Better through Congress but through the courts if we must

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell military gay ban is in limbo somewhere between Congress and the Dept. of Defense messed up survey. While that slowly plays out a trial has begun, challenging the constitutionality of the law. The trial is in a Southern California federal courtroom and the challengers are the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group. It seems the Dept. of Justice, in charge of defending the law, put up a fight to keep the trial from happening, but since the trial began has been putting up a minimal defense, other than trying to show that Admiral Mullen, Joint Chief of Staff, didn't really say all those pro-gay things we all heard him say.

The trial is focusing on a few issues:

* Gay soldiers are unfairly discharged, a constitutional issue.

* When outed, gay soldiers are blackmailed into abuse -- let us do what we want with you or we'll tell your commanding officer you're gay.

* The rules against inappropriate sexual behavior that exist to handle problems between male and female soldiers can very easily be applied to problems with gay and straight soldiers.

* Gays who are out have no effect on unit cohesion, morale, and discipline.

* The policy fails to further any military objectives.

Strange that the trial is getting very little discussion in mainstream media.

When the DADT policy is repealed (either through Congress or the courts) some Fundies are now making noise that if gays may serve openly then Fundie soldiers want to claim Conscientious Objector status to get out of the military. That status was a big thing during the Viet Nam era when the draft was active, but true objectors are now able to simply not enlist. So we're talking about guys who are serving without objection suddenly saying they can't, in good conscience, stay. Will that fly?