Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Flooding in India

Heavy monsoon rains have swollen several rivers.  Slideshow 

Photo

Celebrity portraits

Up close and personal with famous faces.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

U.S. judge orders lesbian Air Force nurse reinstated

Related Topics

TACOMA, Washington | Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:40pm EDT

TACOMA, Washington (Reuters) - A former U.S. Air Force flight nurse expelled from the military after revealing she is a lesbian was ordered reinstated by a federal judge on Friday in a closely watched court challenge to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Major Margaret Witt in contesting her dismissal, has said that if returned to the service, she would be the first person to lawfully serve openly in the U.S. military as a homosexual.

"She should be reinstated at the earliest possible moment," U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said as he spoke from the bench of his packed courtroom in Tacoma, Washington.

Witt's supporters erupted in applause, and some wiped tears of joy from their eyes.

Witt, 46, reacted to the news almost stoically at first, then broke into a wide smile.

The verdict capped a two-week nonjury "bench" trial in which ACLU lawyers presented a string of witnesses who worked with Witt attesting to her outstanding performance in the service.

Air Force attorneys countered that military regulations, including the policy requiring gay service members to keep their homosexuality private, must be uniformly obeyed in order to maintain morale and order throughout the armed forces.

Leighton's decision comes weeks after another federal judge in California struck down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law as an unconstitutional infringement on the free speech and due process rights of gays and lesbians serving in the military.

The Obama administration on Thursday, however, asked that judge to keep the policy mostly intact, rather than issue an injunction against it, while Congress debates the issue.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate blocked legislation that would have repealed the policy, instituted in 1993, which continued the long-time ban on homosexual acts in the military but allowed gays to serve in the armed forces so long as they kept their sexual orientation a secret. Otherwise, they are to be expelled.

The administration's position on a court injunction in the California case drew cries from some in the gay rights community that President Barack Obama was forsaking a campaign promise he made to support repeal of the law.

(Editing by Stacey Joyce)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (36)
txrich wrote:
“Instead, the Department of Justice argued that the immediate effect of her decision should be to prohibit the military from discharging openly gay service members who belong to the Log Cabin Republicans.”

Is this a joke that the writer forgot to remove prior to publication or what??? I’ve read and re-read the article and this sentence really seems out of place, is not factual since belonging to a group like the LCR is not a grounds for discharge under the current DADT law.

Sep 23, 2010 9:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
astralweeks wrote:
Let’s see, the Dems are putting off a vote on the Bush tax cuts until AFTER the elections, now Obama wants to put this off until AFTER the elections. Their supporters are soooooooo gullible.

Sep 23, 2010 10:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jmbreland wrote:
Take it from this lawyer: Virginia Phillips is to judgeship as Barney Fife is to law enforcement. And this reporter is either clueless about the law or is attempting to bamboozle the public: a district court judge’s opinion does not apply outside the court’s district. In other words, Phillip’s drivel applies in San Francisco. I suppose it suits the local clientele, but it’s irrelevant elsewhere.

Sep 23, 2010 12:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.