Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

[kpete]

Source: Associated Press


Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
AP


By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point.

Last week, a federal judge ordered the military to stop enforcing the 1993 law banning openly gay service members. The Justice Department is appealing the decision and has asked for a temporary stay.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gays_in_military_recruiting_1

[ingac70]

1. k&r

[sabrina 1]

2. Excellent. One week of equal rights and there has been no

falling sky. If the president were to issue an EO to keep this policy in place for at least two years, by then, it would be a done deal and no one would make much of an effort to overturn it. The longer it is accepted that DADT is no longer in effect, the better. Which is why I fail to understand the WH's argument of letting Congress resolve and to do nothing else until they do. They can still resolve it, cases can still go to the SC if that is necessary, but meantime the careers of Gay Soldiers do not have to be sacrificed as we can see clearly now.

This judge will go down in history and in ten years when people wonder what all the fuss was over, she will be remembered as someone who took a stand for Civil Rights just as others are remembered today, like MLK, for taking what were unpopular stands at the time, and LBJ for the stand he took.

[The Philosopher]

6. Yeah!

They'll claim that if Obama issues the order, it'll just be overturned with the next Republican President. But a Republican controlled Congress and President can give us a return of DADT. It's an ongoing battle, one we'll have to keep fighting until sanity returns to the planet Earth (if it was ever here in the first place).

Two years is plenty of time to realize we don't need DADT, that we don't need to prohibit gays and lesbians from volunteering. And if it isn't? Then it'll force an argument for or against the policy. And we're supposed to be the party that believes that the truth always wins out.

[sabrina 1]

9. Well, the problem with that argument is that many Republicans

and Independents do see DADT as a violation of civil rights and polls show that support for repealing it are overwhelming in support of doing so, crossing party lines.

So, there are no arguments left that have any validity. If it is gone for two years, as on Gay Fighter Pilot said, it will be almost impossible to put back in the box.

The Rightwing has lost one of its favorite wedge issues. This should have been an easy issue for Obama to take a stand on, as it has so much support from the public, and now has been ruled Unconstitutional, as if we didn't know that already.

I think he is making a bad mistake by not seizing this moment in history and going down as the president who finally ended yet one more violation of the Civil Rights of a segment of the population, which our laws state clearly is illegal.

I wish I knew who is advising him. He will now go down in history as the president who would not stand up firmly to end this discrimination WHILE Congress does the right thing. It was his call, and even if Congress now passes it, he will always be seen as waffling when it counted.

The judge will rightfully get the credit for moving Congress to give up on trying to use it as a political issues. She has neutralized it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. There has been no week of equal rights

The military has told service members that if they come out, there may be consequences down the road if the current judicial ruling is overturned.

[sabrina 1]

14. That is probably good advice, but it is a personal decision

Legally, the Pentagon stated they are following the judge's ruling and each week that goes by with DADT suspended, is a week that demonstrates the military can and has adjusted to a change in policy, contrary to the claims made in the WH's appeal that the military would require years to make these changes, which was, thankfully, rejected.

[Touchdown]

3. OMGees! Protect your weenies straight boys! They're coming!

Showers are under siege! Shower in your underwear... cuz wet T-shirts are not at all sexy! :scared:

[The Philosopher]

7. Pssh

I ain't protecting mine from sh*t. Down with DADT!

:hide:

[gvstn]

19. Tee hee!

[qazplm]

4. not sure what this means...

gay applicants could always apply under DADT, they were just told about the prohibitions on conduct.

They stopped asking about orientation after DADT during recruitment. I initially enlisted in 92 and recall being asked if I was gay. I said no but should have followed Stripes and said no, but I was willing to learn. :P

[GodlessBiker]

5. Obama should withdraw the Notice of Appeal. This thing is dead.

[shawn703]

10. Soooo

Everyone can be openly gay in the military now, but if the DOJ is successful in an appeal then there will be a mass purge of everyone who was open about their orientation?

I don't think it's safe yet to come out, no matter what the recruiters are saying.

