Some tidbits from the DADT decision
Sep. 10th, 2010 12:10 amI hope you have all seen by now the most excellent news that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was found unconstitutional by a district court judge yesterday. News that was, for me, made all the more welcome by the fact that I didn't even know the law had been challenged in court, and so it came as a wonderful surprise.
Two things jumped out at me from the article linked above. First:
Really? I mean, really? This is not a complaint, mind, but it really shocked me at first glance. A Republican group? Challenging DADT? But on reflection, it makes more sense: Republicans often believe in a strong military, perhaps are more likely to want to serve in the military, and DADT keeps gay Republicans from being able to serve. Still, it threw me for a loop.
Second, the article mentions President Obama and his oft-stated desire to repeal DADT. Now, that's great and all, Mr. President, but if you're that committed to getting rid of the law, why did the Justice Department just defend it vigorously in Federal Court? Someone explain that one to me, because unlike the first thing that caught my eye, I really don't see how that follows.
Still, good news. Great news. As always, it's just a first step, but maybe one that will get Congress and the Pentagon to get cracking on repealing the law for good.
Two things jumped out at me from the article linked above. First:
The case was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest political organization for gays in the GOP, in 2004.
Really? I mean, really? This is not a complaint, mind, but it really shocked me at first glance. A Republican group? Challenging DADT? But on reflection, it makes more sense: Republicans often believe in a strong military, perhaps are more likely to want to serve in the military, and DADT keeps gay Republicans from being able to serve. Still, it threw me for a loop.
Second, the article mentions President Obama and his oft-stated desire to repeal DADT. Now, that's great and all, Mr. President, but if you're that committed to getting rid of the law, why did the Justice Department just defend it vigorously in Federal Court? Someone explain that one to me, because unlike the first thing that caught my eye, I really don't see how that follows.
Still, good news. Great news. As always, it's just a first step, but maybe one that will get Congress and the Pentagon to get cracking on repealing the law for good.