pork-barrel amendments to the Defense Authorization Act and the Democrats shot them down temporarily - that's why the Republicans filibustered. In December you will see the Democrats give in and allow the Republicans to add their pork-barrel amendments and then there will be enough votes from both parties to pass the Defense Authorization Act (DADT Amendment included).

My opinion of course.....