[Lucy Goosey]

11. Good news; I hope it sticks

Do yourself a favour, though, and don't read the comments section. Some people really suck. :(

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

[cynatnite]

13. DADT is dead...

I think any attempt to force out someone who is openly gay after allowing them to join as an open gay person will fail.

IMO, this is another nail in the coffin of DADT.

[NJmaverick]

15. K & R!

[FourScore]

16. YES! YES! YES!

That's GREAT news!!!


:D :party: :toast: :bounce: :thumbsup: :hi: :kick: :grouphug: :pals: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:

[maxsolomon]

17. i'm hoping there ARE NO APPLICANTS.

gay or straight. DADT is a sideshow. the unquestioned militarism of this country is the big top.

[Posteritatis]

18. When American national defense collapses and the conquerors roll in, I call dibs on Maine. (nt)

[maddezmom]

20. kick

[FourScore]

21. BREAKING: In DADT case, 'the Court DENIES Defendants' Application for a Stay'

Source: Americablog

Via Twitter, big news from California:

Federal judge refuses to lift injunction halting ban on gays serving openly in military - Reuters...

SNIP

...The Obama administration can now ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay -- and the Obama administration will.

I'm including the text of Judge Phillips' decision, but this is the bottom line:

None of the factors the Court weighs in considering whether to enter a stay favors granting a stay here. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Application for a Stay...

Read more: http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/breaking-in-dadt-case-court-denies.html

[FirstLight]

22. Legally illiterate here...

what does this MEAN?

[Unvanguard]

23. It means that, for now, DADT still cannot be enforced. n/t

[ET Awful]

24. It means that the Judge read the request from the DOJ to allow DADT to stay in place

until the appeal is heard and told them no, DADT can not be enforced and the military must immediately halt enforcing it.

[EFerrari]

25. I'm lost. I thought she did that yesterday? n/t

[Unvanguard]

29. She had a hearing on the stay request yesterday.

She suggested at the hearing that she would reject the request, but did not issue a formal denial until now.

[EFerrari]

30. Thank you. Got it. n/t

[ruggerson]

31. Today was the formal ruling

yesterday was just a tentative indication of how she might rule.

:toast:

[EFerrari]

33. Congrats to our friends and all their hard work.

:toast:

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. Means the administration will keep appealing till they find a judge they like.

[Iliyah]

35. nope

you are wrong

[awoke_in_2003]

40. no, she probably isn't. nt

[No Elephants]

54. Are you saying D of J will not appeal?

[Ineeda]

27. I'm legally illerate, too, but

I think (hope) that this is a strategy to deliberately exhaust all legal impediments to repeal.

[ruggerson]

32. No, legally the administration does not have to appeal this one

so you are joined by many who are baffled as to just what their strategy is.

(If they don't appeal, no one else has standing to and the law stays dead.)

[DallasNE]

37. It's About Process

Obama wants Congress to wipe DADT off the books. An amendment to do just that is pending in the Senate but being held up by a Republican Filibuster. Republicans now must defend a law that has been declared unconstitutional on pretty strong grounds, i.e., voiolates both the 1st and 5th Amendments thus I don't see the 9th Circuit granting a stay either.

[No Elephants]

55. Guess you did not understand Reply 32 See also, Reply 53.

Nothing wrong with juditial process. Indeed, when it comes to this issue (equal pro), judicial process is the only process that really matters.

[Posteritatis]

28. "Can we wait until the appeals are done before this ruling takes effect?" "No." (nt)

[RKP5637]

34. Here's a link that seems to describe it rather well ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-10-20-1Adontask20_ST_N.htm?csp=34news

[Historic NY]

36. I'm beginning to think its a strategic move to exhaust legal challenges

so dissenter have no where to go to challenge it,

[No Elephants]

56. Please see Replies 32 and 53.

[defendandprotect]

38. Good news! Gibbs had made an inane argument for the stay today -- !!

[Ter]

39. Suppose the military ignores the judge and doesn't listen?

Then what?

