Posted on 05/21/2008 4:37:24 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Ninth Circuit Rules Against Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' By Pete Winn CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer May 21, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - The future of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was cast into doubt on Wednesday.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Calif., ruled that it is no longer enough for the military to state the policy -- which says that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" -- when it discharges members of the armed services it discovers to be homosexuals.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. Air Force will have to prove why it discharged Margaret Witt, an 18-year Air Force nurse, under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Witt, a major in the Air Force Reserve, was discharged in 2004 when it came to light that she had had a lesbian relationship from 1997 to 2003 with a civilian woman. She filed suit in 2006 challenging her ouster from the Air Force.
The federal district court in Tacoma, Wash., held that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was not subject to judicial review, and the Air Force didn't have to prove anything other than that she was a homosexual.
But the Ninth Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down state sodomy laws, sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to reconsider the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Hey, why not. Gays can now marry in California. Just open the floodgates.
Separation of powers? What’s that?
One would assume that this can be appealed to the USSC, where at the moment they usually understand what the Constitution is.
Nothing the 9th Circus Court does is a surprise...anything immoral goes with this lot.
Why do these guys still have jobs? Just about every. single. ruling. this court has made has been overturned by the USSC...
Is there no affair of man or beast that the Ninth Circus doesn't consider within its purview?
Riddle of the day:
What is the difference between a dictator and a leftist court?The dictator only has one head.
To think of how Scalia and Santorum were scorned and ridiculed when they warned where Lawrence v. Texas would lead.
The 9th circus will be overruled as usual!
If the nation were best defended by an army made exclusively of 3-legged dwarfs, that’s the one I’d want. If we lose a war, it’s no consolation that we, at least, were non-discriminatory in our recruiting practices.
Looks like another slapdown is coming for the 9th Circus.
celtic gal: “Nothing the 9th Circus Court does is a surprise...anything immoral goes with this lot.”
Perhaps you don’t realize they think you’re immoral for opposing them. In their eyes, they are only trying to correct past wrongs, and you’re the judgmental, evil one if you speak against them. Unfortunately, even some FReepers support the rights of homosexuals to marry. They say it’s a matter of civil rights and individual liberty. It is sad. We have reached the point where perversion is called good and good is called evil. God save us!
Stuff like this makes holding the nose and voting McCain a bit easier.
Can you imagine if Hussein got to appoint 3 new Supreme Court Judges and they started upholding the 9th circus decisions?
To think of how Scalia and Santorum were scorned and ridiculed when they warned where Lawrence v. Texas would lead.
I bet the Ninth Circuit can't wait for a gay marriage case and use Lawrence vs. Texas. We might have one coming up to bat. The referendum to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage passes but the next day someone sues in federal court citing Lawrence vs. Texas.
The US Supreme Court opened the floodgates with Lawrence V. Texas. This is just an inevitable response to it.
But who cares? Let the liberal judges make all the rulings they want. I don’t however buy the idea that the military is subject to judicial review or should be bound by it.
Would it be improper for the Air Force to discharge someone after 18 years of service, if they knew for years that person was a lesbian, for the purpose of denying that person their military retirement benefits?
Wikipedia and all other commentators are going to have to hurry to revise statements that it is “highly unlikely” that courts will try to apply Lawrence to service in the military:
“Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriages, and the right to serve in the military. The latter appears highly unlikely in light of the Supreme Court’s recognition that “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.”[15] The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the last court of appeals for Courts-Martial before the Supreme Court, has upheld that Lawrence applies to Article 125 of the UCMJ, the article banning Sodomy. However, the court has twice upheld prosecutions under Article 125 (the article prohibiting sodomy), in United States v. Marcum and United States v. Stirewalt, finding that the article was “constitutional as applied to Appellant”[16][17] and when applied as necessary to preserve good order and discipline in the armed forces. Although no court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution to require states to allow same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts required that same-sex couples be given full marriage rights. The decision did cite Lawrence, which was decided some four and a half months earlier, but did not draw on its direct precedential authority, as Goodridge was decided on exclusively state constitutional grounds. On the other hand, several federal district and circuit courts that have considered the extent of Lawrence have held that it is an extremely narrow holding under rational basis review. These courts have ruled that Lawrence does not call into question laws regulating marriage, nor does Lawrence strike down other regulations related to homosexuality. (See Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Lofton v. Sec. of Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th. Cir. 2004); Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama, 378 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).) The Supreme Court has not yet accepted any cases that present an opportunity to further define the implications of Lawrence....”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Or started incorporating sharia law into decisions?!
You do know the U.S. Constitution is a living, breathing document, don't you?/sarc
Good catch.
Fine, the USAF should set aside her discharge then courts martial her for misconduct and send her sorry ass to prison for ten years.
What is a civilian court doing meddling in military matters? Since they are lawyers and leftists with disordered minds it is no surprise. But where is the "adult leadership" in this country? That court needs a slapdown for sure!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.