DADT: Lady Gaga heading to Maine today to pressure GOP Senators Snowe and Collins before vote on Tuesday

September 20, 2010 at 10:13 am 140 comments

(Cross-posted from LGBTPOV)

By Karen Ocamb

Lady Gaga DADT pleaServicemembers Legal Defense Network is holding an event in Portland, Maine near the University of Southern Maine campus Monday and Lady Gaga is expected to attend and stand with servicemembers discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The Senate is expected to take up the Defense Appropriations bill this week and debate the bill to repeal DADT. SLDN and Lady Gaga are pressuring moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine to vote for repeal. Lady Gaga has been very eloquent in calling for a repeal, such as in this Sept. 16 video below.

Meanwhile, Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, posted a piece in The Hill’s Congress Blog that questions whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has set the DADT repeal bill up for failure:

“Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to thwart the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes an historic provision to repeal the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law, before the mid-term elections? It sure appears that way judging by the stunts being pulled with this very important piece of annual legislation.

Service members and veterans are quite accustomed to being used as political footballs, and the practice needs to stop. It likely will not, so it at least needs to be called out when it occurs.

Just over 60 votes had been lined up to break a filibuster on NDAA and allow the legislation to move forward for debate, amendments, and a final vote before the Senate adjourns for yet another month-and-a-half-long recess. That was until Senator Reid announced that he was going to use his status as Senate Majority Leader to block the minority’s customary ability to also offer their amendments to the massive annual defense spending bill.

This unusual and controversial move by Senator Reid predictably enraged all Republicans, including the few who were previously prepared to help break the filibuster and allow a repeal-inclusive NDAA to move forward. And who can blame them? This isn’t a very fair move on Senator Reid’s part, and it wasn’t a very fair move at points in the past when Republicans did it either.”

UPDATE BY EDEN: CNN on the current landscape on DADT (as of this morning), as well as Lady Gaga’s activism, along with an interview with SLDN’s Aubrey Sarvis (h/t to Ronnie in the comments):

Entry filed under: DADT trial.

Whistlin’ past the trial: Legal analysis of Prop 8 team’s Opening Brief (Part Two) VIDEO: Holding NOM accountable for their absurd Iowa Supreme Court ad

140 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Go, Gaga!

    Reply
    • 2. Rhie  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm

      For some reason that made me think of Go Go Gadget…!

      GO GO GADGET GAGA lol.

      Reply
    • 3. AndrewPDX  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:23 pm

      Late to the subscribing party… I’ll bring extra cookies next time, I promise.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 4. Mark  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:19 am

    The Lady is amazing!

    Reply
  • 5. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:19 am

    da da doo-doo-mmm…… ; ) …Ronnie

    Reply
    • 6. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm

      Ta La Lay Jah La Lay. Don’t mind me, just scribin.

      Reply
  • 7. Alan E  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Doing my Jury Duty today. Send me emails so I can catch up later

    Reply
    • 8. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:24 am

      Good for you!

      Reply
  • 9. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:25 am

    This subject is posted in my local newspaper today. She is not very popular amongst the old-crickety-retired-Conservative-fundie-hate-everything folks here in Tucson. Normally, there is great support to repeal DADT by commenters on our newspaper, but the posters are all negative and hateful about repealing it because of Lady GaGa. Losers!

    They love to Hate! It’s the only reasoning I can see. They are bitter people (too much sun?) that need something to complain about while drinking their metamusil.

    I love Lady GaGa! She rocks and is helping this cause immensely!

    Reply
  • 10. Sagesse  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:39 am

    The roller coaster ride continues.

    Further to Alex Nicholson’s point, I was thinking throwing in the Dream Act has given the GOP one more thing to object to in a bill that was already controversial enough.

    Not to lose sight of the real problem, which is that the GOP says no to absolutely everything.

    Reply
  • 11. Dave in ME  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:59 am

    Aww…she’s just a 2-hour trip down the freeway from me! Too bad I’m at work all day…

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
  • 12. BK  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Wish I were in the US now… I’m temporarily out of country. :(

    Reply
  • 13. Don in Texas  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Washington Post:| Five myths about don’t ask, don’t tell by Aaron Belkin, associate professor of Political Science at San Francisco State University.

    Reply
  • 14. Straight Ally #3008  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

    (singing) That’s why the lady is a champ….

    Sen. Collins was for DADT repeal in the Senate Armed Services Committee vote, no? And if memory serves, she and Sen. Snow were among the only Republicans opposed to that bizarre Senate resolution against marriage equality in DC (Scott Brown was for it, and unfortunately I’m sure he’ll oppose DADT repeal too). Not saying we should count on any vote, but I hope that with Maine’s Senators on board there will be no filibuster. I guess we still have to worry about Jim Webb….

    Reply
    • 15. AndrewPDX  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:25 pm

      Something like this, maybe?

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 16. eDee  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:45 am

    That is so close to my house I can almost spit and reach it.
    I just came from that area – forgot and drove right through the park. Lots O’ People, I’m not sure I could even get near it again.
    I’m considering picking the kids up from school and driving down – wish me luck! lol

    This is what the local news has posted on FB:

    WCSH 6 Here’s your link to watch the Lady Gaga appearance at the anti-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rally in Portland’s Deering Oaks park. We anticipate a picture shortly before 4:00pm. Share early and often!

    Here’s the link: http://www.wcsh6.com/news/breaking/story.aspx?storyid=128847&catid=112

    Reply
    • 17. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:50 am

      I hope you go eDee…and take pictures, lots of them!

      Reply
  • 18. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Another extremely creative amicus brief has just been filed (yes, it’s late): http://www.scribd.com/doc/37799950/CA9Doc-22

    This is apparently based on some church’s 8-week course in “Theology of the Body”. That right there will give you a good indication of the tone of this brief.

    Reply
    • 19. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm

      I hate it when they call us non-breeders. Have they not noticed we breed too?

      Reply
      • 20. fiona64  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:43 pm

        I guess it has never occurred to Margie that there are straight couples out there who are also “non-breeders.” Is she saying that we should not be allowed to marry, either? I had to stop at that point, before I puked.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 21. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        I’m a voluntary “non-breeder”. She and her quiverfull can kiss my ass if she thinks I’m any less than her.

        Reply
      • 22. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm

        Cheers to Chris! I have SO much respect for voluntary non-breeders.

        Reply
      • 23. Rhie  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        I just hate when “breeder” is applied to people. It’s so…animal-like.

        Reply
    • 24. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:03 pm

      I know I keep saying this…. and I know that for some reason any ol’ person is allowed to file these things ….. and I know it’s a rhetorical question of mine again, but WHY???? And since it’s apparently OK that “they” do, why aren’t “we” doing the same? (But much more intelligently, of course.)

      Reply
      • 25. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:05 pm

        And, silly me, I thought that DNA determination was done by scientific tests, not by simple “knowledge” bestowed by breeding supposedly within the boundaries of marriage….

        Reply
      • 26. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        Kate, it’s good for society that people like this feel that they can file this and that the court will read it.

        As for why we don’t, Boies and Olsen don’t need our help, and things like this don’t really help the process along. It helps the filers to feel as though they’ve been heard.

        Reply
      • 27. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:13 pm

        As for why we don’t, Boies and Olsen don’t need our help, and things like this don’t really help the process along.

        Oh, yeah. Duh.
        Kate, feeling sheepish about the obvious.

        Reply
      • 28. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 20, 2010 at 9:07 pm

        The court clerks need a laugh every once in a while.

        Reply
    • 29. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm

      Wow, this one is supposedly written by a lawyer, but has so many glaring legal errors that our non-legal friends here will easily be able to shoot this one down.

      Here’s one: they confuse the CA Supreme Court case upholding Prop 8 with this case, and say that the federal district court can’t overturn a decision of the CA Supreme Court.

      Just to be clear: These are different cases, being argued on different grounds. The question in the CA Supreme Court case of Strauss v. Horton was whether it was permissible under the CA Constitution for a proposition to amend the CA Constitution in the way that Prop 8 did.

      This case turns on the US Constitution. ‘Nuff said.

      Reply
      • 30. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:07 pm

        Thanks so much for this Ann S. There needs to be a new post at P8TT. I can’t wait to see everyone rip into it. I don’t think the Ninth will allow this in. It’s all theocracy.

        Reply
      • 31. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:09 pm

        It’s true — we potted plants who are approaching the legal ramifications of arguments later in life and/or education should thank all these people for posting briefs on which we can practice our limited “ripping apart” skills.

        Reply
      • 32. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:14 pm

        Kate, you are far more than a potted plant!

        Reply
      • 33. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        @Ann

        well ….. I am working on being a blooming potted plant anyway, thanks to all the generous legal input here. But still at TTpp.

        Reply
      • 34. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:17 pm

        Still a TTpp….. sigh. (And one who would certainly appreciate an editing interface.)

        Reply
      • 35. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:26 pm

        Am I reading correctly that, because “they” claim this brief is short (14 pages on Scribd), they are entitled to file it beyond the required date?

        Reply
      • 36. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:29 pm

        Kate, I think they also said they filed for permission and no one objected. I only skimmed that part, though, I could be wrong.

        Reply
      • 37. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        Oh, yes, I also think (as part of the confusion with Strauss v. Horton) that they claimed that they didn’t get notice. Clearly they think this is an appeal from Strauss, and since they filed similar nonsense there they should have gotten a notice of this deadline.

        LOL.

        Reply
      • 38. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        Ann S. I am wondering about the second brief added today. The one for Imperial County “Exerpts of Record Filed”. I see you added it, and I am reading it (hope that’s okay.)

        Didn’t they already file? Are they allowed to file this now? Do they have a schedule?

        And, for my final question. If they are allowed to intervene now, are they allowed to bring in new evidence supporting their claims? Seems like they have added new book readings I didn’t see in Perry vs. Sw(forget me spelling it).

        Reply
      • 39. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:35 pm

        LLB, I saw that but I think it’s just a transmittal of records or some such.

        No new evidence, but perhaps they can get away with citing a book as having a “persuasive argument” that the court should consider.

        Reply
      • 40. Sheryl Carver  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:43 pm

        IANAL, NEAPP (Not Even A Potted Plant) …

        which is probably why I was confused right off the bat with the heading “PERRY, APPELLANT” & “SCHWARZENEGGER, APPELLEE

        Could’ve sworn that Perry et al are the Appellees, Schwarzenegger et al are the Defendents, & the DIs are the Appellants.

        Just sets the tone for the rest of the document, I think.

