Below:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The US military announced each of the services had completed its inputs<\/a> to the Defense Department “in advance of the repeal” of the policy best known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.\u00a0 The stay was lifted last week<\/a> and then, at the government’s request<\/a>, the stay was re-instated — sort of<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While this seems to be a non-stay stay, according to the Religion Clause<\/a> 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).\u00a0 This calls into question the prior three requests<\/a> the Air Force had claimed<\/a> were granted.<\/p>\n There was quite a hubbub over military members marching in a homosexual “pride” parade<\/a> in San Diego this past weekend<\/a>.\u00a0 The military statement was fairly terse:\u00a0 They’re free to do so out of uniform.\u00a0 On the other hand, whether they should have been carrying official Marine Corps\/Navy service flags is debatable.\u00a0 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>.”\u00a0 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.\u00a0 As critics of repeal have consistently said, however, that simply makes DOMA the next target, and that’s exactly what activists are now saying<\/a>.<\/p>\n Finally, a group in a multiple-partner “marriage” is suing the state of Utah<\/a> for its law prohibiting polygamy.\u00a0 They are relying on Lawrence v Texas<\/em>, which spawned a philosophy of “freedom\u00a0for consenting adults” in the bedroom — a result\u00a0even dissenting\u00a0Justice Scalia predicted would be used to support this very thing.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n