^&%&*&*^&%^&%^&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[angi_is_altered]

Obama Wins! Court Reinstates Gay Military Ban 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

A federal appeals court in California on Friday agreed to allow the military to temporarily continue “Don't Ask, Don't Tell,” the policy that bans gay and lesbian troops from serving openly, the AP reported.But even as it agreed to reverse its July 6 order, the Ninth Circuit Court

Comments

[keithmex17]

Friday's ruling suggests the military is very close to certifying repeal.

wat.

This article seems to be pointing in 3 different directions.

[yeats]

yeah, agreed. i am really unclear on what's going on, and whether this is a real setback or just a procedural wrinkle.

[baked_goldfish]

From a different article:

The chiefs of the military services submitted their recommendations on the repeal to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week. As soon as the Pentagon certifies that repealing the ban will have no effect on military readiness, the military has 60 days to implement the repeal, which could happen by September.

The person in charge of the repeal said the process has been laid out smoothly so far, for what it's worth.

[schmanda]

I'm confused, too, but I want to go with "it's procedural" as well.

Especially with the angle that DADT is reinstated except "the Pentagon is not allowed to discharge any service member who is openly gay." Seems to pretty much defang DADT, so the reinstatement would seem to be in name only.

Maybe there's a reason the policy needs to be active (ie. not in limbo in the courts, so no legal entanglements) for it to be repealed?

[baked_goldfish]

Hummer's statement gives the DOD's reasoning behind not letting a court case end DADT.

"the Pentagon is not allowed to discharge any service member who is openly gay."

There were three people who'd been recommended for discharge while this court case was being decided, and this bit effectively bars the DOD from moving forward with their dismissals.

I'm pretty sure there's some politics involved, as the case is Log Cabin Republicans v. USA, but since it's the military, I'm also inclined to believe there's an aspect involving the slow, grinding wheels of bureaucracy.

[txvoodoo]

I asked a friend of mine who's a legal scholar with emphasis on this type of thing to break it down for me, because I'm equally confused. His take was that this was basically the courts saying to the military people who are charged with taking the steps to make the repeal happen "hey, move your asses." And that the admin may even have asked the courts to clarify/step in here to do just that, in a passive-aggressive way. It means that admin doesn't have to say directly to military leadership "you're really dragging on this".

He's going to try and break it down for me more, because it's really wrapped up in a lot of legal obfuscation.

[dearmisterecho]

seriously, I'm confused as fuck.

[kittymink]

Me three. idgi