        Reply
      • 41. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:48 pm

        I think they are confused because this is the Appeal part of the trial…

        the Appellant’s in the Appeal are the Prop 8 folks (ie SCHWARZENEGGER) and the Appellee’s are Perry.

        I had to copy your spelling of the Appellant’s cause my brain just can’t!

        Reply
    • 42. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:05 pm

      Oh, she is taking the path that if same sex couples are allowed to marry, opposite sex couples will stop procreating…never really understood this line of reasoning.

      Reply
      • 43. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        I think that falls under the “no-more-sex-for-heteros” result; well, at least for MARRIED heteros.

        Reply
      • 44. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:08 pm

        Oh, society will be doomed, because no more chilluns will be borned!

        OT, but an interesting novel about what happens to a society when no more children are born is “Children of Men” by P.D. James. I recommend the book (but not the movie).

        Reply
      • 45. fiona64  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        Give me a break; the Duggars are working on populating their own village.

        These “oh noes we’re doomed” people don’t get that the real doom comes with *overpopulation.*

        Malthus was right.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:14 pm

      Quote Page 6 (scribd page 10): Plaintiffs cannot show injury in view of their right to a civil union that gives them everything a marriage provides, except the possibility of having a child begotten and born by the partners of the union.

      Separate but equal is not equal.

      Reply
      • 47. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        I like how this filer thinks our side is the one with the standing problem.

        Someone has not been paying attention.

        Reply
      • 48. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        And what about not being forced to testify in court against one’s spouse? Is THAT in “civil unions?” No? Oh yeah, that’s only if there’s a spouse…….

        Reply
      • 49. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        Robin Tyler v. , 46 Cal. 4th 364, addressed whether or not Proposition 8 impermissibly amended, rather than revising, the California Constitution.

        OUR Robin Tyler????

        Reply
      • 50. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:36 pm

        Strict scrutiny applies, if at all, only in those situations in which it is an unalterable state of the person, i.e. race, color, sex, national origin, or religion

        Uh….. since when is religion an “unalterable state of the person” ???

        Reply
      • 51. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:38 pm

        Biologically speaking, procreation occurs between heterosexuals in an act of begetting or generating, whereas mere fornication by non-breeders is incapable of producing offspring

        Has anyone told this to folks whose bodies (together) appear to be capable of begetting but which may actually not be so?

        Reply
      • 52. Leo  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:39 pm

        She also thinks that a state is sovereign.
        I have trouble believing that this was written by an actual attorney, despite the explicit assertion.

        Reply
      • 53. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm

        hahahahahhahahaha…cough….hehehehe…OMG….that was funny….”since when is religion an “unalterable state of the person” ???”……

        They are so stupid…they think religion is a genetic disposition…..bwaaaaa….facepalms…. X ) …Ronnie

        Reply
      • 54. fiona64  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        And, um, that little thing about how civil unions are not allowed/recognized in California and stuff.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 55. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:39 pm

        @ Kate: Also, has anyone pointed out to them that you do NOT have to be married to get pregnant? That due to IVF, or close friends and a turkey baster, that you don’t always even need sex to procreate? Or are these people living in an alternate universe?

        Reply
      • 56. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        @ Richard…their obsession with sex blinds them to any other possibility.

        Just sayin…

        Reply
      • 57. Tasty Salamanders  |  September 20, 2010 at 5:14 pm

        Is it just me or is this statement suggesting that only married couples can have children?

        Reply
      • 58. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        No Tasty, it’s not just you. They think we can’t procreate…but even worse, they think that if we Marry, opposite sex couples will stop having sex!

        No more sex for them…cause marriage will only be about, wait for it…Gay sex…and they can’t have gay sex…so they can’t procreate any longer!

        Reply
      • 59. AndrewPDX  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:32 pm

        But with DOMA, it does NOT give them ‘everything a marriage provides’.
        GRRRR.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
    • 60. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      Thank you Ann for posting…though when I read these things some times a just shake my head thinking “did I really just read that?….”

      I agree LLB…I’m a “breeder” four kids to prove it! so very obnoxious “breeders vs non-breeders”

      I guess after reading this amicus brief I should realize that being me is a choice and go back to trying to live a straight lifestyle…forgetting the *20 YEARS!!* of attempted reparative therapy that hurt many people in its wake.

      I really wonder what the motivation of this is? Does author really think the human species will die out? Maybe NOMBIES would be satisfied with some sort of genetic “gay” test at birth so they can kill those babies who test positively so won’t contaminate the gene pool?

      BIG FROWN :(

      Reply
      • 61. Mark M (Seattle)  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:57 pm

        BIG HUGS Gregory :-)

        Reply
      • 62. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm

        ((BIG HUG)) to U2 Mark M!

        Reply
    • 63. fiona64  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      I guess she wasn’t paying attention to the CA Supreme Court’s decision. Prop 8 was not declared Constitutional; it was declared that the process was followed correctly.

      Not the same thing.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 64. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        Yeah!! How’re we doing, Prof. Ann????

        Reply
      • 65. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:59 pm

        You all make me so proud.

        ::sniff::

        Reply
    • 66. Alan E  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:15 pm

      Are “estopped” and “estoppel” words? They are on page 9 but I have never seen them before.

      Reply
      • 67. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:20 pm

        Hmmm…… maybe that’s what happens when women go through menopause and the estrogen stops so we can’t breed or get married any more.

