Frontlines: The Latest from OutServe-SLDN

DA, DT: Quick & Dirty

If only it was that simple! But alas . . . it is not. For service members who declare they are homosexual – regardless of rank, branch of service or MOS – once their commanding officers initiate separation proceedings against them, their discharge is, in most cases, imminent. While David E. Kelley valiantly attempts to shed some light on the preposterousness that is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he falls a bit short in the reality department. His factual legal arguments leave a bit to be desired; however, he does accomplish what I believe was his intended goal: He highlights the absurdity of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and educates the masses on the “quick and dirty” facts and figures surrounding the impact the law on our current national security and military readiness. Almost 12,000 discharges and more than $360 million dollars later, the military is discharging highly trained, decorated and courageous men and women – and yes, in this case even a General can be “struck down with gayness” – simply because he is “a member of the homosexual party.” Despite the fact that there were zero references to Cook v. Gates, SLDN’s currently-pending constitutional challenge to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (coincidentally located in downtown Boston!), David E. Kelly managed to (in less than 60 minutes) work in a reference to the infamous “shower” issue we hear so much about, a hilarious (albeit incredibly overly-simplified) analysis of Lawrence v. Texas and the virtual end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as we know it. Candice Bergen managed to single-handedly bring about the collapse of the ban on gays in the military with just a couple of witnesses an only one day of trial. Although, even she would have to concede that she may have had some assistance from possibly the single worst JAG attorney ever! I mean, really . . . was that guy for real? Did he really argue that the judge should rule in favor of the government because the military had a macho image to protect and was therefore justified in banning gays from serving openly? Does Boston Legal air in Great Britain or Israel? How about Canada or Australia? Notwithstanding the incredible oversimplification of the legal arguments both in favor of and against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the incredible powerhouse cast of Boston Legal (Ms. Bergen can advocate on my behalf anytime!) successfully entertained as well as educated us while poking fun at an outdated and ineffective policy which serves no purpose other than to blatantly discriminate, encourage harassment and weaken our national security. We forgive you, Mr. Kelly, for not acknowledging SLDN’s work on this issue. Perhaps you and a few of your friends would like to join us for dinner in DC on March 8th? - Emily Hecht UPDATE: Read about the conservative controversy over last night's episode at Bilerico.com.

Labels:

3 Comments

Comments for this entry are closed.

Jason K on December 31, 1969 at 02.00 pm

I’m not a big fan either, Dom, and I didn’t watch it because I’m too cheap to buy a tv, but its great to at least see that our issue is being publicized.
——-

Dominick J. DiNoto on December 31, 1969 at 02.00 pm

I tried watching this particular show, the operative word being “tried” because I’m not a fan of Boston Legal. AND once again I just didn’t get the tongue in check humor of it so I changed the channel.

Anonymous on December 31, 1969 at 02.00 pm

For those of us who were unable to watch the show last night, your blog provides a succinct analysis of the episode’s content.<BR><BR>I think that maybe Boston Legal could have succeeded in their critique of DADT if they hadn’t included the judge’s own repressed homosexuality.  Since most lawmakers identify as straight (at least publicly) it would have been more effective if even a [gasp!] straight judge could have seen DADT for what it is…an unjust and discriminatory law.