Supreme Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

[jimmy olsen]

I'm stunned Marty hasn't posted this yet.
So here you go Marty, commence frothing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Pentagon policy forbids gays, lesbians from serving openly in the military
   

Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 12:47 p.m. ET, Mon., June 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."

"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.

Advocates vow to press ahead
A legal advocacy group vowed to press ahead with efforts to reverse the policy despite the legal setback.

"We don't see that at all as bad news for repeal," said Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "What happened today puts the ball back into the court of Congress and the White House to repeal the law, and that's where we think it should be right now."

Nix said there are no objective studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order are harmed by openly gay people.

"There are people out there and still serving, and the unit is not crumbling beneath their feet," he said, adding that attitudes among troops and society are far different than they were in the 1990s when the policy was instituted.

"Times have changed ... fast forward 16 years," Nix said. "The service members in Iraq and Afghanistan — their attitudes toward gay people are very different than some retired generals in their 50s and 60s who served in the 20th Century. It's a different world."

Opposition to gay marriages, for example, has eased nationwide and six states have legalized same-sex unions. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant of gay marriage than are older generations.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was established in 1993. President Bill Clinton had to abandon efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces after facing strong resistance from the military and members of Congress.

Obama's campaign pledge
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama pledged to overturn the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January.

Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal.

The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

First evaluation since Texas sodomy verdict
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.

The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.

The case is Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824.

© 2009 The Associated Press.

[Martinus]

Fuck you, Tim. How's your cancer?

[Caliga]

I was going to post this earlier but got busy at work.

The USSC hates gays. 

[jimmy olsen]

Fuck you, Tim. How's your cancer?

You're supposed to froth at the court.

[Caliga]

  What'd Tim do?

[Neil]

 

OWNED.

[Malthus]

What'd Tim do?

"here you go Marty, commence frothing".

[Martinus]

What'd Tim do?

He called me "Mary".

[Caliga]

Don't call me Shirley. 

[Caliga]

"here you go Marty, commence frothing".

But why would that make Marti mad?  Everyone knows he's going to froth, including him.... for pretty good reason in this case, I might add.

[Martinus]

That's like the USSC refusing to rule on Brown vs. Board of Education.

[Malthus]

"here you go Marty, commence frothing".

But why would that make Marti mad?  Everyone knows he's going to froth, including him.... for pretty good reason in this case, I might add.

And froth he did. At Tim. 

Point is, it is dismissive - particularly if the issue is actually a serious one. It implies that it isn't really serious.

[Sheilbh]

I don't have a problem with this

[Caliga]

And froth he did. At Tim. 

Point is, it is dismissive - particularly if the issue is actually a serious one. It implies that it isn't really serious.

But Tim is merely the messenger.  He is our little Hermes. 

I think the issue is that if one is homosexual, it's likely to be perceived as a slight that the USSC wouldn't review, regardless of the merits of the case.

[alfred russel]

That's like the USSC refusing to rule on Brown vs. Board of Education.

An earlier decision was called Plessy vs. Fergusen. I'm sure the court would eventually overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, if Congress wasn't going to beat them to the punch.