WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2010

Obama May Seek Fast Appeal of "Don't Ask" Order

Worried Over Consequences of Sudden Halt to DADT, White House Forced to Defend Policy it Wants Abolished

Like this Story? Share it:

    •  (CBS/ AP)

    • U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the first Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defense Ministers Meeting Plus at the National Convention Center in Hanoi, Vietnam, Oct. 12, 2010.

      U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the first Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defense Ministers Meeting Plus at the National Convention Center in Hanoi, Vietnam, Oct. 12, 2010.  (AP Photo)

    Previous slide Next slide
  • Interactive Gay In The U.S.A.

    State-by-state laws on gay issues, the marriage debate and photo essays.

  • Interactive Military 101

    Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.

(AP)  Some officers and service members say they are uncertain how to react while the law banning gays from serving openly in the military is in limbo.

The Pentagon said Wednesday it had not issued written guidance on a judge's order throwing out the ban, and commanders in the field said they did not know how to proceed on sensitive questions like pursuing existing investigations against gay service members.

The Obama administration is considering whether to appeal the judge's ruling, issued Tuesday in California.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on repeal of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" should be decided by Congress and not the courts.

He has said he wants more time to prepare for a circumstance in which, for the first time, gay members of the military could declare their sexual orientation without fear of dismissal.

The Justice Department worked into the night Wednesday on its response to the judge's ruling but gave no indication when there would be an announcement. Its first move may be to seek a stay, or temporary freeze, of the order. If that request is rejected, the department probably would turn to the federal appeals court in California.

If the government does appeal, it would put the Obama administration in the position of continuing to defend a law it opposes.

If the government does appeal, it would put the Obama administration in the position of continuing to defend a law it opposes.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said time is running out for the ban on gays serving openly.

"This is a policy that is going to end," he said.

On Wednesday, Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be considered only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, including an assessment of service members' attitudes toward the change. The study is due Dec. 1.

Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."

In Tuesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members. The 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law says gays may serve in the military but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.

Phillips wrote that the law "infringes the fundamental rights" of current and prospective service members.

Gay rights advocates cautioned gay service members to avoid revealing their sexuality for fear that the Phillips ruling could be tossed out on appeal and they would be left open to being discharged.

Defense Department officials would not say what was happening to current discharge cases, or even confirm how many pending cases there might be. A Pentagon spokesman, Col. David Lapan, said no written guidance had been issued to commanders on how to deal with the court order.

An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said he will continue using a pseudonym out of concern that he still could be discharged.

"Can I come out right now and be OK? And if I made a statement would it be held against me?" asked the officer, who calls himself JD Smith and said he is an Air Force Academy graduate. He said service members are hoping the Pentagon will clarify the meaning of the court ruling.

Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., said he'd love to re-enlist in the Army two years after being discharged in the middle of a tour in Iraq. But he's being cautious and patient.

"I think it's still way too soon," said 28-year-old Arbury, now a university student. "If I was to hear news that automatically everything would be reinstated, I'd be the first one in the door."

The uncertainty extended overseas. When asked by a reporter whether the ruling had had any impact, a two-star U.S. Army commander in eastern Afghanistan suggested he was unsure anything would change and said it was unlikely that his soldiers even knew about the court order.

"If that law is changed, they'll abide by the law," but "that's probably the farthest thing from their mind" as they fight, said Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of the 101st Airborne Division.

Gates, who supports lifting the ban once the Pentagon puts in place a plan for minimizing disruptions, said that besides developing new training for troops, regulations will have to be revised.

Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, face disagreement by some senior general officers on whether lifting the ban would cause serious disruption at a time when troops are fighting in Afghanistan and winding down a long war in Iraq.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins accused Phillips of "playing politics" with national defense.

"Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda, disregarding the views of all four military service chiefs and the constitutional role of Congress," he said.

Perkins urged the Justice Department "to fulfill its obligation to defend the law vigorously through the appeals process."

President Obama worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn't suffer. That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

Democrats could revive the legislation in Congress' lame-duck session after the midterm election.

© MMX, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Add a Comment See all 33 Comments
by pondering3 October 14, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
If he does this, I am sure you will see more of a percentage that will not vote for him again than you expect to.
Reply to this comment
by propitiation October 14, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
What is missing from the entire article and every single post? The information that is being completely overlooked is this is the greatest victory that there has ever been for the group, "The Log Cabin Republican." You guys successfully threw a monkey wrench into all these stupid, laws. I salute you!
Reply to this comment
by dadirt October 14, 2010 12:08 PM EDT
Just another obama grab for votes. The protestors gave him grief, he sees they are mad and may take their gay votes with them somewhere, so he caves. What is good for Obama is not good for the military. which one is more important? Damn sure not Obama!
Reply to this comment
by thanksgreed October 14, 2010 12:08 PM EDT
I keep telling you guys, why hate him....he's one of you!
Reply to this comment
by WEEZEROFOZ October 14, 2010 11:54 AM EDT
Things we need to know about barry soetoro: http://newsflavor.com/opinions/white-house-insider-on-obama-the-president-is-losing-it/#ixzz106tSQMzG
Reply to this comment
by saddair October 14, 2010 11:41 AM EDT
Look, if the President actually believed in abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then he would simply let the ruling stand and not attempt to defend it on appeal. Is he concerned that the Democrats would lose some votes in the mid-terms and is defending DADT for political purposes?
Reply to this comment
by jackp32 October 14, 2010 11:25 AM EDT
To members of the military: Coming soon to a foxhole near you-an unwanted boyfriend.
Reply to this comment
by thanksgreed October 14, 2010 10:34 AM EDT
Mini Bush strikes again...
Reply to this comment
by variablespanner October 14, 2010 10:29 AM EDT
The appeal could be a request for a stay until the Pentagon study is completed on Dec 1st to be followed by a court sanctioned timeline to implement the change in concurrence with the REPORT on Dec 1.
Reply to this comment
by Brokennews October 14, 2010 10:20 AM EDT
"White House Forced to Defend Policy it Wants Abolished"..........?????????? How wacky is that!
Reply to this comment
by pasha128 October 14, 2010 10:47 AM EDT
They may well be the only ones with "STANDING" to challenge this court decision including items as limited as the timing of the change (immediate or in accordance with the Dec 1st report). The alternative is limited to complete acceptance of the decision including the timing since no one else is empowered by the laws of this country to enforce the law and challenge the decision.
See all 33 Comments
President Obama's Communication Problem

Political Hotsheet is your place for the latest political news from Washington & around the country.

More Political Hotsheet
Flash Points: Yemen, Pakistan, France & Indonesia

Our daily Web show, Washington Unplugged, gives an insider's view of politics & those that make it happen.

More Washington Unplugged
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right

A New Web Series

60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the television broadcast ends

The CBS News iPad App

Instant access to breaking news, photos and award winning CBS News video is at your fingertips.

Download the Free App