Support Our Troops! (Some of them, anyway)

The states of Oklahoma and Texas have revived one of the beloved traditions of the Civil Rights Movement in the sunny South: the segregation academy.

Back in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's many southern states responded to court integration orders by simply closing the offending institutions. If ordered to integrate their municipal swimming pools they closed the pools so that their beautiful white babies wouldn't have to play and swim with black children. Ordered to integrate their schools, they closed the public schools and established so-called private "academies", colloquially known as seg academies, to skirt the legal effect of the court orders while continuing to deny educational opportunity to their black citizens. 

Now we hear, in the wake of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that some of the southern states are taking a lesson from their segregationist forbears.

Back then the enemy was racial desegregation, this year it's equal treatment for same sex couples.

OKLAHOMA CITY —- Oklahoma will stop processing all military spouse benefit applications at state-owned National Guard facilities rather than begin accepting the applications from same-sex spouses, Gov. Mary Fallin said Wednesday.

Fallin went on to recall the principles of "massive resistance" that was the rallying cry of southern racists in years gone by. "The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people."

 Other states in the proud Southern tradition who are refusing to provide same-sex benefits for their National Guard members include Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia.  

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks and our military response you can't go a day without seeing one more jingoistic appeal to "support out troops", and this sentiment seems to be strongest in the hyper-militarized Deep South. 

One can't help thinking that it's ironic that these are the states that are in the forefront of denying benefits to the troops. 

Big news from the courts

There's a big court decision today. Of course, it's only a District Court decision, but it's one more blow against official discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The subject this time is Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the case is a facial challenge to the federal law. The fact that it's a facial challenge is important: the plaintiffs' position is not that the policy is unfair or invalid as applied to them, but that there is no conceivable way that the policy could be interpreted or applied to survive a constitutional challenge. The District Court agrees.

It's a longish decision, and I haven't read it fully yet, but here are the highlights of the court's reasoning:

1. DADT does not significantly advance the government interest in military preparedness and unit cohesion. (pp. 48-74) While these are legitimate concerns, the court concludes that any claims that gays in the military impede preparedness and unit cohesion are based on assumptions, and that every attempt to actually study the question has concluded that there is no factual basis to the claim.

Foremost among the Rand Report's conclusions is that no empirical evidence exists demonstrating the impact of an openly homosexual
servicemember on the cohesion of any military unit.

Dr. Korb testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
March 31, 1993 concerning the likely impact on unit cohesion if homosexuals
were permitted to serve openly. According to Dr. Korb, there was no
empirical research to support the view that homosexual servicemembers
would disrupt unit cohesion, and that such evidence could not be obtained
without integrating homosexuals into the military.

In fact, the court finds that not only does DADT not contribute to preparedness and unit cohesion, it actually harms military preparedness by causing the loss of qualified service members, many in critical specialties, by creating additional burdens and costs of recruitment, and by forcing the military to recruit less well-qualified personnel to make up for gays and lesbians who are prevented from serving.

2. DADT infringes on service members' First Amendment rights. (pp. 74-85.) Again, the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they have First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to petition the government, that DADT infringes on these rights, that the infringement on these rights is based on the content of the speech (which subjects the infringement to the highest level of scrutiny, as, for instance, if a town government adopted an ordinance allowing Republicans but not Democrats to post campaign signs in town), and that these restrictions are broader than necessary to serve any legitimate government interest.

The conclusion is that the plaintiff, which in this case is the Log Cabin Republicans, is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Don't Ask Don't Tell violates the First and Fifth Amendments, and to a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing the policy.

There are many steps to go from here, starting with whether the government is going to appeal this decision. It can be a long way from a district Court to the Supreme Court. Still, as with recent marriage decisions, this is another showing that equality is on the march.

DADT=Institutionalized Discrimination

It's way past time to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and this latest story illustrates why.

In this case, the police in Rapid City, South Dakota, were searching for someone they had charges against. When they got to her home they were pissed off that her wife, an Air Force sergeant, wouldn't drop everything to rush home and help them arrest her wife. While they were snooping around they saw the couple's Iowa marriage certificate through the window.

So what do they do? They call the Air Force base, rat out the sergeant to her superiors, and get her discharged.

This raises a couple of serious questions:

1. What conceivable law enforcement purpose, other than harassing someone they didn't like, was served by the Rapid City police department outing this person?

2. What conceivable national defense purpose was served by discharging someone who had strictly complied with the requirements of DADT, and had neither outed herself nor been interrogated by anyone in the military about her sexual orientation?

3. Have you contacted your representatives in Congress to get them to cosponsor and support the repeal of DADT?

The Republican version of a principled conservative--maverick edition

John McCain on Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2006:

"But the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it, because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

John McCain in 2010 after the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testify that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be abolished:

"I'm deeply disappointed in your statement," he told Mullen. Congress took up this issue in 1993, McCain said, and reached a compromise between "the desires of a minority and the interests of a volunteer force." (He also brandished a letter signed by more than 1,000 officers opposing repeal.) "I'm eager to hear from our distinguished witnesses what has changed," he said.

Do you think he'll flip (or is it flop?) again now that Colin Powell has come out for the repeal of DADT?