Quantcast
 


Twitter icon


Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
 Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret Bible
 Persons
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
 Denominations
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic...
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs Religion
More information

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
10 commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment

Same-sex marriage

Homosexuality
Human rights
Gays in the military
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

 

 

 

 

 

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Federal court finds "Don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional

Overview of the case

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.


horizontal rule

Overview of Plaintiff's claim that DADT violates servicemembers' due process rights:

This case was heard by District Court Judge Virginia Phillips of the U.S. District Court of the Central Federal District of California during the second half of 2010-JUL.

However, seven years previously, on 2003-JUN-26, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in another case: Lawrence v. Texas. It had a major impact on the DADT case. That court determined that anti-gay laws in Texas and in over a dozen other states were unconstitutional. These laws had criminalized consenting same-sex behavior by adults in private. The court recognized human rights under the U.S. Constitution that are associated with the:

"... autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." 1

At that time, all four of the strict constructionist Justices on the Supreme Court believed that not all of these freedoms existed under the Constitution. The four were narrowly outvoted by the remaining five Justices who viewed the U.S. Constitution as a living document whose meaning changes with the evolving culture.

Judge Phillips noted that in 2008:

"The Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of Air Force, ... held [that] the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act constitutes an intrusion '... upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence, and is subject to heightened scrutiny'."

If the intrusion of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy into the private lives of the servicemembers is to be found constitutional under heightened scrutiny , it must meet three criteria.

  1. It must advance an important governmental interest, and
  2. The intrusion must significantly further that interest, and
  3. The intrusion must be necessary to further that interest."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that DADT satisfied the first criteria. It was up to Judge Phillips to determine whether it met both the second and third criteria. She found that the Act does not "significantly further" the Government's interests in military readiness or unit cohesion, and thus is not constitutional.

During their closing arguments, the Defendants -- the Federal Department of Justice -- did refer to seven reports by various expert groups and individuals. However, as Judge Phillips wrote in her ruling, they:

"... did not include precise citations to any portion of the above-referenced materials to support the constitutionality of the Policy."

She did note that the testimony of former servicemembers during the trial:

  • "... provides ample evidence of the Act's [negative] effect on the fundamental rights of
    homosexual members of the United States military", and

  • " ... demonstrates that the [DADT] Act adversely affects the Government's interests in
    military readiness and unit cohesion.

She also noted that:

The Log Cabin Republicans, the "... Plaintiff[,] introduced other evidence, from witnesses in such specialties as national security policy, military sociology, military history, and social psychology ..."

Their testimony indicated that DADT did not further the Government's interests in military readiness or unit cohesion.

Finally, she noted that:

"Among those discharged [under the DADT policy] were many with critically needed skills. According to the Government's own data, many of those discharged pursuant to the Act had education, training, or specialization in so-called 'critical skills,' including Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, or Korean language fluency; military intelligence; counter terrorism; weapons development; and medicine. ... Far from furthering the military's readiness, the discharge of these service men and women had a direct and deleterious effect on this governmental interest."

She declared the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to be unconstitutional and issued an injunction to prevents its application everwhere within the U.S. military.

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.

  1. Virginia Phillips, "Text of ruling: Case No. CV 04-08425-VAP (Ex)," Page 46. Filed 2010-SEP-09, at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ This is a PDF file.

horizontal rule

Site navigation:

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality & Bisexuality > Challenges > DADT > Lawsuit > here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 2010 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2010-SEP-11
Latest update: 2010-SEP-16
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or return to the "DADT lawsuit in district court" menu, or choose:

horizontal rule
Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 
Sponsored links: