How many NOMo's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Ok, so Papa Foma at the The Prop8 Trial Tracker blog started a light bulb joke about the so-called National Organization of Marriage (NOM) and there were several entries, which I will update here as they come in. :)

The Question:

How many NOMo's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Answers:

• Well any one of them can do it… just don’t expect the light to come on!!!
• None, god already did it in Genesis when he said “Let there be light”. Besides, lightbulbs are a product of science, and therefore satanic.
• None, we aren’t small enough to fit inside a lightbulb, and screwing outside of marriage is wrong.
• You can’t force us to disclose that! That’s intimidation and harassment!
• Hopefully no more than thirty or so.
• Jesus.
• (from NOM) Don’t answer them they’re mean.
• NOM: Can’t right now… too busy screwing gays!
• None, they’ve got Rent Boys for that!
• Unknown – NOMers fear light, so they have never attempted this feat.
• 2, and they must be a man & a woman. If they are a same sex couple, the light bulb and the Universe will explode.
• Is that covered in Leviticus?

• None – we have no proof the lightbulb was ever out, so it doesn’t need to be changed.
• None…if we all pray hard enough the light bulb will see the error of
  it’s ways and change itself
• None. We prefer living in the dark. 
• It's actually God's choice to put us in the dark. We should not go against His will by changing  the light bulbs ourselves.
• Changing the light bulb would cause serious and irreparable injury to NOM because their lies would be exposed. Therefore, they have sought a stay with respect to the changing of the light bulb. However, it appears more and more that, regardless of the light bulb, people are starting to see NOM/Protectmarriage.com for who they really are. 
• We voted. It doesn’t need changing. Besides, it’s “common sense” that the same light bulb should work for all of us for at least 300 years.
• What lightbulb?
• Any number of men, women, intersex and/or cross-gendered may ‘screw’ in the lightbulb, as the People have had their say on that matter, so long as only combinations of one man and one woman can call it ‘changing the lightbulb.
• Being under a light is a “rite” not a “right”.
• Only a clear majority of seven million Californians have the constitutional right to change the light bulb!!! but instead it has been changed by one biased gay activist judge!!!
• NOM: Change?! 

Day 4, Volume 1 & 2: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Day 4, July 16, 2010

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-4-vol-i.pdf and
http://online.logcabin.org/day-4-vol-ii-corrected.pdf

MR. KAHN, Plaintiff atty (LRC)
MR. WOODS, Plaintiff atty (LRC)
MS. FELDMAN, Plaintiff atty (LRC)

MR. SIMPSON, Defense atty (USA)

First witness up for the day is CHRISTOPHER MEEKINS, previously an

attorney for White & Case. the law firm currently representing LRC.

His purpose in testifying here today is two fold - to assist in

providing evidence that LRC in fact does have standing to prosecute

this case, as well as to provide supporting information that an

upcoming plaintiff witness, 'JOHN DOE' is in fact a member of the

Republican party, and a member of LRC.

The defense seems interested in throwing out JOHN DOE's testimony by

indicating that he is not really a member of the LRC, a finding that

would reduce (if not invalidate) LRC's standing to pursue this case.

JOHN DOE is a currently serving individual in the US Army, whose

anonymity is being protected in this case so that he isn't kicked

out for a DADT violation.

The next plaintiff witness is MICHAEL ALMY, formerly a Major in the

USAF, discharged due to DADT.

I will excerpt some of his testimony below.

Q. = MR. KAHN, Plaintiff atty (LRC)
A. = MICHAEL ALMY, plaintiff witness

...

Q. Mr. Almy, did you serve in the U.S. military?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. How long was your active duty career in the U.S. military?
A. Slightly over 13 years.

Q. What years did that encompass?
A. 1993 to 2006.

Q. And in what branch of the military did you serve?
A. The U.S. Air Force.

Q. Were you enlisted or an officer?
A. I was an officer.

Q. And how did you become an officer in the U.S. Air Force
in 1993?
A. I earned my commission through Air Force Reserve Officer
Training Corps when I went through college at Wright State
University.

...

Q. Mr. Almy, why did your active duty career in the Air
Force end in 2006?
A. I was discharged from the Air Force because of the law
we call "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Q. And what was your rank when you were discharged?
A. I was a major.