        Reply
      • 68. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        ESTOPPEL

        (estopped) A bar which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body. An estopple arises when someone has done some act which the policy of the law will not permit her to deny.

        In certain situations, the law refuses to allow a person to deny facts when another person has relied on and acted in accordance with the facts on the basis of the first person’s behavior.

        There are two kinds of estoppel.

        Collateral estoppel prevents a party to a lawsuit from raising a fact or issue which was already decided against him in another lawsuit. For example, if Donna obtained a paternity judgment against Leroy and then sued him for child support, Leroy would be collaterally estopped from claiming he isn’t the father.

        Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than she did at an earlier time if the other party would be harmed by the change. For example, if after obtaining the paternity judgment, Leroy sues Donna for custody, Donna is now equitably estopped from claiming in the custody suit that Leroy is not the father.

        An example of the slowly disappearing tendency of the legal profession to speak in secret code. All it means is ‘stopped,’ ‘blocked’ or ‘not allowed.’ Not only is it bizarre but the term does not appear to originate in any known language. Our research indicates it started either as a legal fraternity’s drunken prank or was the result of an unknown Judge’s severe speech impediment.

        Reply
      • 69. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm

        LLB, I am all too familiar with estoppels, having spent the last 2 weeks of my life cranking out a bazillion lease estoppels, but your definition made me LOL!

        Reply
      • 70. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm

        Oh, LLB; how I love you!

        Reply
      • 71. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm

        Well, not my definition, my ‘found’ definition…

        http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e040.htm

        Reply
      • 72. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm

        Hmm. sort of related to stipulation, in a way?

        Reply
      • 73. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        Maybe I can explain it more clearly using the example of the lease estoppels I’ve been slaving over the last couple of weeks.

        A high-rise office building is for sale, and we represent the sellers. The prospective buyer wants to make sure they know the terms of all of the leases in the buildings. The seller gives them copies of the leases and tells them how much they’re bringing in in rent.

        But what if the seller is lying? What if they secretly cut a side deal with a tenant to accept less money?

        So an “estoppel certificate” is going out to each tenant, stating the term so the lease — dates, how much they are paying, whether they have options to extend, etc. They are to sign it and send it back, and they know that the buyer will rely on it.

        In the future, they will be estopped from claiming information different than what is in their estoppel certificate.

        Hope that helps.

        Reply
      • 74. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:57 pm

        Now see, Ann, real estate law! You’d think it was a set up to ease the litigation questions, eh?!

        Reply
      • 75. Sheryl Carver  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm

        I like Kate’s definition: E(strogen)stopped!

        Reply
    • 76. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm

      Oh Ann, I can’t believe I missed this post somehow. It is rather… interesting. Without reading all of the other comments (sorry if I duplicate other’s):

      In short, this seems to be another theological argument.

      Page 2:
      Aside from the theological and spiritual side of every person, there is the practical political reality that without future generations, new births, then neither this Nation nor this State can long endure.

      Right… so if gay people can get married, then straight (and gay people) will stop having children, and the human race will die. Do these people actually believe this utter absurdity?

      Finally, there is a strong public policy to protect children from exploitation, and have a DNA knowledge base should health concerns and transplants be required.

      Uhm… I think we all agree that exploitation of children is a bad thing, but that has nothing to do with SSM. The comment regarding the ‘DNA knowledge base‘ makes no sense to me at all. What is she trying to say here??

      Page 3, under ‘Minority Opinion’:
      As the majority makes clear, the DPA now allows same-sex partners to enter legal unions which “afford . . . virtually all of the [substantive] benefits and responsibilities afforded by California law to married opposite-sex couples.”

      Man, you talk about weasle words… ‘Virtually’? And she felt the need to add ‘[substantive]’? Really?

      Okay, so I’m only at page 3 and the stupid is already too strong to continue picking it apart without creating a 1000 line post. I’ll stop commenting on it for the moment and continue reading this… joke. :)

      Reply
      • 77. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm

        Welcome to Prof. Ann’s beginning law class, JonT. I really enjoy your posts. We’re having a grand time with this brief, and even I have been able to pick it apart — what fun! By the end of this trial, we’ll each be able to join a law firm.

        Reply
      • 78. Kate  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:46 pm

        I need to add that I have a terrible phobia about the law — long story, but because of that I did not follow the first part of this trial at all. Having started to dip my toe into this fearfulness via the P8TT legal eagles, I have already gained a lot more confidence. But I’m still court-phobic. And I hate telephones, too.

        Reply
      • 79. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm

        Completely with you 100% Kate. Of course, if I ever had to go to court, it would HAVE to be via telephone (not a joke)…my phobia’s are well documented! But the phone would be better than sitting in front of all those eyes staring at me!

        Reply
      • 80. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm

        I guess the DNA thing means that all children must be kept with their bio parents, even if those parents abuse, starve, beat and neglect them, in case they ever need a kidney or a blood transfusion.

        Yeah, that is logical.

        I do enjoy our homespun filings. They are so entertaining.

        Reply
      • 81. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm

        Welcome to Constitutional Law, with your hosts, Professors Ann and Kathleen

        I like that.

        Kate, I had basically no clue about law, the court system, or any of that other stuff before this trial.

        Unlike some of the trolls that drop in from time to time though, I did know the difference between a federal court and a state court, and between a State Constitution and the US Constitution :)

        This has definitely been a learning experience — a very pleasant one, with very pleasant people :)

        Reply
      • 82. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:15 pm

        You are all doing splendidly!

