Good News from a Federal Court

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 6:44 AM GMT
    Things are looking up! The California Supreme Court rules for same sex marriage and now this ...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_us/military_gays


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 6:53 AM GMT
    Very intersting. They even ackowledged the policy was Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DON'T PURSUE, DON'T HARASS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 7:37 AM GMT
    This is really big news if the ruling stands because it will make discharges very hard to justify in court. Of course, the government will probably appeal... For now it will be interesting to see what happens to Major Witt's newly reinstated case. This ruling did not necessarily guarantee that she will get her job back. Another judge will decide that. But for now, congrats to the Major and to the ACLU of WA on this important case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
    How can you still have this stupid policies? don't ask don't tell icon_question.gif

    If the air-force and military need more people, why are they dismissing homosexuals?

    They should be open to new ideas specially in rough times for the US.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    May 22, 2008 2:33 PM GMT
    Hmmm...would be interesting to know if any of the judges that President Bush appointed had anything to do with helping make this decision happen. Of course, he won't get any credit for that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 4:00 PM GMT
    metropolitan saidHow can you still have this stupid policies? don't ask don't tell icon_question.gif

    If the air-force and military need more people, why are they dismissing homosexuals?

    They should be open to new ideas specially in rough times for the US.

    You're making the mistake of thinking that U.S. military leaders are interested in logic and rational thinking rather than politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 4:10 PM GMT
    From the article: "Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest."

    If the government has to go to court to try to prove that her discharge was in order to improve morale, the facts pointed out above will be very hard to reconcile with that assertion. In fact, it looks like it's just the opposite. These discharges are viewed as arbitrary and capricious. They are also damaging to unit cohesion and impair critical units by removing vital personnel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2008 6:04 PM GMT
    To me, this is huge. When I enlisted in 1976 I was asked if I was "Homosexual, along with questions like "are you a drug addict?", "Do you use Marijuana?"

    In the late 80s Army Times ran an article about an Army Dentist who was kicked out of the service for homosexuality, with a general discharge. It reinforced my paranoia. Sometimes I would fear talking in my sleep in the field and would sleep in my gas mask. I made the excuse that I might snore.

    Things are looking up.



  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    May 22, 2008 6:22 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidHmmm...would be interesting to know if any of the judges that President Bush appointed had anything to do with helping make this decision happen. Of course, he won't get any credit for that.

    The two judges mentioned in the article, Judge Gould and Judge Canby, were nominated by Clinton and Carter (respectively). I have not yet found the name of the third judge.
  • TJNYC

    Posts: 2

    May 22, 2008 7:52 PM GMT
    Fascinating. It's amazing to see the incremental process of greater acceptance is finally adding up to affect these slow-moving, hard-to-change-course entities like the military and the government. Maybe there's hope for even better things to come... for military and civilian alike!
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    May 22, 2008 11:53 PM GMT
    Lets hope that this latest ruling from a federal court will remain and any appeals from the government and the military will be shot down. In today's modern day and age, I cannot get over the stupidity and primitive thinking in both the civilian and military sectors of the federal government. But I had that exact same thought back in the fall of 1986 when I entered basic training in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. It just shows you that very little has changed in the federal government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2008 12:16 AM GMT
    yes, I hope this helps a friend of mine who is being given the boot now. He was actually starting a job hunt. As the article here on RJ said, the court ruled that certain information could not be used as a basis of a DADT case. I think information from a blackmail should especially be disqualified.
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    May 23, 2008 3:15 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZHmmm...would be interesting to know if any of the judges that President Bush appointed had anything to do with helping make this decision happen. Of course, he won't get any credit for that.


    Nope, none of them.

    Judge Ronald Gould appointed by Clinton in 1999.
    Judge Susan Graber appointed by Clinton in 1997.
    Judge William Canby appointed by Carter in 1980.

    Gould and Graber just said "use a higher level of scrutiny than rational basis." Canby would have required strict scrutiny.

    So now you know and can stop wondering, not that there was really any mystery as to how a Bush appointee would view this case. Tolerance is not their strong suit.

  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    May 23, 2008 3:24 AM GMT
    ep83 said[quote][cite]CuriousJockAZ[/cite]Hmmm...would be interesting to know if any of the judges that President Bush appointed had anything to do with helping make this decision happen. Of course, he won't get any credit for that.


    Nope, none of them.

    Judge Ronald Gould appointed by Clinton in 1999.
    Judge Susan Graber appointed by Clinton in 1997.
    Judge William Canby appointed by Carter in 1980.

    Gould and Graber just said "use a higher level of scrutiny than rational basis." Canby would have required strict scrutiny.

    So now you know and can stop wondering, not that there was really any mystery as to how a Bush appointee would view this case. Tolerance is not their strong suit.

    [/quote]

    Golly. I am so shocked. I wonder if Clinton/Carter will get any credit for that.