Q. Mr. Almy, why did you join the Air Force?

A. I joined the Air Force primarily out of a sense of duty. My father
was also a career officer in the Air Force. He retired as a full
colonel. I had several uncles who had also retired from the
military. One uncle had retired from the Army and had service in the
Korean War. Another uncle of mine had retired from the Marine Corps
and had service in World War II, Korea, as well as Vietnam. So growing
up I always had a rich history of military service in my family and
just always knew that I would follow suit.

Q. How long did you intend to serve in the Air Force?
A. I had every intention of staying for 20 years where I was eligible
for retirement or perhaps longer than 20 years.


...

What follows are Mr. Almy's description of his 13 year career in

the Air Force, including promotions, commendations, awards, and various

deployments to Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

...

Q. Thank you. You also mentioned that you were discharged
under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2006?
A. Correct.

Q. Can you please describe to the Court what led to your
discharge circumstances?

A. Yes. As I mentioned previously, my unit left Iraq towards the end
of January 2005. The unit that replaced mine in Iraq was rotating
in. We had about a two-week transition time. Several weeks after my
unit left Iraq, someone who had been sitting at my same desk, same
computer, somehow private e-mails that I had written to family and
friends during the stress of combat zone, these e-mails were searched
for any type of content or any potential perceived violation of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell." This was a personal folder. It was labeled
"Friends," so in the sense that there was no business or professional
reason for this particular individual to search this particular
folder. There were approximately 500 e-mails, over 500 e-mails that I
had put in this folder to designate my private, personal e-mail
communications while I was in Iraq.

Again, several weeks afterwards this folder was
searched. Approximately 12 to 15 e-mails were pulled out which were
damaging to myself as far as perceived violations of "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell." These e-mails that were searched in Iraq were forwarded from
the unit that replaced mine in Iraq. They forwarded these e-mails to
my commander back in Germany. And then approximately six weeks after
my unit had returned from Iraq, my commander called me into his
office. The first thing he did was he read me the DOD policy on
homosexuality. When he finished reading that he handed me a stack of
e-mails and asked how did I explain these e-mails.

In other words, he demanded an explanation for these e-mails.
I refused to do so. He pressured me to make a statement to
acknowledge the e-mails, basically to admit that I had
violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and again, I refused to do
so. I told my commander at the time I would not make a
statement until I had first consulted with a lawyer.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, we object on grounds of lack of foundation
and move to strike Mr. Almy's testimony regarding the circumstances of
the search.

THE COURT: The search of his computer?

MR. SIMPSON: Correct, Your Honor.

MR. KAHN: Your Honor, I think as my questioning goes on, I can
establish that foundation.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you proceed -- well, I'm going to
strike the testimony regarding how the e-mails were discovered and you
may attempt to lay a foundation.

BY MR. KAHN:

Q. Mr. Almy, what generally were discussed in those
e-mails?
A. These were private communications between family and friends,
personal e-mails written for my own purposes to take my mind off the
stressful combat zone, combat situation. They were written to
approximately three or four people, friends that I had known,
including one person that I had dated briefly.

Some discussion about the proper use of government email accounts.

Soldiers serving in Iraq were permitted (and encouraged) to use their

government provided email accounts for both personal and business

purposes.

Access to private email facilities was not allowed without special

permission from the System Administrators. This was for security

purposes primarily.

...


Q. Besides using the government's e-mail account, was there any way
for a service member to communicate via e-mail other than to apply for
and receive the permission to access their private e-mails as you
testified to?

A. There was no -- no.

...

Q. Did the commander tell you how he received the e-mails?
A. He explained to me that they had been searched in Iraq by the unit
that had replaced mine. They were forwarded to my commander from the
commander of the unit in Iraq.

Q. You testified earlier he pressured you to make a
statement in response to being confronted with these e-mails.
How did he pressure you?
A. We went round and round for approximately 20 minutes. He wanted me
to acknowledge the e-mails or to provide some explanation basically to
say that I had written the e-mails, in essence, acknowledging that I
had violated a perceived violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Q. Did he show you the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, on the last answer,
objection, move to strike on the grounds of hearsay.
THE COURT: If this was the witness's commander, it
would be a party admission. I'm going to overrule the objection on that basis.
You may continue.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that happened during this meeting was my
commander read me the DOD policy on homosexuality.

BY MR. KAHN:

Q. At the end of this meeting -- well, how did this meeting
end?

A. I was relieved of my duties. In essence, I was fired where I had
led 180 men and women in my directorate. At the end later that
afternoon, my commander called an officer call, there was
approximately 30 to 40 officers in my squadron, called an officer call
through the whole squadron and said Major Almy had been relieved of
his duties, saying basically I had been fired.

