kengr

Except that the plaintiffs didn't think it through.

DADT was a policy intended as a stop-gap measure to bridge the period between when it was issued and when Congress could be convinced to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to allow open service by homosexuals. In essence, it was saying "Don't rub our noses in it, and we'll look the other way.". At the time that DADT was promulgated, the military and Congress were willing to accept it, grudgingly, but Congress couldn't have been convinced to actually amend the UCMJ, and the political levels of the Armed Forces could not have been convinced to support such an amendment were it to be proposed.

Unfortunately, the UCMJ currently still specifies that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Until that's changed - by Congressional action, as it's entirely under their control - the failure of DADT means that legally, the Armed Forces must ask and must pursue on suspicion - they can't look the other way even if it's not blatant. I question whether at this time the political levels of the Armed Forces would support amending the UCMJ - and even if they would, whether Congress could be convinced to pass it.

I strongly believe that this will not prove to be the victory that the plaintiffs desired; rather, I see it as being a step backward. I hope I'm wrong.