        Reply
      • 83. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:17 pm

        @Ann: ‘I guess the DNA thing means that all children must be kept with their bio parents, even if those parents abuse, starve, beat and neglect them, in case they ever need a kidney or a blood transfusion.

        Ahh, of course! Spare parts! Why didn’t I think of that. :)

        Reply
      • 84. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm

        Wasn’t there a movie about ‘spare parts’ where a child was sick, needed an organ transplant and so the family decided to have another child to ‘save’ the first child?

        ??

        Reply
      • 85. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

        LLB, I think there was, based on the book “My Sister’s Keeper” by Jodi Picoult. A highly flawed book, IMHO, with an interesting premise. I never saw the movie.

        Reply
      • 86. Rhie  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:27 pm

        Ann S —

        The movie was called My Sister’s Keeper, based on the novel by Jodi Picoult of the same name :)

        Reply
    • 87. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:35 pm

      They say they submitted to ‘Add Party’ Margie Reilly previously. I just did a thorough search and there was never a Margie Reilly until today. Can they just ‘say’ they sent it in, but never received word from the court and try to add her now? (Cause at 4:20pm Pacific time there is an add party, Margie Reilly – today).

      This sounds very fishy.

      Reply
      • 88. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:42 pm

        LLB, I think that Margie is confused (again) because she thinks for some reason (and her counsel shares her confusion) that this case is an appeal of Strauss v. Horton. I think that’s what she’s talking about, but it doesn’t matter much. They’re just very, very confused.

        Reply
  • 89. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    late to the party due to household errands. But I am finally here. Bring on the Equality!

    Reply
  • 90. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    This was on CNN about Lady Gaga, Maine, & DADT repeal….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 91. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:28 pm

      Thanks Ronnie! I needed that boost of proactive news! My energy and positive thoughts go out to Portland!

      Back to work now….working on BIG work project that I thought would be done last Friday…expanded another week. I’m grateful to all the information everyone posts which I read when I have a moment and want to get the latest news on limited time.

      Reply
  • 92. Carpool Cookie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Gaga for Gaga!

    Wow….she’s kind of boldly going where no pop star has gone before! I mean, Madonna made a “Get Out to Vote” commercial, but this is taking it to a whole new level.

    It’s really smart of her, too…because her audience is predominantly young, and young people are for gay rights, so this bonds them to her even more closely than before.

    Note to Self: Buy her albums.

    Reply
    • 93. Sagesse  |  September 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      I hope two things:

      That the response from her fans doesn’t get discounted because the powers that be think many of them are too young to vote.

      And that all these young people stay energized long enough to vote in November.

      Reply
  • 94. Joel  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    I’m concerned that Harry Reid has shot himself, and us by extension, in the foot, but I’m not sure what it’s all about. Harry’s my senator, so I should call and tell him, what?

    Reply
  • 95. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    This video was posted on Matty & Bobby’s Facebook page by Vickie….it’s an awesome dance piece, w/musical vocals & videos of major speeches & TV personality opinions….called “Defying Inequality: The Dream”…..Very passionate & emotional…enjoy….<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
  • 96. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Thank you for this video too Ronnie :) Though tears are getting in the way of seeing my computer and really MUST get back to work!

    I firmly believe we can accomplish more when we focus on what we want instead of what we do not like, or don’t want…thank for this lovely reminder to focus on “The Dream…The way it WILL be” ((HUGS)) Gregory

    Reply
    • 97. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      You’re welcome…<3…Ronnie

      Reply
  • 98. Straight Grandmother  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    From the news release, ““Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to thwart the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes an historic provision to repeal the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law” (Bold I added)

    Woo Hoo! Straight Granmother gets through. When the news releases went out after the ruling by the Judge that DADT was un-constituitional I noticed that only a couple of them used the word DISCRIMINATION. Rick Jacobs here on P8TT used the wors Discrimination, HRC and I think one other, GLAAD perhaps. Even Log Cabin Republicans who put on the case did not use the word Discrimination in their new release. So I wrote to each and every one of them (including SLDN) and asked them to please use the word DISCRIMINATION in thier public communications and look at this news release, there it IS, Discriminitory.

    Discrimination has a unique connotation in civil rights, and this is a civil rights movement, as well as in law. I am pleased as punch to see the word DISCRIMINATION (it’s derivitiave) being used in the above press release.

    Reply
    • 99. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm

      @ SG:
      ” I wrote to each and every one of them (including SLDN) and asked them to please use the word DISCRIMINATION in thier public communications”

      Wow! Busy SG Bee! Thank U 4 efforts! It is discrimination!

      Reply
  • 100. eDee  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    I can’t get near the place, but it’s going on now.
    Here’s the link: http://www.wcsh6.com/news/breaking/story.aspx?storyid=128847&catid=112

    Reply
  • 101. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Towelroad has a live stream of the rally…There’s a lot of people there….<3…Ronnie

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/watch-lady-gaga-dadt-rally-in-portland-maine.html

    Reply
    • 102. Straight Grandmother  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Thanks Ronnie, I’m watching it live. It is a great rally.

      Reply
    • 103. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:12 pm

      Love her suit! Much better than Brian Brown ever wore!

      I wonder if politics is in her future…hint hint.