Q. How did you react of being relieved of your duties that day?
A. I was completely devastated. I drove myself home. I took my uniform
off. I curled up on the floor of my bathroom in the fetal position and
just balled like a baby for probably several hours.

Q. At that time how long had you been serving in the Air
Force?
A. At that time it was a little over -- near the 12-year
point.
Q. At that time had you ever made a statement to anyone in
the military that you were gay?
A. No, I had not.

Q. Was there any effect on your security clearance as a
result of your meeting with your commander?
A. Approximately three months after I was relieved of my duties, my
security clearance was suspended. I had a TS or top secret SCI
clearance, which is one of the highest level clearances that an
individual can have in the military, and that was restricted. My
access to classified information was suspended at that point.

Q. Can you remind the Court, please, when this was that you were first
relieved of your duties?
A. This was March 14th, 2005.

Q. Did you contest your discharge proceedings?
A. I did. When I was served formal notification of what we call a show
cause letter -- in other words, that means that the Air Force thinks
they have sufficient grounds to discharge me under "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell," I had several options at that point. I could have resigned my
commission and gone quietly, I could have done nothing, in which case
the case against me would have moved forward, I could have made a
statement, or the option that I chose was to invoke my right to an
administrative hearing.

Q. And why is that that you invoked your right to an administrative
hearing?
A. Because I wanted to fight this as much as I could. I maintained
that I had done nothing wrong, that I had not violated the policy
because I never told. In other words, I kept my private life separate
from my professional life.

...

Q. Did you solicit any letters from fellow service members?
A. I solicited and obtained approximately two dozen letters from
service members that I had worked with. Some of these were junior
enlisted or officers who had worked directly for me, some of these
were my peers who had worked alongside me, and some of these were
superior officers who I had worked for.

Q. And what was your purpose in soliciting those letters?
A. The purpose in these letters was to show the Air Force these were
men and women who had worked side by side with me who knew my
professional conduct, who knew my reputation as an officer, who knew
my performance. It was to establish credibility with the Air Force and
show first-hand knowledge of people who knew me and urge that the Air
Force retain me, that I not be discharged from the Air Force.

MR. SIMPSON: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
THE COURT: Objection is overruled.
You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Not one person that I asked to write a letter in my
defense objected. In other words, they all supported, they all
wholeheartedly endorsed writing a letter for me, and they all urged
the Air Force that I be retained.

...

Thus begins a long argument from defense as to whether these letters

can be admitted into evidence. Defense does not believe these letters

have the proper 'foundation' or relevance to be admitted.

After some back and forth between defense and plaintiff, the letters

are admitted into evidence, however not for the purposes of

determining the witness's character.

Law, it's an adventure!

...


BY MR. KAHN:

Q. Mr. Almy, as a communications officer in the Air Force, are you
familiar with the permissible uses of e-mail, of government e-mail
accounts?
A. I am quite familiar with them from the standpoint that part of my
duties as a communications officer or in the career field in general,
the communications career field, is to operate and maintain the
network. The system administrators who are in charge who are
maintaining the network on a day-to-day basis fall within the com
squadron, which is what I was a part of. That was my career field. So
as such, I was very familiar with the network as well as the permitted
use of government e-mail.

THE COURT: If I may, when you say "systems administrators," would
someone who was a systems administrator report to you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, they would, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. KAHN:

Q. Given your knowledge in this area, would it have been permissible
for a service member to discuss heterosexual conduct using the exact
same government e-mail account on the exact same government computer?

MR. SIMPSON: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it would have been.
MR. KAHN: Thank you.

...

Next witness: ROBERT J. MAC COUN, PH.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN

Dr. MacCoun was a behavioral researcher for the RAND Corporation.

We are also going into Volume 2 of the day's testimony.

Q. = MS. FELDMAN, plaintiff atty
A. = ROBERT J. MAC COUN, plaintiff witness

...


BY MS. FELDMAN

Q. Shall we go back to the previous question?
A. Sure. I was mentioning that I've been involved in two different
recent RAND projects. One of which is the -- I'm part of a larger team
that tried to project the tax revenues of the marijuana ballot
initiative and whether some of the claims that have been made were
plausible. And then, the other project is revisiting the issue of
sexual orientation and U.S. military policy for the Pentagon.

Q. Dr. MacCoun, have you previously testified as an expert witness in
court or arbitration proceedings?
A. Yes. I was an expert witness in the Abel trial in 1994, I believe.

