Why is this so hard?

The gay blogsphere is in a tizzy over the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military ban on gays serving openly. Last Tuesday (I think) the federal district judge who ruled it unconstitutional said the policy applies to all American military personnel world-wide, not just to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans who brought the suit. And she means it. Get cracking.

Obama responded by saying Oh, no, no. Congress has to repeal it. We can't rely on the ruling of a lowly district judge, no siree. I have a plan that the Senate will overturn the ban just as soon as they get back from the election. It will end on my watch. I'll be directing my Justice Department to request a stay and file an appeal. We're in the middle of two wars and this thing has to be handled in an orderly manner.

That left a lot of people scratching their heads muttering such comments as…

Fierce advocate? Yeah, right.

It will be years before it gets before the Supremes and no telling what they do with it. This sucker could hang around for a long time.

The prez. will be actively involved in repeal, huh. Just like he wasn't when it came before the Senate last month?

Didn't the Senate already vote down the repeal? Isn't the Senate about to become more conservative, with the desire to filibuster going up until the new GOP members are seated? What happens to your "plan" Mr. President if the Senate doesn't vote to repeal? Either tell us a plan that will work, or stop saying you have one. All that from Rachel Maddow.

In the meantime the Air Force, followed by the rest of the military, halted all discharges and investigations, though they warn gay service members not to take this as a sign to come out. It still may not be safe.

That prompted one wag to joke, gosh, it's been four days now. Since gays can't be discharged NORAD radars have stopped working, leaving the country vulnerable to attack, but don't fret because their gaydar is still working fine and gays rearing their heads will be easy to spot. And the Japanese, seeing the lack of unit cohesion, think this the perfect time to launch another attack on Pearl Harbor.

I've been wondering why Obama is still demanding the solution has to come through Congress? Doesn't he think the courts are legitimate? Can't he simply say that because he agrees with the judge's ruling he won't appeal? There is precedent for that.

Rachel Maddow did another segment, this time calling on a legal expert (whose name and position escapes me and I don't want to sit through the 13 minute video again) to explain what Obama's strategy might be. The reasoning is something like this: We really don't want to stop this policy on the findings of a lowly district judge. If we did we set a precedent for the next GOP president who will pounce on a lowly district judge's determination that the new health care law is unconstitutional (never mind that the GOP doesn't seem to be bound by precedent anymore). So we need to give the ruling some weight. When we go before a Circuit Court or the Supremes we can say we're doing this as a formality but we actually agree with the lower court ruling. Please put your stamp of approval on what they said.

Except that doesn't seem to be the tactic the Justice Department is taking when they filed their appeal and request for a stay. They act like they really want to keep the policy -- for now. Their reasons for the stay and appeal fall into two categories:

* Changing military policies take time.

* We must train military leadership and service members in the new policy and that is difficult with a war going on. We don't want failure or backlash.

And that has left some wondering, the Justice or Defense Departments should be able to go before the district judge and say, yes, we agree with your ruling. This is the plan by which we intend to carry out your ruling and we estimate it will take this amount of time. We can't take any shortcuts because we want the new policies to succeed. Is this OK with you?

Ooh, this is all so hard! Yeah.

But where will gay soldiers sleep? In the same bunk they've been sleeping in.