Below:

• Services say they’ve made their inputs to DoD
• DADT is back on again, sort of…
• Servicemembers march in homosexual pride parade
• “Debate” predicted over homosexual “spouse” benefits
• Utah sued for prohibiting multiple marriage

The US military announced each of the services had completed its inputs to the Defense Department “in advance of the repeal” of the policy best known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Officials from each of the services have provided input, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense will make their decision when to certify to the president that DOD is ready to move forward with repeal.

For those that haven’t kept up, DADT was ruled unConstitutional last year, but a stay was put in place and upheld by the Supreme Court.  The stay was lifted last week and then, at the government’s request, the stay was re-instated — sort of.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is back in place for the time being, with one major caveat: the government is not allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who is openly gay.

While this seems to be a non-stay stay, according to the Religion Clause this means the military can still prevent openly homosexual people from enlisting (though how they could do that without asking, which is still impermissible, and without “penalizing” them, remains a mystery). Contrary to the prior information, the government filings claimed only one person had been discharged under DADT since last year (at his own request).  This calls into question the prior three requests the Air Force had claimed were granted.

There was quite a hubbub over military members marching in a homosexual “pride” parade in San Diego this past weekend.  The military statement was fairly terse:  They’re free to do so out of uniform.  On the other hand, whether they should have been carrying official Marine Corps/Navy service flags is debatable.  They also appropriated the official Air Force seal, so we’ll see if Michael Weinstein and his allies will be intellectually consistent in their defense of the symbol, which they claimed was an “injustice” in relation to a Bible.

The same AP journalist who wrote on the parade in San Diego re-stated the oft-repeated obvious when she wrote “Gay Couples Denied Military Spouse Benefits.”  The military has consistently reminded people — in fact, it has used it as a defense about where repeal is headed — that the Defense of Marriage Act will prevent the military from granting homosexuals married benefits.  As critics of repeal have consistently said, however, that simply makes DOMA the next target, and that’s exactly what activists are now saying.

Finally, a group in a multiple-partner “marriage” is suing the state of Utah for its law prohibiting polygamy.  They are relying on Lawrence v Texas, which spawned a philosophy of “freedom for consenting adults” in the bedroom — a result even dissenting Justice Scalia predicted would be used to support this very thing.

Even some homosexual advocates oppose the legalization of multiple marriages, though those activists are unable to articulate a clear, morally consistent position as to why.