Monday, June 18, 2007

Gay Republicans Challenge DADT In Federal Court

I usually view being a Log Cabin Republican to being some what akin to being Jewish and belonging to the Nazi Party. However, is reporting some constructive action by the Log Cabin crowd:

(Los Angeles, California) A federal judge will hear oral arguments today in Los Angeles in a lawsuit brought by Log Cabin Republicans challenging the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the ban on gays serving openly in the military. "The case presents important constitutional law issues," said Dan Woods, lead attorney for LCR.

"The Supreme Court has not addressed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law since its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down that state's sodomy laws," Woods said in a statement. "The Court held Americans have a fundamental right to privacy and this includes the right of gay and lesbian Americans to engage in intimate relationships without government interference. Don't Ask, Don't Tell violates this fundamental right."

Hopefully, the court will rule in favor of the protection of all Americans' fundamental rights.


KipEsquire said...

No apologist for DADT am I, but this litigation is frivolous. Lawrence v. Texas concerned private conduct and is wholly inapplicable to military service.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has already held that LvT doesn't even apply to the military's sodomy ban (both gay and straight), let alone to its ban on gays serving openly -- U.S. v. Marcum.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is extremely deferential on military matters, even when "constitutional law issues" are involved. See, e.g., Rumsfeld v. FAIR.

Anonymous said...

Two comments:

Patrick Guerrero, former president of Log Cabin, is one of the sharpest, sanest politicos in this country. He's now employed by the Gill Foundation, which is doing far more for GLBT than even HRC.

Is Kipesquire for real? By HIS logic separation of races would still apply, Loving will still be law (in the military, only, of course), etc. Yes, the military is given TOO MUCH indiscretion by our courts, and that is "okay?" Let's not forget that the military serves US, not we that serve the military. Kipesquires' "direction of fit" may be the problem, not equality, justice, and logic. One direction is totalitarian, the other is American.

Michael-in-Norfolk said...

Gay Species,

My response to Kipesquire was:

However, that doesn’t make the policy right and at some point the courts will begin to be less deferential. Remember, the Supreme Court reversed itself in Lawrence just as it did on the issue of “separate but equal.”

If one does not push for change, it will never happen.