[laconicsax]

41. US military accepting gay recruits

Source: BBC

The US military has started accepting gay recruits after a California judge last week struck down the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay people from serving.

But the US defense department says new gay recruits are warned the repeal of the law may be overturned.

The Pentagon is appealing against the decision and had asked the judge to reinstate the ban in the interim.

But Judge Virginia Phillips on Tuesday formally refused that request.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11580459?

[grahamhgreen]

42. You've got to love the clarity!

[awoke_in_2003]

43. no shit, clear as mud...

K&R

[Hissyspit]

44. FLASH: Judge Affirms Order Opening Military to Gays

Source: Reuters

Judge affirms order opening military to gays
Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:43pm EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal judge formally refused on Tuesday to let the Pentagon reinstate its ban on openly gay men and women in the U.S. military while it appeals her decision declaring its "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional.

A day after tentatively siding against the Obama administration, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips issued a written decision denying a government request to lift her own injunction barring further Pentagon enforcement of the ban.

Also, MSNBC - BREAKING NEWS: U.S. judge affirms order opening military to gays

Read more: http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE69H5AY20101020?ca=rdt

[bluestateguy]

45. We've got to get this woman on the Supreme Court

nt

[No Elephants]

58. Good luck with that.

[LonePirate]

46. Judge Phillips is a true American hero. If only our President shared her passion for civil rights.

[Iliyah]

49. Pres O

does believe in civil rights. by due process it will become law and it will be strong enough to defend from numerous lawsuits which will occur. he's making sure by going through the legal process now that when it becomes law it will be firmly positioned. he knows what he is doing, most feel he's against it but he is not.

[Canuckistanian]

47. Good, good, good

It seems the Judicial branch has made it's ruling.

Now lets' see what the Legislative branch's response is.

[Newsjock]

48. Cue the "emergency" appeal from Obama in 5, 4, 3 ...

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, it's just been handed to them yet again on a goddamn silver platter, and all they have to do is ... NOTHING.

[Citizen Worker]

50. This could be a test about civilian control of the military. Will Obama intervene to placate the

Joint Chiefs or remain quiet and face a possible palace coup?

[No Elephants]

57. Huh?

[jaxx]

51. Congratulations to all the current, future...and hopefully former reinstated

troops in the US Armed Forces on being able to be themselves openly and with pride. It's been a long time coming, way too long. I wish each one the very best.

:loveya:


Now congress needs to get the law repealed so that this can never be taken away.

[Tx4obama]

52. Regarding Obama

Considering Obama has a law degree and taught Constitutional law for ten years, it always amazes me how many folks (that have no legal training at all) think they know better than Obama on this issue. Obama knows that the best way to get rid of a law (enacted by Congress) permanently is by having Congress change the law and not by having a district level federal judge do it from the bench.
I 100% support President Obama's position of having CONGRESS permanently repeal DADT.

[No Elephants]

53. Permanently? Nope. Congress can repeal or modify any law enacted by Congress.

Courts can invalidate laws of Congress as unconstitutional, as did this court. Some Presidents modify laws by "explaining" them via signing statement or otherwise. And, contrary to the firmly-held, but mistaken, belief of some, in areas where the President and Congress have concurrent Constitutional authority, the President can exercise his or her authority. So, Congressional repeal of DADT could be modified or undone by all 3 branches of government.

Neither Congress nor the Executive, however, can overrule a federal court judge, even a distriot court, on a Constitutional issue.

However, the surest way to get this judge overruled is to keep appealing until Scalia gets his hands on this issue. And that one course is the course on which the Obama admin. seems bent.

On your other point, Obama is not the God of law. Plenty of people with loads of legal training disagree with Obama--and with each other--all the time. All the dissents and 5-4 decisions by the SCOTUS are not explained by claiming the Justices don't have Obama's supposedly vast legal knowledge. And, unlike Clinton and Obama, the Justices' decisions aren't influenced by worries about getting re-elected for a second term. And Obama is no longer a law professor, but a New Democrat President who very much wants a second term.

Finally, everything isn't about Obama. This is a human rights issue.