Oh My F*cking God, Another DADT Roadblock, What Is Wrong With You People

If the DADT filibuster earlier this week was really upsetting for you, you might want to go make a drink/sandwich/alcoholic sandwich before reading this one. Maybe work on some art therapy. The bad news is that the Department of Justice has filed a fourteen-page brief trying to block Judge Phillips’ injunction of DADT, meaning that they don’t want to have to stop discharging soldiers until the policy gets sorted out. The other bad news is that there is no good news. The brief can be read here in its entirety, but the gist of it is that since the case against DADT was originally filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the ruling applies only to members of the Log Cabin Republicans and not any soldiers whose discharge is actually at stake; also, that Phillips doesn’t have the authority to overrule the military, that somehow an injunction now will block other, later, very important judicial angles that the DOJ was going to take on DADT. And lastly, of course – OF COURSE – they still need time to study and strategize and consider, and that suddenly up and stopping DADT discharges would throw the whole military and therefore the entire world out of whack. (@advocate)

There are a few obvious responses to this information. For instance, that it’s patently ridiculous. Also, that Phillips has already addressed pretty much all of these arguments in her original decision. And maybe most significantly, that it’s a deeply disappointing position for an administration who has promised approximately eight thousand times that it wants nothing more than to repeal DADT as soon as possible. The DOJ is sticking to its guns on this one, and insisting that in some roundabout way that we’re probably just too young and naive to understand, this brief is actually working TOWARDS  a repeal.

But as Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United said, Obama and his administration “had a choice to take several different routes [with the injunction], from the moderate and reasonable to the extremely ridiculous. It appears that they decided to go with the latter end of the spectrum.” The realists among us knew that we shouldn’t get our hopes up for the DOJ to completely let this one go, even though just letting Phillips’ ruling stand probably would have been the simplest way of handling the repeal. That said, though, is it too much to call this brief straight-up insulting? By resorting to every possible last-ditch legal effort to remove any obstacles to the enforcing of DADT, they seem to be sending a strong message that they are willing to resort to every possible last-ditch legal effort to remove any obstacles to the enforcing of DADT, which is actually the exact opposite of repealing it.

I know. I know. I’ve got nothing. It’s ceased to be about how many chances we can give this administration to do nothing when they said they would do something; it’s about how many chances we’re willing to give them to do exactly what they said they would not do and still hope that maybe they’ll change their minds somehow. We like to think of ourselves as fairly patient and forgiving, but let this be the official notice that we are Reaching Our Limits.

The DOJ has yet to file an actual appeal of Phillips’ ruling, and there’s no guarantee that the federal court will entertain the arguments contained in the DOJ’s brief. If you’re playing along from home and trying to add up all the points in your head, the answer is yes, we are in fact hoping for one judicial department of our government to deny the request made by another judicial department of our government, and therefore move one step closer to upholding the promises of the executive branch that have been stalled indefinitely within the legislative branch.

If you are wondering where the people you actually elected are in all of this, and if you feel like you remember several of them promising that this problem would be solved by now, YOU ARE CORRECT. Would you like an audiovisual aid to help process this feeling? YES. ME TOO. Thanks, GetEqual! If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go kill off the brain cells that deal with “the military,” “the government,” “politics,” “homophobia,” and “this fucking country oh my god.”

Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!


Originally from Boston, MA, Rachel now lives in the Midwest. Topics dear to her heart include bisexuality, The X-Files and tacos. Her favorite Ciara video is probably "Ride," but if you're only going to watch one, she recommends "Like A Boy." You can follow her on twitter and instagram.

Rachel has written 1142 articles for us.


  1. DADT will be repealed after the mid-term elections. It’s just that they want to take legislative credit for it, with Obama signing it and everything. It’s just about political strategy to them. Gay rights are a political football for Democrats and a wedge issue for Republicans.

    Word is, Republicans filibustered the Defense Auth Act because they didn’t want vote on it before mid-term elections fearing voting for gay rights would suppress conservative turn out.

  2. The democrats need to use the filibuster as a way to put the republicans on the defensive about national security. DADT is an issue of national security as well as equal rights. Not to mention a complete waste of money. SO republicans want to waste money ruining career military officers but do not want to pay for stuff like roads and healthcare.

    I think the republicans also filibustered because they did not want to get attacked from the right by tea party people, which imo is awful. Please, lets have some fringe right wing ‘movement’ (by ‘movement’ i clearly mean people who are getting paid to show up.) stall the legislative process. great awesome fantastic. can I have a beer now?!

  3. Because left-wing movements never pay people to show up and protest.


    The Tea Party is not a fringe, right-wing movement.

    Its members consist of Blue Dog (i.e. Hillary) Democrats, Independents, Conservatives, Republicans and yes …a sprinkling of fringe, Alex Jones/Lyndon LaRouche harpies who are virtually ignored. There’s one group here in L.A. that has their own gay contingent.

    Every political movement contains a certain number of whack-jobs.

    Such as the racist, anti-semites who show up at every left-wing protest.

  4. Homophobia on the Right, Heterosexual Privilege on the Left.

    The problem with the Democrats is that they put up a weak defense against the virulently homophobic Republican Party.

    Consider that the alternative to Obama is McCain who lead the filibuster of DADT repeal. The alternative to Reid is Mitch McConnell who supports criminalizing homosexuality in African countries. The alternative to Nancy Pelosi, is John Boehner who is an unnatural shade of orange.

    The Tea Party is a conservative movement, no mistake about it. Regardless of what political stripe members claim to be, so far they have managed to get the whackiest, fringiest candidates up for election like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle.

