By TRINITY MORGAN
Attorneys for the Obama administration objected to an injunction proposed by a California Federal Judge.
The ruling had immediately halted the military’s current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
California Federal Judge Virginia Phillips, who previously declared the policy unconstitutional, said that the policy makes recruitment even more difficult because it deters men and women who would otherwise join the military.
This could potentially be detrimental during wartime when the military can use all the manpower available; the policy is especially cumbersome overseas when qualified men and women are being sent home because of their sexual orientation.
The White House attorneys, however, disagree with the injunction despite President Obama’s efforts to lift the ban.
Federal attorneys said that the immediate injunction of a law that has been in effect for 17 years is too abrupt a change, deeming it “enormously disruptive” and potentially hazardous for combat operations because it could “irreparably harm the public interest in a strong and effective military.”
The Justice Department asked Judge Phillips to overturn her ruling and to do so swiftly, “given the urgency and gravity of the issues.”
Former presidential candidate John McCain gave his opinion during Arizona’s Channel 12 Sunday Square Off. He criticized Judge Phillips ruling that the policy is unconstitutional. He also criticized president Obama saying, “The President of the United States has no military experience, no impact with the military…and has made this decision because of a political promise to the gay and lesbian community.”
On the issue’s relation to the Senate, McCain said, “Absolutely I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness.”
Gay rights activists who cheered when Judge Phillips issued the injunction are planning to protest the Justice Department’s proposed stay of the injunction.
Ashley Olen, a senior at the University of Tampa majoring in education, says that the idea of hiding one’s sexual orientation is not a good idea.
Since the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in effect, more than 12,000 men and women from all ranking positions have been discharged due to their openness about their sexual orientation.
Ryan McGinnis, a junior at UT, says this is unfair.
“I don’t think it’s anyone’s right to discharge them from their job and source of income and stability for their family just because they are gay. Why should anyone care? It’s not their business.”
While President Obama is pushing for repeal of the controversial policy, he wants the matter decided on in congress, not in regular courts, despite the possibility that the case may not result in his favor.
Typically, the White House repeals laws struck down in courts regardless of the President’s stand on the issue.
From a legal perspective, if the government had not appealed Phillips’ ruling, it would have the same effect as a trial judge in a local court setting national policy on a major issue.
Sarah Novio, a junior at UT majoring in nursing, doesn’t think changing the policy is a good idea, despite her support of gay rights outside of the military.
“Everyone has to give up something to be in the military, and that’s just one thing gay people have to give up to join — their right to be open about it.”
The question lies in whether or not the U.S. military is ready to accept openly gay soldiers.
Caitlin Massey, a junior majoring in marketing at UT, said the policy is unfair to people who are comfortable with being openly gay.
“Just because everyone’s supposed to be the same, doesn’t mean we forget that they are real people with real lives back home, and we can’t disregard their beliefs and opinions.”
Though Senate Republicans blocked the repeal just before Congress went out on recess for the midterm elections, the issue is by no means laid to rest.
President Obama holds fast to his promise to change the way gays are treated within the military.
“This policy will end, and it will end on my watch,” Obama said.
“Anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve … and they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve.”
It will be interesting to see, Risa. It will definitely change many things in this country. I think that the way Americans approach such topics is changing. There are definitely those who are vehemently opposed to the repeal, but it appears that many more just want to see it go away. Either way it goes, it needs to be approached carefully as to not negatively effect the troops in combat or the safety of this country.
I think the “call for unity” goes beyond the president. America seemed to agree with his views, and voted him into office. Times are changing, and it is exciting. Let’s hope the long term effects are positive. Only time will tell.
I am interested in the follow up to this action- what will be the long term effects of President Obama’s call for equality in a realm where few civilians dare to tread?
They always miss the point. We aren’t against it- just against the way the judge tried to go about it. If it is handled correctly, it will be successful.
As for the names, I won’t even go there. I’m 30 years old, married, have a life, already retired from one career- in other words, I don’t owe you anything, and I’ve been called every name in the book. So don’t try bringing me into that one. 😉
RL DeSilva: “You and I both know that this policy/law is a violation of the LGBT community’s 1st, 5th and possibly 14th amendment rights.”
Just because we fight for the Constitution and stand to protect it, it doesn’t mean it applies to us. We surrender many of our rights, regardless of our sexual orientation, when we recite the oath of enlistment and go into the military.
Members of the military ARE responsible for everything that they say. Their 1st amendment rights are very restricted. Furthermore, you reference the 5th amendment. That’s interesting, considering that it specifically exempts cases within the military.
You go on to say that the 14th amendment is possibly infringed upon. As is the case with the 1st amendment, military members surrender these rights in their enlistment contracts. When you join the military, you sign many documents, including quite a few highlighting what the DADT policy is, what your rights are, and what you can and cannot do. It is clearly stated that no one is asking and you don’t have to tell. It’s very simple.
