Lesbian Major Appeals DADT Ruling

tristanrobin · 11-06-2007, 01:48 PM

Lesbian Major Appeals DADT Ruling by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 6, 2007 - 1:00 pm ET
(Seattle, Washington) A lesbian colonel, dismissed from the military because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", is appealing a lower court ruling that dismissed her lawsuit challenging the ban on gays serving opening in the armed forces.
Maj. Margaret Witt (pictured) joined the Air Force in 1986. She served in the Persian Gulf and in 2003 was awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal for her action in saving the life of a Department of Defense employee who had collapsed aboard a government-chartered flight from Bahrain.
In 1993, she was selected to be the “poster child” for the Air Force Nurse Corps recruitment flyer.
Most recently she was a flight nurse and operating room nurse assigned to McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, Washington.
But after commanders received an anonymous tip in 2004 that she is a lesbian and in a long-term relationship the military began an investigation that led to her discharge under the military's ban on gays serving openly.
In November 2004, Major Witt was placed on unpaid leave and told she could no longer participate in any military duties, pending formal separation proceedings. In March 2006, the Air Force informed Major Witt that she was being administratively discharged on grounds of homosexual conduct.
Last July in federal court her ACLU lawyers argued that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law prevented the military from using private consensual acts between two people of the same sex as grounds for dismissal.
U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton ruled that the sodomy ruling had no bearing on the military.
In its appeal before a three judge panel in Seattle the ACLU argued that child molesters in the armed forces are treated more leniently than gays because molesters don't face mandatory discharge.
The attorney's also argued that the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling established a new "fundamental right" regarding adult consensual sex.
Not so, argued the government.
"The court very clearly stops short of ... recognizing a fundamental right," Justice Department attorney Jonathan Cohn said, adding that the government need only show it has a rational reason for implementing DADT.
A decision is not expected for several months.
Two other lawsuits challenging DADT also are underway. One, by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is underway in federal court in Boston and a second, by Log Cabin Republicans, is before a federal court in California. (story)
A bill that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is currently before Congress and has 136 sponsors.
DADT was enacted in 1993. Since then more than 12,000 servicemembers have been dismissed when it was learned they are gay. According to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network which advocates for gays in the military an average of two service members are dismissed under the law every day.
A report prepared by the Government Accountability Office shows that nearly 800 people with skills deemed ‘mission-critical’ by the Pentagon have been dismissed under the law, including more than 322 language experts, at least 58 of whom specialized in Arabic.
The GAO said that DADT has cost American taxpayers more than $364 million since it was implemented.
The number of gays and lesbians who have attempted to enlist and rejected because they said they were gay is not known.
A study conducted last year for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network concluded that the U.S. military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if gays and lesbians in the military were able to be open about their sexual orientation.
A Zogby poll taken in 2006 showed three-out-of-four members of the military who are serving in Iraq or recently returned home don't care if someone in their unit is gay.

fxashun · 11-06-2007, 02:53 PM

What I don't understand is that if rules against sodomy and homosexuality have been a part of the military for as long as there has been a UCMJ, why would a homosexual person even apply for the job?
FOXNews.com - Pentagon Document Classifies Homosexuality as Mental Disorder - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

highway80west · 11-06-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

What I don't understand is that if rules against sodomy and homosexuality have been a part of the military for as long as there has been a UCMJ, why would a homosexual person even apply for the job?

Because she thought she would make a good soldier. She's come this far to see that happen to her. I have a feeling she will be reinstated.

fxashun · 11-06-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Because she thought she would make a good soldier. She's come this far to see that happen to her. I have a feeling she will be reinstated.

A pedophile thinks he would make a good sexual partner to a child, that doesn't make it so. It's illegal. If the military doesn't want homosexuals, and that was even more apparent when she joined, why even do so? It's pretty much illegal to be openly gay in the military.
I hope she isn't.

tristanrobin · 11-06-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Because she thought she would make a good soldier. She's come this far to see that happen to her. I have a feeling she will be reinstated.

... and it would seem has done a fucking lot better than the straight servicemen she was put in charge over!

But I understand that we live in a country that believes a soldier with less leadership capabilities is preferable if the inferior is heterosexual.

pa-freakin-thetic

fxashun · 11-06-2007, 03:47 PM

No, I think we live in a society with a military that doesn't want openly homosexual members. There are other members of the service that would make just as good a leader that aren't gay. And I'm sure her billet has been filled. If not, the story would have loved to mention it.

