Why has it taken 17 years for DADT to be ruled unconstitutional?

[Renew Deal]

Can someone explain that? Wasn't it unconstitutional in 1993? Did no one challenge it in that time?

[pgodbold]

1. In September Clinton said that Powell misrepresented DADT

http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/bill-clinton-powell-misrepresented-dadt

Clinton should have gotten up off his big hair loving ass and spoken up then, not waiting 17 years to squeek out his cover story.

[pnwmom]

8. Why? So the Rethugs could push a Constitutional Amendment

through, banning gays from the military? They had enough legislatures then to do that. And getting a Constitutional amendment overturned now would be much, much harder than overturning DADT.

[sandnsea]

2. Gays were being discharged before 1993

They've always been discharged from the US Military. DADT was a step forward in 1993, making it possible for gays to serve without an inquisition. I don't think anybody expected DADT to stay the law, I sure didn't. But it was a means for gays to serve without having to lie on their military records.

[Renew Deal]

3. That doesn't answer the question of why it took so long to get to this ruling

Has it not been challenged in all these years? The constitution hasn't changed since 1992. It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now.

[pnwmom]

9. I992 was a different era. DADT was a lot better than the very real

alternative -- a constitutional amendment banning gays from the military. The Rethugs had enough state legislatures then to push that through.

[sandnsea]

14. Why wasn't it done in 1952? Or 1962?

Discharing gays from the military would have been unconstitutional then as well, isn't that what you're asking? No, I don't think it's ever been challenged in court before. I think the presumption would have been that military cohesion was more important. It's taken a long time for women to be allowed to serve on submarines, and on ships before that. I don't know if there were law suits to make any of that happen, I don't think so. I think law suits against the military fall into a different category. I don't know how they finally were able to take these forward now.

[David Zephyr]

4. Institutionalized bigotry is hard to overcome.

It's not a good thing to be a hated minority, especially when the hatred is masked with "God on their side."

[Renew Deal]

5. That also doesn't answer the question.

Did "the minority" challenge the law?

[TriMera]

6. Thomasson v. Perry

People began challenging this policy shortly after it was enacted. One early example would be Thomasson v. Perry. You make it sound like people who are fighting for LGBTQI rights have been sitting around doing nothing for 17 years.

http://www.ncgala.org/cases/thomasson.htm

[Renew Deal]

10. I think it's a legitimate question

It's just as unconstitutional now as it was 17 years ago. So why did it take so long to get to this point? That's a fair question.

[TriMera]

12. Okay, you want the simple answer.

Why did it take so long for women to get the right to vote? Why did it take so long for African Americans to get their civil rights? It's the same answer.

[David Zephyr]

7. Actually fellow DU'er, dsc, gave a pretty good summary recently of how DADT happened.

Maybe I can have him pass it along to you.

[unblock]

11. in the scheme of things, i'm actually amazed it took ONLY 17 years.

if you look at the history of civil rights struggles, these things take ages, even if punctuated by dramatic events, e.g., the 1860s and the 1960s -- a lot of dramatic changes, but 100 years apart.

considering the rightward movement recently, it's actually amazing how rights for lgbt have progressed.

[msongs]

13. because until the log cabin suit there was no fierce advocate for repeal? nt

[Hosnon]

15. The judicial branch is in no way apolitical, that's why. nt.