DOJ says Log Cabin lawsuit should be declared ‘moot,’ but LCR attorney warns that without ruling, discriminatory policies could be reinstated
STILL FIGHTING | Attorney Dan Woods, right, and Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper, left, pose together following the ceremony last December in which President Obama signed legislation repealing DADT. (Photo courtesy Log Cabin Republicans)
Lisa Keen | Keen News Service
lisakeen@me.com
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” will be off the books Tuesday, Sept. 20. But there is still concern among some that the removal of that specific law barring gays from the military will not stop discrimination against gays in the military.
And Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is warning active duty military to be aware of rules affecting them if they choose to be openly gay in uniform.
Log Cabin Republicans’ attorney Dan Woods reminded a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 1 that Congressional repeal of DADT is not enough to end discrimination against gays in the military. Woods noted that before passage of DADT in 1993, there was a military regulation — not a federal law — that banned “homosexuals” from the military.
“That ban had existed for decades,” Woods said.
And if the 9th Circuit panel does not affirm a district court decision finding DADT unconstitutional, Woods added, “the government will be completely unconstrained in its ability to again ban gay service in the military.”
The 9th Circuit panel is considering a motion by the Department of Justice to declare the Log Cabin lawsuit moot since Congress has repealed DADT.
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director for Log Cabin Republicans said Tuesday, Sept. 13, that there is no prescribed timeline for the 9th Circuit issuing its decision on the motion.
“I know some people are expecting that we will have a ruling on that by Sept. 20 or just after that, but Dan Woods has told us that it could happen any time. And ‘any time’ means it could come in a month, or it could take several months. There’s nothing that says when the court has to issue its ruling,” Cooper said.
Woods pointed out that even since the repeal was passed by Congress last December, there is a new Congress now, there has already been a House vote to de-fund implementation of repeal, and there are “multiple candidates for president promising, as part of their campaign platforms, to repeal the repeal.”
One member of the panel, Judge Barry Silverman, suggested the latter concern, about presidential candidates, seemed a bit “speculative.”
“Well, there’s an election next year,” responded Wood.
“Come back next year,” the judge shot back, with a barely stifled laugh. “If any of these things come to pass, it’ll be a different story. But in the meantime, this is the situation we’re faced with.”
The Department of Justice is urging the federal appeals panel to declare the Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S. lawsuit moot. The lawsuit — which won a powerful decision from U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in September 2010 — was largely responsible for prompting Congress to finally pass a bill repealing DADT in December.
Phillips had ordered the military to immediately stop enforcing DADT and, though the 9th Circuit put that order on hold pending appeal, military officials began warning Congress that it seemed inevitable the courts would strike down the law.
The military wanted a smooth transition to a DADT-free force, and Congress agreed.
Henry Whitaker, attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, urged the panel to declare the litigation moot. He said the government would submit a motion after Sept. 20 to vacate the ruling and have the case sent back to the district court for dismissal.
Whitaker said that, if the 9th Circuit does affirm the lower court ruling, the government might even consider appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court. And he stated several times that, until repeal takes effect, the government “is defending” DADT on its merits.
Woods said that if the federal appeals panel agrees with the government and vacates the lower court decision, and then a new president or Congress reinstates the policy, “we’d have to start all over again to prove again that laws banning open gay servicemembers are unconstitutional.
“This case took seven years to get here today. And it would be inappropriate to have to have people go through that all over again,” Woods said.
Woods also noted that affirming Judge Phillips’ ruling would remedy “collateral consequences” caused by DADT. Among those concerns, he said, are loss of benefits under the G.I. bill and benefits from the Veterans Administration, inability to be buried in VA cemeteries, and requirement that discharged servicemembers pay back their student loans.
The DOJ’s Whitaker said Log Cabin’s fear that a future Congress or president might re-enact DADT “does not pass the straight face test.” And, he added, said individuals discharged under DADT could seek remedies to these collateral forms of discrimination through individual lawsuits.
But Woods argued that it “ought not be necessary for every one of the thousands of people who have been discharged under this law to have to do that.
“If you vacate the judgment and take away the case,” Woods added “the government is unconstrained and simply might do it again. History might repeat itself.”
For now, SLDN is trying to prepare gay active duty servicemembers for the historic change that is about to take place Tuesday when the 60-day review period will have ticked away following certification of military readiness to implement repeal.
And, not surprisingly, some organizations, including SLDN, plan to celebrate the end of the 18-year-old ban.
“Many servicemembers want to attend these celebrations, and some might want to speak at them,” noted the SLDN website, adding that “no special rules apply to attendance at or participation in such events.”
But SLDN did warn gay servicemembers not to criticize their commanders — past or present — or elected officials, and not to urge defeat of any particular elected official or candidate. And the organization warned servicemembers not to wear their uniform to an event that is partisan in nature.
For more details on what’s allowed and disallowed for active duty service members in uniform, see SLDN.org.
© 2011 Keen News Service. All rights reserved.
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 16, 2011.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
these people never stop being bigots. For if one little crack in their faith is seen to occur, the whole rotten mess will collapse.
the problems are the southern based xtians, though their poison has spread all over the nation. They of course are the heirs to the religious culture that justified slavery as per the bible. And gave us segregation and the KKK
And the catholic church – to see what they are about, just go to the website I stumbled upon
http://NOBELIEFS.COM/NAZIS.HTM And be horrified
Believe me discrimination will still exist in the military forever against gays and lesbians, but mostly against gay men, because lesbians are no threat to the male leaders of the armed forces. I know because I retired from a federal civilian law enforcement agency and someone outed me. And even though there is a clause in there that states no discrimination against one’s sexual orientation, I was still talked about, teased and only got promoted once. Even though I was more trained and experienced and knowledgeabe than a lots of others, they got promoted instead of me, and they were all straight. It will be the same in the military as in federal civilian jobs. They will not be able to kick you out for being gay but they sure as heck can make life miserable for you if they don’t like gays and lesbians, and if you’re a gay man forget about promotions if you’re really out..
Fine, don’t publish it.
I can honestly say that during my 20 years in the military I never witnessed discrimination against any gay in the military. But I never witnessed a male military member openly display feminine traits while in uniform. If that is the new standard, things will get interesting.
The Military should still up hold DADT.
We need to know if we have support on the battlefield. The Gays will not go to the battlefield.
Mr. E. Bryan, if you think all the American soldiers on the battlegrounds fighting U.S. wars are straight, you need a wake up call. Many gay soldiers died fighting to proctect the greates nation on earth, the U.S.A. Your statements are insulting and an affront to all to all the gay men who died on the battlefield. If you were in or are in the military you have heard of “a direct order” If a gay man joins the Army or Marines he knows he can be in battle at any time, and he has to follow a direct order to go to the battlefied, He knows the risks when he enlists. Quit sterotyping us gays, and one more thing Mr. E. Bryan,
……continuation of my post above, Mr. E. Bryan, YOU ARE NO GENTLEMAN!
Discrimination in any kind happen anywhere. But at least with the banning of DADT, now anyone is openly discriminate against gay/lesbian servicemen will be sued. They will be taken to court.