A few thoughts on LCR v. US

Timothy Kincaid

September 10th, 2010

Ari Ezra Waldman, writing at Towelroad, has an excellent assessment of Log Cabin Republicans v. US, the court case in which the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was found unconstitutional. He answers some common questions and helps one understand the legal complexities of the law.

In addition, I have a few observations about the case and the decision.

1. Had this case been one brought by an individual, it might have become one of specific circumstances. In other words, a win in court might have been so narrow as to only apply to that one individual (as was the case in Witt v. the Air Force). But because this was an organization suing on behalf of members, the case became one of the constitutionality of the law, rather than the application for an individual.

Further, Log Cabin Republicans may be uniquely ideal for bringing the case.

Often gay organizations are perceived (often correctly) as being part of a progressive ideology which is generally hostile to military action, military service, and military life. However, as an organization that has long supported “a strong national defense”, the Justice Department could not suggest that the plaintiffs were disingenuous or hypocritical and there are no anti-military statements out there which could be brought up in court.

The two gay serviceperson’s organizations also could have sued and probably had less challenge to their standing. But in the court of public opinion, Log Cabin Republicans may have a greater ability to appear principled and less like an angry ex-employee. Further, LCR is more immune to accusations of being far-left anti-military activists due to their name alone.

2. The finding of violation of the 5th Amendment is particularly important. This is a continuance of the recent trend to find gay people to be a unique class of people, as opposed to just a behavior. As gay people continue to be a class, any efforts to enact laws which restrict the equality, freedom, or rights of gay people will be held to scrutiny and, as they all are based in animus, tossed out.

This is key to our freedom. If we are just a bunch of folks who whimsically decide to engage in some behavior, then such a decision can be punished without being in violation of the constitution. But as gay people are recognized as individuals sharing a common immutable trait, then such laws are held to higher and higher standards and such animus becomes not only legally but socially unacceptable.

daftpunkydavid

September 10th, 2010

i’m curious to know what your thoughts are on the fear some express that the ruling may set the situation back to the pre-dadt era, meaning homosexuals cannot serve period. is this a valid caveat?

Pender

September 10th, 2010

LCR’s status as a right-leaning group also gives them the ability to litigate whole-heartedly: they used Obama’s own anti-DADT statements against him (which are in fact quoted in the decision!) and didn’t hold anything back to maintain relations the way a HRC or Lambda Legal might. They don’t care that Obama prefers his anemic, uncertain, interminable legislative approach and consider it a feature if they can beat him to repeal. The result is more effective litigation with no punches pulled.

It should also frighten the Democrats that Republicans can plausibly claim to have achieved more progress for gay people than Democrats have, and this may push Democrats to be somewhat more assertive in pursuit of gay equality — another advantage that would not have accrued were LCR a left-leaning group.

LCR is invaluable to us. I wish more people understood these aspects of their worth.

Pender

September 10th, 2010

daftpunkydavid, I think a “no gays allowed” rule would be nearly indistinguishable in practice from the DADT regime, so I doubt that’s a compelling concern.

Timothy Kincaid

September 10th, 2010

DPD,

No, this ruling not only found that DADT is unconstitutional via 1st Amendment (which could indeed do as you indicate) but also because of the 5th. It is the Fifth Amendment issue that makes a ban on gay servicemembers to be unconstitutional.

Timothy Kincaid

September 10th, 2010

One other comment.

For the past two years, the anti-gays have been dancing in the aisles about California voting for Prop 8. Nary an anti-gay marriage moment passed without some comment about “even voters in California…”

But considering the past few months, I bet they wish they’d never heard of this state.

scioto

September 10th, 2010

“LCR is invaluable to us.”

Yes, they are so influential that their party’s 2008 platform included:

“Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.”

And:

“Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ licensed in other states.”

Ryan

September 11th, 2010

I don’t think Republicans could ever say they’ve done more for gay rights than Democrats, come on now. There’s still an upcoming DADT repeal vote. How do you think the numbers are gonna shake out on that?

customartist

September 11th, 2010

Pender,

It is crystal clear that you wish to attribute advancement to Republicans.

It is also crystal clear that Republicans have historically opressed Gays in a much greater proportion than Democrats.

Whatever progress is or is not made by either side, and especially during a time when there is measureable change in public opinion, hasn’t affected this fact, nor my overall opinion of the Republican Party. They do not act in the best interest of the American People overall, but rather in the interest of a Wealthy Minority categorically.

Any Gay person voting for the Republican Party is in error, IMHGO.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.