Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Court dismisses gay military ban ruling

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Stuart Neyton 30 Sep 2011, 10:38am

    well, given it’s the people they vote for who want the return of DADT, i can understand why they want to see it ruled unconstitutional.

    1. Dr J. Ratburger 30 Sep 2011, 10:44am

      Yes the solution appears to be to vote against the republicans, not join them.

  2. Is anybody else completely bewildered by the US legal system? It seems given enough money almost anyone can get a court decision from some legal body that suits them- and in the meantime its LGBT people who have served/are serving their country who have all this uncertainty. Love America, but very thankful i dont have to live there!

    1. Dr J. Ratburger 30 Sep 2011, 1:29pm

      America, or at least several states, like California, is the tyranny of the majority, where the human rights of minorities are a lottery dependent the whim of the majority, who can amend their constitution to fit their prejudices.

      1. It isn’t just California. It’s all 50 states.

        1. David Myers 1 Oct 2011, 6:05am

          Yes, but Proposition 8 which has been ruled unconstitutional by the California Federal Supreme Court will likely by reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should they review it and uphold the lower court ruling, it would set a precident that rights protected under the U.S. Bill of Rights cannot be overidden by a referendum vote of the state’s electorate, but only by a repeal of the amendment within the U.S. Bill of Rights under which the decision was made. Something that is extremely unlikely to happen and very difficult to do.

          The only U.S. Constitutional amendment ever repealed was the eighteenth amendment which legitimized the Volstead Act which established the prohibition of alcohol in all of the states in 1919. It (the eighteenth amendment) was repealed by the passage of the twenty-first amendment, in 1933, which specifically repealed the eighteenth amendment and therefore made the Volstead Act unconstitutional and unenforcible.
          Should the lower court (California Federal Supreme Court) decision be reviewed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be binding on all fifty states, thus making the use of referendum laws to deny rights to a minority under law, illegal. We can only hope.

          Should the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to review the lower court ruling, it would still make Proposition 8 illegal, but would only set that precident in the state of California. Other states would be free to pass such referendum subject only to the review of their state’s own Federal Supreme Court.

  3. Jock S. Trap 30 Sep 2011, 11:06am

    Something should be done to stop this repeal being repealed.
    -
    It simply is not acceptable that the Republicans wish to discriminate and put the ban back into place. To show such disregard for their own brave troops is beyond belief.
    -
    Time to stop this nonsense and make this law it, full stop. No repeals.
    -
    As for the rest of those who have suffered such disrespect just because some bigots cannot let people be and do their job, well what did they expect. It may be a new law of acceptence but those innocent should be paid for the humiliation and disrespect they suffered and in no way deserved.
    -
    End of.

    1. David Myers 1 Oct 2011, 6:10am

      Short of a constitutional amendment banning the banning of gays and lesbians in the military (which ain’t gonna happen). Any law, including the one repealing DADT, can, in itself, be repealed by a party with a large majority in both the U.S. House and the Senate as well as controlling the office of the President and then ultimately only if all three branches of the government agreed (Congress [the Senate and the House], the Presidency, and the U.S. Supreme Court).

  4. This new ruling is clearly designed to absolve the US Army from having to pay compensation to those soldier dismissed thanks to this vile law.

    That cannot be allowed.

    DADT is yet another stain on the already bloadsoacked record of the US Army.

    I hope gay people are not foolish enough to join the US Army now that they are allowed.

    Unless murdering civilians to steal oil is something they support of course.

    1. Dr J. Ratburger 30 Sep 2011, 1:32pm

      They should at least get full severance pay, like those discharged for other reasons, rather than having it halved simply for being gay.

  5. John McKinnon 30 Sep 2011, 1:55pm

    Thank you for this story. FYI – http://OUTMilitary.com has been providing a supportive environment for friending, sharing and networking between Gay active military, vets and supporters in a post “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” military since Dec. 2010.

  6. Patrick Lyster-Todd 30 Sep 2011, 3:43pm

    I think there is a semantic misunderstanding about what has been reported here. The Log Cabin Republicans have actually (and rather oddly) been fully supportive of the ban going. What is at issue here is that the original ban needs to be ruled as unconstitutional (which will assist in compensation claims) – not the actual repeal of the ban. What has now been decided, alas, by the higher, Federal Court is that the original ban was not unconstitutional when it existed – which nowt hinders claims by those who lost their careers under it.

  7. Miguel Sanchez 30 Sep 2011, 4:05pm

    DADT has been ruled unconstitutional so any attempt to return it will be blocked by the court’s ruling.

    Hopefully this ends this issue

    1. David Myers 1 Oct 2011, 6:22am

      Wrong. The appeals court has set aside the ruling that DADT was unconstitutional and stated that it wasn’t unconstitutional at the time – only after the new law was passed. Therefore, a higher court (i.e. the U.S. Supreme Court) would have to over-rule that decision and thus make the unconstitutionality of DADT a reality retroactively (even before the law was repealed) and thus allow service people formerly dismissed under that provision to sue for back wages and/or wrongful dismissal. The action taken by the appeal court was one of CYA (cover your ass) so that the US government would not be liable for back wages or wrongful dismissal settlements.

  8. Staircase2 30 Sep 2011, 4:20pm

    Bless you, Jessica – but I cant understand a word of that.

    As we’ve said before – its the banning of the anti’s which is so confusing to the casual (or informed!) reader.

    Could you amend?

  9. In a lovely world covered in candy fields, sure, people would receive compensation after being discharged for a law which has now been repealed. But that simply isn’t the case. This doesn”t happen in real life, and it can’t – the cost would be ridiculous. This isn’t just America, but here in the UK too. If the Supreme Court of the UK rules against, say, a decision by the Court of Appeal, then decisions already made by the Court of Appeal are not amended and those people affected traced down and given compensation.

    It’s a logistical and financial nightmare. Don’t get me wrong – these people, as we all know, were wrongly dismissed and I would love nothing more than to see justice served to all – but it just isn’t as simple as that; it’s not discriminatory and we just have to deal with it.

    True also though is that I have zero knowledge of law in the US. If there is some way that is financially feasible to compensate what are essentially victims, then it should be introduced.

  10. Angela S. 1 Oct 2011, 1:54am

    Hmm… Sounds like these judges do not want to get their fingers burnt by agreeing with the lower court in ruling DADT was indeed unconstitutional, by just declaring the ruling of no meaning…

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all