I would love to mention what I think is pa-freakin-thetic, but this thread doesn't yet warrant it.

fxashun · 11-06-2007, 04:21 PM

But here's a little background on this story..
21.
On April 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pm, Marge Ballack said: Maj. Witt is a friend of mine. She was close to her 20 year mark and was
going on to become Lt.Col. Witt.
She wasn’t “out of the closet” to anybody other than her closest of
friends and of course her girlfriend, but not to anyone at work. She met
someone and fell in love, crushing her girlfriend.
About 2 months later her C.O. received an unsigned letter accusing
her of being a lesbian. The Air Force terminated her over an anonymous
and unsubstantiated letter.
She contacted an attorney to see if she had any legal recourse. Her
attorney contacted the ACLU who offered to get involved.
We’re all (the LGBT folks in Spokane) behind her and are hitting
the Spokesman Review with letters of support. She’s a very private woman
and is in shock over what’s happening to her. She’s being couragous so
other service people won’t suffer the way she has. The following is my letter
that was in the paper today:
Major Margaret Witt (who was soon to become Lieutenant Colonel
Margaret Witt) served our Nation and cared for our injured military
service people for 19 years. She never identified herself as a “lesbian.”
She did identify herself as a combat nurse. Just one year from her 20
year-mark she was “outed” by an unsigned letter that was sent to her
Superior.
Like Major Witt, a high percentage of care-givers in America are gay.
They work long hours trying to save our loved ones from pain and
suffering. If you were to ask a professional care-giver, “What do you
do for a living?” not one of them would respond with, “I’m Gay.” A
person’s sexuality is not their identity.
Sexuality is no more ‘chosen’ by homosexuals then heterosexuals;
heterosexuals aren’t attracted to homosexuals and visa-versa. I would
ask Tom Frisque when he first identified himself as a practicing hetero-
sexual? I have never practiced being a lesbian; most of us don’t need
to practice.
If I were in a foxhole with anyone, my concern would be about their
marksmanship, not with who they loved.
As my dear old mother used to say, “A fox smells his own hole first.”
Now it makes sense.
Marge Ballack-Lantz
Spokane, WA

22.
On April 24th, 2006 at 11:10 pm, Pat McChesney said: The person Major Witt fell in love with was my wife of 23 years and mother to three of my children. Major Witt is amoral. She wrote declarations against me in the divorce proceedings to attempt to separate me from my minor child without ever mentioning her adulterous relationship with my wife. Her declaration is signed under penalty of perjury to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth. What kind of person has an affair with a heterosexual married women while befriending the family, then writes a declaration againse the husband of the women she had an affair with without mentioning this fact? It would be the same circumstance if the rapist, still unknown to the rape victim, testified in court that the rape victim was promiscious in order to discredit her (or him).
My wife was also her direct subordinate in a taxpayer funded entity.
The letter to the Air Force was not unsigned, anonymous or unsubstantiated.

Maj. Margaret Witt can no longer report for duty - The Carpetbagger Report
This may explain why her discharge was dishonorable. It seems she was not only against DADT but also the adultery and fraternization. She ain't coming back if this is true.

If this is true, you still wanna pledge your support for THIS lady.

highway80west · 11-06-2007, 05:10 PM

Like I said, she has served a long time for this to happen, FX. And 20 years of service, she has done a good job of serving her country. Sure, the military must hold their people in high standards. But they should not have to worry about the soldiers' private lives, do they, like in the bedrooms?

If the military didn't want gays and lesbians, then why did the military allowed the African-American people into the military during WWII? I hate to discuss that part, but they were the work of Eleanor Roosevelt, wasn't it? They were referred as something to an indirect relation to the first lady, but I won't say what it is. The racists didn't like seeing them in action.

And they helped the USA win the war, just like the Navajo code-talkers did. We know that the language they spoke confused the Japanese, for which they were defenseless against it.

fxashun · 11-06-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Like I said, she has served a long time for this to happen, FX. And 20 years of service, she has done a good job of serving her country. Sure, the military must hold their people in high standards. But they should not have to worry about the soldiers' private lives, do they, like in the bedrooms?

There are rules in the UCMJ for sodomy, adultery, and homosexuality. If a person goes against any of those, they are subject to prosecution. This officer seems to have been guilty of all three if that letter is correct. Her career is toast.

If the military didn't want gays and lesbians, then why did the military allowed the African-American people into the military during WWII? I hate to discuss that part, but they were the work of Eleanor Roosevelt, wasn't it? They were referred as something to an indirect relation to the first lady, but I won't say what it is. The racists didn't like seeing them in action.

The first sentence in that paragraph is bullshit. African Americans have always been in the armed forces. Even iin the Civil War. Just in separate units. I wonder how can DADT work for race? I can discuss anything. Go right ahead.
Sodomy and therefore gays have always been forbidden. Additionally, in THIS case, it seems being gay isn't the only issue.

And they helped the USA win the war, just like the Navajo code-talkers did. We know that the language they spoke confused the Japanese, for which they were defenseless against it.

AS discussed in the other forum, Phelps also helped black people attain civil rights, that doesn't mean that his actions NOW aren't despicable.

KnightOfSappho · 11-06-2007, 05:47 PM

As I have said before, this policy creates a major danger for ALL servicemembers gay and straight.

How hard would it be for an angry ex or a person seeking classified information to HIRE someone to claim to be the soldier's/sailor's lover? Hoe easy would it be to create a blackmail situation in such a case?

This policy is a security risk.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode