Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Log Cabin Republicans | Military | News

Justice Dept Files Objection to Injunction on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

As expected, the Justice Department late today filed an objection to the injunction requested by lawyers for the Log Cabin Republicans last week following a judge's declaration earlier this month that the law is unconstitutional.

Soldier The Advocate reports that the main points seem to be:

"'[A]ny injunction in this case must be limited to plaintiff LCR and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of the statute fails as a threshold matter,' assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote. Freeborne also argued that an injunction would preclude the government both from litigating other legal challenges to DADT or considering the terms of a stay barring discharges of gay and lesbian servicemembers."

Americablog adds: "Finally, the DOJ seems awfully concerned that if LCR wins this case, then the Obama administration will no longer be able to find that gay servicemembers hurt morale and cohesion. Why is the Obama administration so concerned about losing the 'right' to discriminate against gay and lesbian servicemembers?"

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released the following statement:

"Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.  This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy.   The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold.  The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal.   And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal.  The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall."

It remains to be seen whether the Justice Dept. will appeal the ruling.

Here's the filing, (via Americablog):

DADT: DOJ response to LCR's proposed injunction

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. This can be looked at two ways, with the exception of a few states like MA and VT, the country is still overwhelmingly uncertain on where they stand on gay rights. Obama doesn't want to give more fuel to the fire and push Democrats out in the elections. This could be because he honestly believes that after the elections they will take up the cause, OR

    it is what I believe and that personally I think corporations run the world, that the two parties are just puppets, and that its all just politics to everyone in Washington.

    Its why we never have drastic legislative change and policy changes slowly or not at all. The only change is in tone.

    They speak differently but act the same.

    Posted by: Rin | Sep 24, 2010 9:06:07 AM

  2. I am sooooo over Obama!

    I hope the Republicans take over both the house and the senate in November. At least we will know up front who our enemies are which is better than getting screwed by those we think are our friends. We in California already know how the African American community let us down with regard to Prop 8. Now we have Obama doing the same thing at the federal level. I feel so abused for supporting their causes over the years.
    If you told me 2 years ago I would be making comments like this I would say you were crazy. But Obama and his administration has kicked me in the stomach for the last time.
    Our community has more disposable income than most. So why vote for a party that wants to tax us more and lie to us about helping us and ensuring our equality? When I think about it logically, the only reason I voted Democrat over my lifetime is thinking they provided me the best chance for equality. Well, I think the jury is in on that. How ironic is it that the Log Cabin Republicans have shown us more in the last few months than the Democratic party has shown us in a lifetime.
    Does anybody else now get sick when they see that 2 faced Obama on the news? And to think I contributed money to this fuc*er elected.

    Posted by: Robert | Sep 24, 2010 10:18:19 AM

  3. Juries and judges may not be predictable, but lawyers certainly are!

    Posted by: anon | Sep 24, 2010 11:46:26 AM

  4. "Three years ago, I was warning all of you about the fraudster Obama. I was pilloried, spat on and shat on. Well, who's doing the shitting now? It ain't me. I knew what was coming.

    In Obama you have a conservative black man with possibly Islamic influences who thinks gays are hideous creatures. Nuff said.

    Posted by: jason | Sep 24, 2010 8:10:53 AM"


    Obama is a huge disappointment, but it's not enough to say that. You have to call him Islam-influenced and conservative? Even Fox doesn't call him conservative...

    Posted by: MammaBear | Sep 24, 2010 12:57:22 PM

  5. Is Eric Holder too good to put his name on this pleading? Isn't he supposed to be the government's face on all things legal? Those names at the top of the pleading? Remember them - they'll be running for office in two years! I voted for Mr Obama; I apologize to my gay brothers and sisters! I was blinded by the Aura of Light surrounding his head. I think Canada is looking good right now and I find myself moving ever closer to the border.

    Posted by: mad1026 | Sep 24, 2010 1:48:48 PM

  6. The irony of all of this talk about not voting for Obama is that it accomplishes nothing except putting a Republican into office who doesn't even acknowledge gay rights.
    If you don't think that we've made progress under this administration, try reading news stories from 2008. That should wake you up.

    Posted by: Brian | Sep 24, 2010 2:10:48 PM

  7. Buck and WR are wrong. The Justice Dept DOES NOT have to defend any law they think might be unconstitutional. THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT WITH OTHER LAWS not being enforced in non-gay areas, like some immigration laws on the books. People who think they are 'just following the law' don't know what they are talking about. It is exactly the same with California, the govt is obligated to defend it in court, which THEY DID DURING THE TRIAL. They lost. They DO NOT HAVE TO APPEAL the result. Please everyone please take a civics class or read a book about how the government is supposed to work.

    Posted by: steve talbert | Sep 24, 2010 2:44:11 PM

  8. Steve Talbert, federal law and state law are significantly different on this issue. This substantive pleadings issue.

    I'm appalled people here are turning on Obama like this. You think Palin, Gingrich, and company are going to give you a better shake? You're deluding yourself.

    Obama may not be perfect but he's a hell of a lot better than the GOP. I think you folks need a little more patience. Instant gratification doesn't work in politics.

    Now grow up and stop acting like spoiled children.

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 24, 2010 3:15:34 PM

  9. No doubt Rick. Some of the people on this site could not think their way out of a wet paper bag.

    Posted by: Dave | Sep 24, 2010 4:02:22 PM

  10. Does everyone remember when a so-called "deal" was worked out last spring, when the Dems in Congress backed-down to the White House & Obama? The compromise negotiated (and approved by many in the gay "leadership") only required Congress to give its approval to end DADT; the endgame or actual repeal of DADT was left to the WH and the military hierarchy, as they saw fit. Since then we've had surveys (& poor returns of same underscoring disinterest by rank and file military), an appointment by Obama of a marine general to head the Marines who doesn't support repeal, continual enforcement by Obama's DOJ of DADT (and DOMA), a refusal to end dismissals of gay and lesbian servicemembers, and a refusal to acknowledge and ACCEPT Judge Phillips' holding that DADT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It should come as no surprise that most gays are disgusted with both democrat and republican members in Congress, and especially Pres. Obama.

    Posted by: Jerry | Sep 24, 2010 7:58:45 PM

  11. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Watch: Equality California Ads Against Meg Whitman, Steve Cooley« «