Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

Three Gay Discharged Veterans Sue Government in New Federal Court Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Another lawsuit against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been filed in federal court, the AP reports:

Anthony-Loverde The lawsuit filed in federal district court in San Francisco also seeks to have the ban on openly gay troops declared unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable for any service members.

"I don't feel like I'm going up against the military, I really don't. I just feel like this is a necessary step for doing away with this policy," said former Air Force Staff Sergeant Anthony Loverde. "I believe the military, the majority of troops I've served with and those who have been studied to death are with us."

The 31-year-old Loverde (pictured) is working in Iraq for a private military contractor that's providing the Army with technical support. The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of former Air Force Major Michael Almy, 40, and former Navy Petty Officer Second Class Jason Knight, 28.

The Senate better get their asses in gear and repeal this thing, because it's on the way out one way or another.

Back in May when I was posting SLDN's 'Stories from the Frontline' I published Loverde's. You can read it here. Here, also, is Mike Almy's, and Jason Knight's.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Everybody sing now:
    "ALL THE LOVERDE... THAT HAVE GONE BEFORE.... DON'T COMPARE... TO YOU!"

    Thanks Anthony, Michael and Jason! And good luck!

    (also, the military should have known they were gay: straight men would call themselves Tony, Mike, and J ;)

    Posted by: Strepsi | Dec 13, 2010 12:58:34 PM


  2. The politicians don't have the balls to admit that they passed a shameful bigoted law.....(and this is not the first time has their bigotry shown through)

    Let the courts tell them.....and compensate the military victims of the Legislature's discrimination.
    i suggest at least 5 million to each soldier for breach of their constitutional rights.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Dec 13, 2010 1:33:19 PM


  3. Amendments:
    "that their bigotry..."

    "his/her constitutional...."

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Dec 13, 2010 1:40:16 PM


  4. @JFT there is no constitutional right to serve in the military -- just no detail on who can be restricted from serving.

    Consitution allows for the mustering of militia to protect the country is all ....

    Posted by: David B. 2 | Dec 13, 2010 4:50:03 PM


  5. @David B : Surely the constitution regards all persons as entitled to equal treatment before the law ? Or equal process ? Otherwise straight people have a manifestly unfair advantage.....

    You had a case on unequal treatment in Browne -v- The Board of Education, is that not a precedent for the DADT charade ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Dec 13, 2010 5:35:49 PM


  6. My comment was directed at those subjected to DADT nonsense. I didn't mean to suggest there was a constitutional right to be in the military; just a constitutional right not to be discriminated against once there.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Dec 13, 2010 5:38:46 PM


  7. LONG overdue! SLDN's abandonment of legal assaults on the ban following the First Circuit dismissal of "Cook, et al.," in 2008 has been a major part of their overall strategic failure, naively continually to trust, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Obama would keep his promise to personally LEAD the end to the ban. Bravo to the three plaintiffs for their willingness to be the subjects of this suit. [The Fehrenbach legal action in August was just to stop his discharge, and became moot upon an agreement between a District Court in Idaho, the DOJ, the Air Force, and his attorneys not to discharge him without notice. If my understanding is correct that no subsequent legal challenge occurred, it is incomphrehensible to me as Fehrenbach, unlike two of these three clients, was recommended for discharge AFTER the initial Witt ruling.]

    As for "Witt," some may recall that at that infamous February 2nd Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, President Gates promised that, after ignoring it for a year and a half, he would release in March, quote, "new rules and procedures in light of the appeals court decision in 'Witt versus the Department of the Air Force' for the areas of the country covered by the appellate court." Not only did he never do that, but the ODOJ viciously fought her at the September District Court retrial, suddenly FALSELY claiming that the main reason she was discharged was not DADT but because of "adultery." And, of course, when they lost, the ODOJ and Pentagon appealed. The last I heard was that the Air Force was demanding that Witt, whom they had once used in recruiting brochures for flight nurses, was demanding that she prove she is still capable of being a flight nurse herself before even considering obeying the court's order to reinstate her.

    And, now, our Fierce Avocado will be fighting this suit, too.

    Posted by: michael@leonardmatlovich.com | Dec 13, 2010 9:01:41 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch: James Franco Discusses His Gay Sex Research« «