To David Link’s eloquent plea to the U.S. Senate, below, I’ll add these thoughts. Regarding the district court ruling that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional, I agree that if barring openly gay people from serving in the military (that is, requiring that they lie and hide, subject to discharge if the truth about their orientation should be learned) is based on societal hostility and the presumed (or even real) prejudice of heterosexual troops, then the policy is in violation of constitutional protections ensuring due process, free speech, and (more generally) equality under the law.
But that’s a different question from whether it would be a better political course to reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell” via congressional action rather than by court ruling. A legislative death to the policy would be less likely to provoke a backlash by those claiming judicial overreach. (Of course, if the judiciary did not, in fact, so often overreach to advance a political agenda not grounded in ensuring constitutional protections for all, then such claims would be less effective, but that’s another story).
So here’s hoping that Log Cabin’s to-date successful lawsuit may light a fire under a recalcitrant Senate.
3 Comments for “No to “Lie and Hide””
posted by William Quill on
Stephen, I think you’re being far too pessimistic on public opinion on this. Most people favour repeal, unlike the marriage question where it teeters around 50-50. I think if this was settled in the courts, and the administration was forced to act, it could die away as an issue as people focus on the economy.
If the constitution is to mean anything, conservatives like yourself can’t put the political process ahead of the courts so heavily for this issue. At least not with DADT with President Obama.
posted by another steve on
The U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to make rulings regarding military policy, and shows great deference to the military. So it’s by no means clear they would rule in our favor. On the other hand, it really is beginning to look as if Harry Reid is not going to bring this before the Senate, so there you have it.
posted by Hunter on
As far as the Supreme Court’s deference to the military, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are on record as supporting repeal. In theory, the Pentagon is working toward that end — although I notice that in some contexts “if” has replaced “when,” which leads me to wonder — again — how sincere that effort is. Nonetheless, I would hope that would give the Court enough cover.