      Reply
    • 104. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm

      There are so many kids there with their heterosexual parents…..so Hey NOM (Hi Louis)….what about what those parents want?….Do they not matter?….They don’t believe in your so called “Indoctrination” bullshite…Stop imposing your beliefs on them….stop stealing their tax money…STOP BEING SELFISH BIGOTS!!!….. >I ….Ronnie

      Reply
    • 105. Sagesse  |  September 20, 2010 at 5:33 pm

      So let’s see… we’ve established that Lady Gaga is a better draw than Maggie or Brian…. who knew :)?

      Reply
  • 106. eDee  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Several hundred people turned out and are at the rally now,
    Keep in mind that there is NO real parking in that area. Street parking is very limited and the rest is surrounded by 295 – a highway.
    The backside of the area is packed with cars up the hill and almost down to the water. Any more cars and they would be in the ocean lol
    I couldn’t find a spot and get small children into the area – which is why I’m watching it live feed.
    WHAAAAA!!!

    Reply
  • 107. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    ‎”IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT….GO HOME….If you can’t put your prejudices aside to serve your country then GO HOME!!!!”~Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, aka Lady Gaga

    RAH….I love it…I love hype…<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 108. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:25 pm

      She had me in tears on that one. Very good speech so far.

      Reply
    • 109. Straight Grandmother  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:39 pm

      Ronnie-

      ”IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT….GO HOME….If you can’t put your prejudices aside to serve your country then GO HOME!!!!”~Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, aka Lady Gaga

      YEAH!!!!!!!!

      I was not previously a lady gaga fan but I am now, thanks for giving us the link to the live webcast.

      Reply
  • 110. Bob  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Repeal DADT, KNOW OR GO HOME

    send the prejudiced homophobe home, he’s the one disrupting unit cohesion. that’s the new law.

    I think she gave an amazing heartfelt speach, speaking truth to injustice. giving clear direction on how to deal with the present injustice, and put an end to discrimination.

    DADT is an upside down law, that defends the bully, they could use that same approach in the schools.

    We want our prime rib NOW

    Reply
    • 111. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

      How do we get Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, aka Lady GaGa, to do a speech for Marriage Equality? Just askin’.

      She gets press! and I mean lots and lots of prime rib press!

      Reply
      • 112. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm

        She has….at the 2009 March for Equality on DC…I was there it was great….here is the video of her speech….she doesn’t talk about marriage directly but she has mentioned it in interviews, tweets, etc…. <3…Ronnie:

        Reply
  • 113. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    The Associated Press Article is released:

    Lady Gaga fights ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in Maine

    PORTLAND, Maine — Lady Gaga has visited Maine before a key Senate vote to urge the state’s two U.S. senators to help repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays.

    More than 2,000 people attended a rally Monday at Portland’s Deering Oaks Park, where the pop star railed against the 1993 policy prohibiting service members from revealing if they’re gay.

    Lady Gaga says the policy allows straight soldiers who harbor hatred toward gays to fight for their country. She suggests a new policy: “If you don’t like it, go home.”

    Read More: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTWk1Rnh2L7luW6veLz4rQgDGcRAD9IBTGSG0

    Reply
  • 114. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Examiner:

    Lady GaGa talks military ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy: Uses Meat Dress -Photos

    Lady GaGa attended a rally today against military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy and she wasn’t quiet about it. The entertainer was definitely angered by the lack of explaination on this policy and definitely she was going straight back to the VMA dress that she wore — The Lady Gaga Meat Dress.

    ‘I thought equality meant everyone.’ Said Lady Gaga.

    Calling on equality, she said that it was the ‘Prime Rib of America’ and not everyone got to the same cut of meat. Using direct remarks about her dress at the 2010 VMAs there wasn’t any doubt she had planned the dress to show support for todays rally. However she wasn’t wearing meat today. Instead she had on a lovely suit sport coat with a button up top, looking like she had just come from the office.

    Read More: http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-headlines-in-national/lady-gaga-talks-military-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-policy-uses-meat-dress-photos

    Reply
  • 115. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Reply
  • 116. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Reply
  • 117. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Part two

    Reply
    • 118. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      thx LLB!

      Reply
  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    ABC News:

    Lady Gaga Calls DADT Denial of Equality, ‘Prime Rib’ of Country’s Values

    ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reports: Pop music sensation Lady Gaga delivered what was arguably the most political public address of her career Monday, telling a crowd of hundreds of fans in Portland, Maine, that the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy sanctions inequality akin to denying some Americans “the greatest cut of meat my country has to offer.”

    Dressed in a black blazer, polka dot tie and wide-rimmed glasses and appearing on stage against the backdrop of a billowing American flag, Gaga delivered an impassioned appeal to end the ban on openly gay and lesbian military service members.

    “I’m here because don’t ask don’t tell is wrong, it’s unjust and fundamentally it is against all that we stand for as Americans,” she said on the eve of a key Senate vote on a bill that includes a repeal of the law.