While I agree with VSOREP that DADT will eventually be repealed, and I wouldn’t fight against it- this sets a dangerous precedent for a civilian judge to decree a change in a military policy. I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate it if a military judge, operating under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), released a ruling against civilians. Everyone would agree that the ruling is completely wrong.
RL DeSilva,
The last sentence in your reply seriously damages your argument.
Implying that your debate opponent prove his innocence to an unsubstantiated charge will not convince fair-minded observers. Use of that tactic appears either misguided and overzealous at best, or unprincipled and vengeful at worst.
Dear VSOREP: First of all, I applaud and thank you for your service to this country and its’ citizens. I agree that comments from the veterans’ community could have provided even more balance to this article, and am sure that the writer and the editors of this publication will take any and all constructive and factual comments into consideration. However, change in this country does not occur unless people advocate for it. You and I both know that this policy/law is a violation of the LGBT community’s 1st, 5th and possibly 14th amendment rights. It took too many years to integrate the military-finally, it had to happen due to the needs of the country. We are openly involved in two (2) wars. We don’t have a draft. As a result of the enforcement of an illegal law, not only are the rights of citizens of this country being violated, but the needs of the country are being short-changed, again. We can ill-afford to have 12-13,000 people unemployed who want to work and are desparately needed in their respective fields.
So, in your opinion, those soldiers that came forth deserved to be dismissed from the military, just as the activists of the civil rights movement deserved to have the dogs turned on them, the hoses turned on them, being jailed and sometimes lynched or killed for protesting dejure and defacto segregation. I don’t mean to sound overly-dramatic, but just as you think that I am calling names, you are condoning actions that are clearly prejudicial. “When they came for my neighbors, I said nothing-then they came for me…” not an exact quote, but you understand what I am trying to say…
Finally, if my name-calling isn’t a reflection of who you are, why does it bother you?
I agree, this is a well-written article. However, I would like it to be more balanced and include the opinions of some of the veterans on campus. President Obama is allowing the “Feds” to request this injunction because a judge should not be allowed to decide something that is clearly a military issue. The President is the Commander in Chief, and anything having to do with the military should come from him through Congress. Hate to break it to you, but President Obama isn’t only allowing it to happen, he ordered it to happen.
It would set a precedent that would challenge his authority and that of Congress to regulate the military. A civilian judge’s ruling should have no bearing on how the military operates. If the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case and they too find it is unconstitutional, even they should send it to Congress for a change in legislature. The judge clearly overstepped her bounds in this case.
The reason that 12,000 service members have been separated under this policy is simple: they broke the law. Whether we agree with the law or not, it was in place and they knew that when they signed the contract. That being said, they kept fighting and we are where we are on the issue because of their persistence. So, Kudos to them.
No one disputes the fact that the DADT policy will be repealed eventually. However, the military insists that a sudden repeal will not be good. Why isn’t anyone listening to the military, the ones who will actually be affected by a repeal? It only makes sense to wait until the military brass finish their study on what affects it will have before putting legislature through Congress to initiate the repeal in a way that won’t prove detrimental.
People who haven’t served in the military seem to have a hard time understanding why a sudden repeal would be a bad thing. The reason they don’t understand is simple- they have no idea what military life is like. I would think the majority of the military would have no problem serving with openly gay personnel, but it’s those few who would that you have to be careful of. I think it would be irresponsible to allow a sudden repeal to take place.
Finally, I value and respect others’ opinions on this matter, and expect the same courtesy in return. However, that isn’t always the case. It seems that if you support the repeal, you are in the right. If you are against a repeal or think a gradual repeal should be instituted, you are a bigot or close-minded. This line of thought is absurd. We all have our opinions on different topics, no one is right- no one is wrong. Just because someone does not agree with you on this topic does not mean they are immature, paranoid, homo-phobic or short-sighted(did you really mean close-minded)?
I get tired of being called all these things because I have a dissenting view on the matter. If anyone deserves an opinion, it is I. I served my country and bled for the rights I hold dear. If I want to have a different opinion than someone else- I think I earned the right. It would surprise most people how much they would learn if they actually listened to the “other side’s” opinion, rather than resorting to name calling.
Additionally, if openly gay individuals are not openly offending their fellow soldiers or attempting to recruit fellow soldiers into a gay lifestyle against their will, why can’t they participate and fight in the military? We are talking aboout consenting adults, here – only God judges —
This well-written and well-edited synopsis of the controversy should make everyone think about the meaning of patriotism and respect for fellow Americans. However, why is President Obama allowing the Feds to request this injunction and discharge over 12,000 soldiers while we are fighting wars on two (2) fronts and some of his biggest supporters are gay Americans? If people are willing to lay down their lives to protect our way of life, what does theiir sexual orientation matter? Are we still so immature, paranoid, homo-phobic and short-sighted that we want to add another 12,000 people to the unemployment rolls?