While President Obama struggles to get Congress to roll back the "don't ask, don't tell" law for gays and lesbians in the military, the last place he wants his lawyers to be is in federal court defending the policy -- against a group of Republicans, no less.
But that's where the Justice Department finds itself, with a trial scheduled July 13 before a federal judge in Riverside in a suit by the Log Cabin Republicans. Now the department has asked the judge to put the case on hold while the issue is before Congress.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/...
I will admit outright that I am torn in writing this dairy. Pros and Cons below the fold.
Here's the deal: The Justice Department is asking the court to wait until Congress plays out this fall. The House as already added repeal of DADT to the appropriation bill, and the Senate may well follow. If so this is a moot case and a waste of time and treasure.
The Log Cabin Republicans, on the other hand, have been pursuing this since 2004, so it's not a "make President Obama look bad" lawsuit. From the Prop 8 trial tracker:
The Log Cabin Republicans want to present testimony from former service members who’ve been affected by don’t ask, don’t tell, and from scholars who would assert that the policy serves no useful purpose and actually hurts the military.
In this they may well be following the footsteps of Olsen and Bois in the Prop 8 trial in California.
The Justice Department has a much different take:
But the Obama administration — which is in the case because of its stated policy of defending all federal laws — says all that evidence is irrelevant.
Because the suit is a "facial challenge" against the entire policy, rather than against its application to anyone in particular, the only evidence that matters, the Justice Department says, is the evidence before Congress when it passed the law in 1993. And because Congress "could have rationally determined" that a ban on openly gay or lesbian soldiers would maintain military effectiveness by protecting privacy and reducing sexual tension, the department says, there’s no need for testimony from witnesses about whether lawmakers acted wisely.
In short, the Justice Department is arguing that testimony against the policy in unnecessary. This is particulary disappointing coming from Obama's Justice Department: As we say in the Prop 8 trial, testimony is important -- it shines a bright light on the bigotry in the system, and on the real harm it causes gay Americans.
The fact that this suit is brought by Republicans just adds insult to injury! I understand (though do not agree with) the Obama Administration wanting for Congress to repeal DADT, rather than approaching it with the Presidential arm. And I am sure that he is reticent to (once again) be linked to defending DADT or DOMA in court. And yet the links are there, and the IS defending it in court.
I understand it is the job fo the Justice Department to defend this nation's laws. However, I feel the Justice Department should be wanting to overturn this rule as a violation of civil rights, not trying to defend it. And if they once again equate homosexuals to sex-crazed monkeys, or to child molesters, it will be a cold day in hell before I feel the need to give my treasure, time, or vote to the Democratic Party.