    Read More: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/lady-gaga-calls-dadt-denial-of-equality-prime-rib-of-countrys-values.html

    Reply
  • 120. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Here’s a link that gives the information about the Anti-Equality DVD and related materials from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Paul in Minneapolis sent me the link.

    http://www.usccb.org/marriageuniqueforareason/

    Reply
    • 121. Straight Grandmother  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:27 pm

      Thanks for that link to the catholic Bishops video on Protect Marraige. What did you think about it? First off I noticed how the video started with the dark sky or universe and it reminded me so much of that famous Protect marraige as the gathering storm.
      Second it stuck me how this conversation the hetros couple were having is no diferent than what any same sex couple has. The way they talked about each other and how they were attracted to each other, and love each other, GLBT people feel the same way about the person they love.
      Third I thought about the Bible Passages they showed on the screen about how GOD made them this way, a man and woman, and I was thinking well God made teh gayz also, duh!
      Fourth when they started talking about wanting children they didn’t sound any different than my daughter and her wife.
      I guess my final thoughts are that they want to show how LOVE is unique and that it can only happen between a man and a ife and that wimply ins’t true.

      Reply
      • 122. Straight Grandmother  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        Edit- wimply ins’t true = simply isn’t true

        Reply
  • 123. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    Ugh, Snowe hints she’s a ‘no’ on DADT vote tomorrow

    From NBC’s Ken Strickland
    Without explicitly saying how she’ll vote tomorrow on whether to start debate on a bill which includes the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine seemed to echo a point many other Republicans against the bill have raised: a military review of the issue should be completed before the law is repealed.

    “We should all have the opportunity to review that report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes,” Snowe said in a written statement this afternoon.

    More: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/20/5145456-snowe-hints-shes-a-no-on-dadt-vote-tomorrow

    Reply
  • 124. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    In your face…that’s what McCain is probably thinking after reading this article…

    Increase in Women and Minorities Discharged Due to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

    According to a new study released by the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law Friday, the proportion of women and minorities discharged from the United States military as a result of its so-called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy has increased since 1997. The study (see PDF) examines the demographics of the 13,500 troops who have been discharged under DADT through 2009.

    Findings include that the percentage of women discharged increased from 22 percent in 1997 to 39 percent in 2009. Women constituted a stable 14 to 15 percent of the military throughout this time period. Racial and ethnic minorities were approximately one third of DADT discharges in 2009, compared to about a quarter of similar discharges in the late 1990s. A 2009 study by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, had similar findings and determined that a disproportionate number of women were discharged from the military under DADT in 2008.

    Read More: http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12638

    Reply
  • 125. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Remember that video where Lady GaGa was trying to call her senators…well, she finally talked to one : )

    Gillibrand talks directly to Lady Gaga about DADT

    Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) tweeted Monday afternoon that she had just spoken with Lady Gaga, who has been lobbying the Senate ahead of Tuesday’s vote on a defense authorization bill that includes a repeal provision for “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT).

    “[I] thanked her for her advocacy,” said Gillibrand. “I asked her to keep pushing for DADT repeal.”

    Gaga had left a message with Gillibrand last week, prompting the senator to reach out on Twitter for another time to talk.

    Read More: http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/119851-gillibrand-talks-directly-to-lady-gaga-about-dadt

    Reply
  • 126. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    I just can’t resist posting this one!

    Reply
    • 127. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm

      Awww….. :)

      Reply
  • 128. Tim  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Several points, if I may:

    One, McCain wasn’t, as far as I understand, calling for a nixing of DADT repeal. He was wanting to hear from the military about effects this would have on those currently engaged in combat, etc. Personally, I think this is a good idea. I’m all for equal, but I’d prefer it to be equal *and* alive.

    Two, Reid shot this in the bum knee. He alienated any bipartisan support that he might have had, and frankly, I say good for them . There should be give and take involved; that’s the way the system should work.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for seeing DADT shot down. I just don’t want to be having to fix what happens here over a lot of dead bodies.

    *ducks for cover*

    Reply
    • 129. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      When DADT was implemented many (Including Clinton) did not know how this would harm military LGBT personnel. Now we know better. Seems to me there is NO EXCUSE to keep this ordinance “now that we know better.”

      As Dubois stated, as a skilled attorney he can usually argue both sides of the case. This is not so with prop 8, there is only one side. Is this not also true with DADT and DOMA?

      If we finally realize what we are doing is WRONG don’t we stop it immediately?

      Reply
    • 130. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm

      @Tim: Oh, you son of b…

      :)

      One, McCain wasn’t, as far as I understand, calling for a nixing of DADT repeal.

      Well actually he was… McCain in the lead up to the 2008 elections stated he’d defer to SECDEF. But when Gates stated it should be repealed, McCain was ‘disappointed’. He threatened several times to filibuster it, and only recently has sorta-kinda backed off from that.

      Probably because he’s now thinking he won’t have to. McCain thinks DADT has worked ‘just fine’ and should stay in place. He has stated this several times now.

      Two, Reid shot this in the bum knee. He alienated any bipartisan support that he might have had, and frankly, I say good for them . There should be give and take involved; that’s the way the system should work.

      I think Reid’s main concern was that republicans would add amendment after amendment until the vote was delayed beyond the elections, in the hopes the republicans would be in a stronger position to outright reject DADT repeal. Republican senators, in general do not support DADT repeal.

      The other issue is the addition of ‘poison-pill’ amendments, designed to fail the passage of a bill. As this is a ‘must-pass’ type bill, again the result would have been more delay.

      I would agree that there should be give and take, and bi-partisanship, but come on, republicans have been doing nothing to even pretend they want bi-partisanship. The Party of ‘No!’ has spoken repeatedly, and I am not surprised that Reid is taking this approach, though it could quite possibly result in no vote.