Q. What was the nature of the Abel trial?
A. This was the ACLU's challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
policy.

Q. Can you please describe to the court your role in the Abel case?
A. I testified about the unit cohesion.

Q. Were you found to be qualified as an expert in that case?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. Dr. MacCoun, what was your assignment in this case?
A. I was asked to testify about the unit cohesion and the facts of
repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on unit cohesion.

Q. Have you reached an opinion on whether allowing open homosexual
military service would impair unit cohesion and military performance?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. What was your opinion?
A. In my opinion, it is -- repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would
have negligible effects on unit cohesion and military performance.

...

Therein comes a rather detailed report of how the RAND report (518

pages of it) was put together, who worked on it, how many separate

teams contributed to it, what studies were

involved, etc.

It also discusses the Pentagon's Military Working Group, who in

conjunction to the RAND report were commissioned by Secretary Aspin.


...

Q. Do you know what the military working group was?
A. Secretary Aspin commissioned two studies of the issue: The Pentagon
military working group and the RAND Corporation, as a civilian working
group.

Q. And did the military working group issue a report?
A. They issued a memorandum.

Q. What was the conclusion of the military working group's memorandum?
A. They recommended the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Q. How long was that memorandum?
A. 15 pages, I believe. Something like that.

15 pages. Further testimony reveals that very little of the RAND

report made it into the Military Working groups recommendations.

Here's some more testimony:

Q. And why is it your understanding that the military working group
knew what conclusions you were reaching?
A. Well, we had shared our preliminary conclusions with them in the
video teleconference and also there were various media reports
describing what's in drafts.

Q. Dr. MacCoun, do you know whether any member of RAND was invited to
testify before Congress in 1993?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Read it if you've got a few hours :)

End of Day 4

Day 3, Volume 2 & 3: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Day 3, Volume 2 & 3

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-ii.pdf and  http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-iii.pdf

After recess, continuing with Joseph Christopher Rocha. This

transcript contains timestamps.

MR. FREEBORNE, Defense atty.

Q. = MS. MYERS. Plaintiff atty (LRC)

A. = THE WITNESS: Joseph Christopher Rocha,


11:05

DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)
BY MS. MYERS:


Q. What did it mean to you to be accepted to the Naval
Academy Preparatory School?
A. It is the single most significant moment of my life. It
guaranteed me admission to the Naval Academy if I kept doing
what I was doing.

Q. And what did it mean to you to have the possibility to
attend the Naval Academy?
A. That was -- well, it's the biggest dream I've ever had.

...

11:10

Q. After you started the Naval Academy Preparatory School, did you
have time to reflect on your experience in the dog-handling unit?

A. It was the first time that I really was able to reflect on what
happened, because I was permanently away and it was over. At the
Naval Academy Preparatory School, what they pressed on us -- they
stressed the most was the years of commitment, that we were looking at
a career, that we were looking at 15 to 20 years. And I evaluated how
I had done nothing wrong, how I had followed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
as closely as possible, yet been subjected to such extreme abuse; and
looking forward to a career at the Naval Academy or as an officer, I
realized that it could just as easily happen again.

Q. Did you have any other concerns about your career as an officer,
knowing that you had this long-term commitment?

A. Having just left a small unit, a small community, it's very
intrusive, I realized at the Naval Academy Preparatory School that the
Naval Academy would be no different and that the officer corps would
be no different. It would be a small group of people who would be
well-informed as to who my significant other was, when I had children,
when I got engaged. I was confident that it was a matter of time
before I was disgraced with a discharge.

So I had to decide whether I would get ahead of the game and get out
as someone who had served honorably in the Middle East or someone who
had been caught as a midshipman or caught as an officer.

Q. And what did you decide to do?
A. I decided to come out.

...

11:28

Q. Do you think that your inability to report the harassment
you experienced because of your fear during the time you were
in the dog kennel unit was directly related to the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy?

MR. FREEBORNE: Your Honor, same objection. It also
calls for speculation.

THE COURT: The objections are overruled.
You may answer. Do you remember the question?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I'm confident that, at least
personally, had "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" not been the policy, I
would have felt confident to report the abuse when it
escalated, and not fear reprisal.

Q. And why is that?
A. Because it is against our policy to haze, but as a gay
servicemember, I had no protection.
Q. Do you think that your sexual orientation affected your
ability to perform as a Navy servicemember?
A. No. I'm confident that I performed just as well, and many
times exceeded the performance of my peers.

