If anyone asks, you didn't hear it from me

[ShottleBop]

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 21, 2008 (Link.)

(CNSNews.com) - The future of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was cast into doubt on Wednesday.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that it is no longer enough for the military to state the policy -- which says that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" -- when it discharges members of the armed services it discovers to be homosexuals.

In a split decision, a three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. Air Force will have to prove why it discharged Margaret Witt, an 18-year Air Force nurse, under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Witt, a major in the Air Force Reserve, was discharged in 2004 when it came to light that she had had a lesbian relationship from 1997 to 2003 with a civilian woman. She filed suit in 2006 challenging her ouster from the Air Force.

The federal district court in Tacoma, Wash., held that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was not subject to judicial review, and the Air Force didn't have to prove anything other than that she was a homosexual.

But the Ninth Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down state sodomy laws, sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to reconsider the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"They said there is a significant liberty interest involved here -- they did not say a fundamental interest, but that there was a 'significant' interest, and that the military should have to justify their policy," New York University law professor Arthur Leonard told Cybercast News Service.

The case will go back to trial, at which time, Leonard said, the Air Force will have to prove why Witt herself -- not merely all homosexuals -- is unfit for military service.

My guess is that if it ever makes it to the SCOTUS, they will roll over for the military, invoking vague goals such as the need to preserver military discipline or morale, or the like. That's what happened to free speech in the military (Brown v. Glines).

The Ninth Circuit seems obsessed with its "mouse that roared" role in judicial history. Maybe they're going for a long-view "I told you so" sidebar in future history texts, but I don't think they'll get it. We'll be a smoking ruin before then. Mostly because we let coloureds fags serve with white folk righteous straight people.

[oblomov]

americans are funny!

Originally Posted by oblomov

americans are funny!

And it's not like we try all that hard.

[Caligulette]

Well that's part of the problem, isn't it?

[Stormlight]

I wonder how this is handled in other countries (homosexuals in the armed forces)? Maybe CT knows?

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

I wonder how this is handled in other countries (homosexuals in the armed forces)? Maybe CT knows?

This link is to a study conducted by the GAO in 1993.

Wikipedia has an entry for "Sexual orientation and military service", which Websense will not permit me to access.

[oblomov]

a warning:
if you follow shottlebop's link, you will be confronted with a frighteningly large headline screaming HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY

[Adam]

I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'd better not click it.

I clicked it, and now I'm even more gay!

[California Tanker]

Saw that in the news a day ago. I couldn't understand how it even got to the courts in the first place given that the article I read basically just confirmed what I thought I already knew: The concept that "The simple fact of homosexuality is insufficient in itself to discharge" is not new and I'm certain I posted to this extent over a year ago on this very august forum. Haven't been able to find the post to link to yet, though.

NTM

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

... "The simple fact of homosexuality is insufficient in itself to discharge" ...

So true.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

So true.

So what is sufficient? Gay porn?

[Histrionica]

How about a man in uniform?[/Captain Obvious]

[oblomov]

vigorous stroking?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So what is sufficient? Gay porn?

For some that might do the trick. For me, I don't think so.