      I’m hopeful, but my optimism for a vote and passage before the elections is waning.

      I really hope I’m wrong.

      I just don’t want to be having to fix what happens here over a lot of dead bodies

      Now this I do not understand. How would repealing DADT result in a lot of dead bodies??? It’s been studied to death. Other militaries have done this with *no* adverse effects I’ve read about.

      *ducks for cover*

      pew! pew! pew! :)

      Reply
      • 131. Tim  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:26 pm

        (Here’s hoping I do formatting correctly :P)

        …recently has sorta-kinda backed off from that.

        I would argue that he’s backed off of it since the primaries. As a Republican, I get the stance. (don’t necessarily agree with it, but that’s another ball of worms entirely)

        I think Reid’s main concern was that republicans would add amendment after amendment until the vote was delayed beyond the elections

        Possibly, but I doubt it. I think the maintenance of bipartisan support would have limited the ability of that to work for very long, if at all. However, as I previously stated, that is mostly gone now.

        How would repealing DADT result in a lot of dead bodies???

        I’m going mainly off of what I hear from my friends in the military, their concerns and such. I think (and tell them) that it won’t be as bad as they forecast, but it’d be a hell of a thing to be wrong on.

        Reply
      • 132. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:27 pm

        Tim, whose dead bodies exactly are you talking about, please? This is a very serious but very vague accusation.

        Reply
      • 133. Tim  |  September 20, 2010 at 7:17 pm

        Sorry, didn’t mean it to be. It’s midterm week. :P

        I was mainly referring to the soldiers. Either from hate related crimes toward the gay, or suspectedly (is that a word?) gay soldiers, or as repercussions of such, or from a standpoint of unit cohesion. Whether it would have a long term effect (and I doubt it would very strongly) there is something to be said for the short term effects that could happen. There is also the rebuttal that hiding something engenders a similar distance, but I am against endangering soldiers needlessly in a combat situation, even if the risk is small. Too many of my friends are deployed in various parts of the world.

        Again, not trying to be vague. Thanks for forcing me to clear things up.

        Also, fundies. Many of them are old. We don’t want to shock em into a grave. That’s just mean. (ok, the last was tongue in cheek. mostly.)

        Reply
      • 134. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:14 pm

        Thanks, Tim. So your friends in the military think that gay and lesbian servicemembers could be in danger of physical harm if they told, is that it?

        Reply
      • 135. Tim  |  September 21, 2010 at 9:48 am

        Yes.

        Reply
  • 136. Tim  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Forgot to subscribe. :P

    Reply
    • 137. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 5:14 pm

      Tim – looks like the p8tt group ran off to watch Matt’s new sensational video so you are safe for now ;) I agree it takes time and give/take but its just so darn frustrating!

      Reply
      • 138. Tim  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:19 pm

        Definitely. But rushing and patching got us into this mess.

        Reply
  • 139. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Worth the read…and a different approach from Lady GaGa’s to why DADT needs to be repealed…

    Why the GOP Should Repeal DADT
    Gays in the military: The White House and Congress owe them better.

    … For a more sober view of the subject, turn to Dennis Laich, a self-described “old, bald, straight guy.” Mr. Laich has none of the glamour of Lady Gaga, but on this subject he has one valuable credential: He retired from the U.S. Army in 2006 after a 35-year career in the reserves that began in field artillery, included tours of duty in Honduras, Germany, the Netherlands, Kuwait and Iraq, and culminated in a command position at Ft. Devens as a Major General. Unlike Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman who has also expressed reservations about the policy, he has no liberal political masters to please. But he still thinks DADT is nuts.

    The strength of the general’s case is that it’s not about “rights,” gay or otherwise, much less whatever Lady Gaga happens to think is in the Constitution. It’s about the interests of the military itself, starting with its values. “If you talk to most theologians, ethicists or philosophers, they’ll tell you there are two kinds of lies, of commission or omission,” he says. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell represents a lie of omission that is inconsistent with the values of a military organization that presents itself as values-based.”

    Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703556604575502103316084526.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Reply
  • 140. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    Lesbian seeking return to Air Force testifies

    TACOMA, Wash. — A decorated Air Force Reserve flight nurse discharged for being gay took the witness stand at her federal trial Monday and told the judge it “kills me” not to be able to care for wounded soldiers while the country is at war.

    Former Maj. Margaret Witt has sued the Air Force in hopes of being reinstated.

    No one in her unit or any of her patients ever expressed concern about her sexual orientation, she told the judge.

    “It’s what I’ve spent over half my life training to do,” Witt testified, her voice breaking. “I miss being able to be the one that that soldier looks at and I can do something for him. I’m not complete, and it kills me to not be there.”

    The case has been closely watched by those on both sides of the gay rights debate.

    Proponents believe another big legal victory would build momentum for a congressional repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 law that prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are found to engage in homosexual activity.

    Earlier this month, a federal judge in California ruled that “don’t ask, don’t tell” violates the due process and free speech rights of service members. That opinion has no direct bearing on Witt’s case.

    Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and later became a flight nurse, helping to care for and evacuate soldiers wounded in Afghanistan. She was suspended in 2004 when the Air Force investigated her for violating “don’t ask, don’t tell.” She was discharged three years later, while just short of becoming eligible for a full pension.

    Read More: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5CDsZQHfnS7w5Q4RNIcTtSxbx7AD9IBUNSO0

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,308 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...