Q. Would you want to rejoin the military if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is
no longer the policy?
A. I want nothing more than to continue my career in the armed forces.

...

End of this witness. Next witness for plaintiff coming up.

Aaron Belkin, founder of the Palm Institute, which does research on

issues related to DADT.

Much of his initial testimony discusses his papers, books, research

methodology, peer review, studies of foreign militaries etc.

Over the objections of defense, he is admitted as an expert witness

as a political scientist, social scientist and researcher on the

subject of sexual minorities in the military.

Q. = MS. FELDMAN, plaintiff atty.
A. = Professor Aaron Belkin, witness


...

1:38

Q. Professor Belkin, have you studied the impact of allowing
gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military on unit
cohesion?
A. Yes.

Q. And in your experience, what is the unit cohesion
rationale?
A. This is the idea that gays and straights cannot form bonds of
trust. And those bonds of trust are necessary for the combat
effectiveness of military units. And so if you allow gay and lesbian
servicemembers to acknowledge who they are honestly, then straight
servicemembers would realize that their peers are gay or lesbian, and
any bonds of trust that had developed would soften or disappear, and
new bonds of trust would not -- it would not be possible to perform
new bonds of trust; therefore, readiness, combat effectiveness, would
deteriorate.

...

1:42

Q. Have you reviewed any research on U.S. military service during the
Gulf War?
A. The Randy Shilts work is about that, yes.

Q. And what did that research find?
A. That there was a pattern in which gays and lesbians had been in the
process of being discharged. But once the war started, commanders
deployed gay and lesbian servicemembers to the front lines, so
suspended their discharge proceedings. They served in combat; they
came back; and the discharge proceedings were reinstigated. Shilts did
not find any detriments to performance or cohesion in the Gulf War.

...

1:44
Q. You mentioned Rhonda Evans.
What were you discussing with regard to Rhonda Evans?

A. So Rhonda Evans did a study for the Palm Center where she looked at
the history of gays and lesbians at war in the United States since
World War II, and she found discharges of gays and lesbians always
goes down during wartime.

The reason that that's interesting is because if a unit cohesion
rationale were true, you would suspect that the first thing the
military would want to do once a war starts is increase the number of
gay discharges to make sure that all the units are cohesive. But the
exact opposite thing happened in World War II -- I'm sorry,
Korea-Vietnam and then Gulf War I and -- that's not right --
Korea-Vietnam/World War II.

...

1:46
Q. What was the findings of the Flag & Officer report?

A. Well, they found that when commanders discovered that someone was
gay in their unit and had the choice between following the law and
discharging them and breaking up their team, or violating the law and
keeping their teams together, they chose the latter course, and that
that was actually better for cohesion and performance.

...

2:07
Q. For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 77?
A. It's my study of gays and lesbians in the British
military.

Q. Based on your research of the British military, what was
the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
British military?
A. It was a nonevent; there was no negative impact on cohesion, morale,
performance, or recruiting -- sorry, cohesion, morale, readiness or
recruiting. I believe that some other recruiters testified that their
jobs had actually become a little bit easier, but we didn't have
statistical data to back that up.

Q. Can you please turn to the following exhibit, Exhibit 78.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 78?
A. That is the study of the gays and lesbians in the Israel
defense forces.

Q. Based on your study of gays and lesbians in the Israel
defense force, what was the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to
serve openly in the Israel military?
A. There was no impact.

Q. Would you turn to the next exhibit, please.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 79?
A. That's the study of gays and lesbians in the Australian
military.

Q. Based on your research of the Australian military, what
was the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in
the Australian military?
A. There was no impact.

Q. Finally, please turn to the next exhibit, Exhibit 80.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 80?
A. That's the study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian
military.

Q. Based on your research of the Canadian military, what was
the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
Canadian military?
A. There was no impact.

Q. Are you aware of any study finding that a country that
allows gays and lesbians to serve openly have experienced any
detriment to military performance as a result of allowing
homosexuals to serve openly?
A. No.

Heh. Quite a lot of other discussion regarding the experiences of

foreign militaries is provided, as well as more detail on the

concept of Unit Cohesion. As usual, read the transcript if

you want more :)

This concludes Volume 2.

Volume 3 continues with this witness, followed by cross examination

by defense.

That's it for day 3.

Day 3, Volume 1: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Day 3, Volume 1


From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-i.pdf

First witness: Patrick Hunnius, testifying regarding authentication of
the tweet by Admiral McMullen.