    The choice is not black and white. But there is a choice. Conservatives are not trying to get LGBTs to vote for conservative candidates. They are trying to manipulate LGBT voters into not voting at all by convincing them they have no one to vote for.

    • YES I AGREE WITH THIS: Conservatives are not trying to get LGBTs to vote for conservative candidates. They are trying to manipulate LGBT voters into not voting at all by convincing them they have no one to vote for.

  5. If the Republican Party is as “virulently homophobic” as you claim …then why was GOProud allowed to co-sponsor CPAC?

    Why did John Hawkins/Right Wing News agree to sponsor GOProud’s “HOMOCON” event?

    I suppose the reason alleged homo-haters Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell have both appeared on Tammy Bruce’s radio show is because they want to criminalize tribadism.

    When it comes to gay marriage, Dick Cheney has shown to be more progressive than Barack Obama.

    If fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and a free market system are now considered strictly conservative principles …then yes, I guess the Tea Party could be labeled a conservative movement.

    As for whacky, fringe candidates …I’ll just leave the name Alvin Greene & Kesha Rogers floating out there.

    • How are those cherries you’re picking?

      Roll Call to repeal DADT in the House:

      229 Ayes
      26 Noes

      5 Ayes
      168 Noes

      Roll Call to repeal DADT in the Senate:

      54 Ayes
      3 Noes

      2 Ayes
      0 Noes

      0 Ayes
      40 Noes

      Now, how anti-gay is each party today?

      As for Christine O’Donnell, she has actively supported the ex-gay movement. Tammy Bruce? She opposes hate crimes prevention laws (no rule that says you can’t be a lesbian and privileged).

      So far, GOProud has done nothing but support anti-gay Republicans (whom I call anti-gay because that’s their voting record) and the oh so wonderful Ann Coulter who has no problem calling people faggots.

      Dick Cheney supports gay marriage now that he’s out of power. How very convenient. He had the power to start a war, but none for gay rights.

      Shall I trot out the Roll Call vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment for 2004 and 2006? I can also provide you with a variety of quotes from Republican Senators and Representatives calling gay people perverts and pedophiles on the floor just within the past couple of years. Let me know if you’d like those too.

  6. “since the case against DADT was originally filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the ruling applies only to members of the Log Cabin Republicans and not any soldiers whose discharge is actually at stake”

    Wasn’t there a post just a few days ago that dealt with this kind of…idea? Line of reasoning? Logic? Do I want to call it logic? How about I slap some sarcastic quotation marks on it and call it “logic.”

  7. Queers went ballistic over Prop 8, calling for the LDS leaders’ heads on a platter but yet when every Democratic presidential candidate (save Gravel & Kucinich) publicly stated they were against gay marriage, out come the free passes.

    The Democrats simply allow the Republicans to do their dirty work for them, tossing us the occasional pro-gay legislative bone (between election cycles of course) to prove they don’t hate us as much as the GOP and we’re all supposed to jump for joy.

    “See! …we hate you *LESS* than the GOP! Now here, fill out these ballots.”

    Tammy Bruce’s view on hate crime legislation is that everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of minority status. A radical concept? MLK certainly didn’t think so.

    Christine O’Donnell also has a lesbian sister. I don’t recall her stating any plans to make her sister an ex-gay. Personally, I see O’Donnell as more of an oddity than a threat. In the end, it’ll be up to the voters of Delaware to decide if she’s fit for office or not.

    Bottom line… I just haven’t found any of my Republican/Conservative family, friends or acquaintances to be the anti-gay monsters they’re so often portrayed as. They’ve always treated me with nothing but the utmost kindness and respect. The guys at my American Legion post are about as conservative as they come and we get along splendidly.

    I won’t say we are without our disagreements but it’s never personal. I’ve learned over the years that tolerance goes both ways.

    I can honestly say that the only time I’ve ever had an anti-gay slur hurled at me was when a “peace” demonstrator called me a “fucking dyke” because I had the gall to question the appropriateness of an anti-Semitic slogan (equating Jews to Nazis) on his sign.

    The worm certainly turned for me on that day.

    Needless to say, I now consider myself a free-thinking Independent.

    Best decision I ever made.

    • it’s great that you get along splendidly, i’m sure it’s just as great that their votes support those who deny you equal rights. it’s about time votes actually get personal because they affect real people, yeah?

    • Yeah? And every Republican President has been against gay marriage. Not only that, but W. Bush supported actually amending the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage.

      I don’t give Democrats a free pass. I just know what my choices are. I don’t care that O’Donnell has a lesbian sister. What I care about is her anti-gay advocacy. She’s not running for Sister Of The Year, but for Senator.

      I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton in 1996. I voted for Ralph Nader. And I voted Green Party again in 2000. And then I grew up and realized the reality is I have two choices: The Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And if McCain was President, not only would a McCain White House defend DADT to. the. death, he would probably VETO a legislative repeal. Those are the choices.

      Just because queers are going ballistic on Obama, and they are going ballistic on Obama, doesn’t mean Republicans are a better alternative. Voting Republican to smite Obama, is cutting off one’s nose to smite one’s face.

      I’m just going to blow by the “MLK would’ve opposed Hate Crimes Prevention legislation” insinuation. That idea falls on it’s own.

  8. Gays will never enjoy the same treatment in our society as heterosexuals. But if and when they do, it will be a good indicator that America has fallen far from its original purpose. All it took was time, technology, “multi-culture” and liberals.

Comments are closed.