MR. WOODS - Plaintiff atty (LCR).
MR. GARDNER - Defense atty (US).

We apparently begin the day with Defense describing why Admiral

Mullen's tweet can not be admitted into evidence due to the fact

Admiral Mullen is not a witness in the case and cannot testify as to

it's authenticity. Patrick Hunnius received the tweet, hence his

unscheduled appearance here.

Admiral Mullen's tweet read as follows:

"Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the
right thing to do. Comes down to integrity."

MR. WOODS: First of all, this issue, of course, came up only yesterday
when the Government refused to stipulate to the authenticity of
Admiral Mullen's tweet. It is our belief, Your Honor, and Mr. Hunnius
will confirm this, that that objection based on lack of authenticity
and foundation is a shockingly outrageous position by the
Government. There is no doubt that this is an authentic tweet from
Admiral Mullen. This is obstructionist tactics to the Nth
degree. Mr. Hunnius will testify -- Please don't stare at me, counsel.

THE COURT: Your comments are going to be directed
to the Court. In fact, you may be seated until Mr. Woods is
completed. And then, if necessary, I will hear from you
again.

MR. WOODS: Mr. Hunnius will testify, Your Honor,
that he received this tweet from Admiral Mullen's website or
from Admiral Mullen's Twitter account which happens to be
linked to the Joint Chiefs of Staff website and also linked
to the Department of Defense website.
When we realized that, Your Honor, we notified the
Government last evening that we would be calling Mr. Hunnius
so that they could not this morning claim they were
surprised. We offered last night, again, the opportunity for
the Government to avoid this testimony and this issue by
stipulating to the --
THE COURT: Please slow down.
MR. WOODS: Sorry. I'm a little upset.

MR. WOODS: We offered the Government the opportunity to stipulate to
the authenticity of Exhibit 330 so that Mr. Hunnius' testimony and
this Court's time would not be necessary this morning on this
issue. We did not receive a response.

So, Your Honor, I'd like to present Mr. Hunnius to testify for the
further foundation that apparently the Government insists on providing
for a tweet made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of
America.


...

Thus begins an amazing argument from the defense trying to prevent

Adm. Mullen's 'tweet' from being admitted into evidence. Remarkable

really :)

The 'tweet' is finally admitted into evidence.

Next witness, no timestamps in this transcript.

Q. MS. MYERS. Plaintiff atty (LRC)

A. = THE WITNESS: Joseph Christopher Rocha,

[ I had heard of Mr. Rocha's story before in various blogs -
paraphrased. To read it in his own testimony though was quite the
eye-opener. So, here I will provide some introduction and then
snippets of his experiences.
]

...

Q. Were you a member of the United States Armed Forces?
A. Yes.
Q. Which branch were you a member of?
A. The Navy.
Q. How long did you serve in the Navy?
A. Approximately three and a half years.
Q. When did you enlist in the Navy?
A. On my birthday, the 27th of April of 2004.

...

Q. Why did you apply to the Naval Academy?
A. I wanted to a be a Marine Corps officer and the Naval
Academy commissions both.
Q. And why did you want to be a Marine Corps officer?
A. My family has a history of Marine Corps service, and
9/11 had happened during when I was deciding what I wanted to
do with my life, and military service and a military career
is what I had decided.

Q. What was it about 9/11 that made you decide to focus on
a military career?
A. Prior to 9/11 I had gone through several stages of what I wanted to
do with my life. I came from a background of violence and abuse, and I
wanted to find a way that I could help people. So I went through a
phase of wanting to be, say, a police officer or a
firefighter. Ultimately, I decided that in public service I could help
the most amount of people. Then 9/11 happened and I realized -- I had
a change of mind. To me I thought that military service and national
security were more important.

Q. Were you admitted to the Naval Academy at that time?
A. No.
Q. And was that why you enlisted?
A. Yes.

...

Q. When you entered boot camp, how long did you plan to stay in the military?
A. At least 20 years

...

Q. Once you arrived at the Naval Support Activity base, did
you express any interest in any other units?
A. Yes. The first thing I did was to find the on duty
K-9 handler and approach him and ask how I could go about
trying to become a handler.

Q. And why were you interested in becoming a handler?
A. It was the most interesting way to specialize in my job,
and I felt that explosive detection, second to EOD, was
probably the most important job that existed at that time
considering -- considering that most of our service members
were dying by IED and not by gunfire.

...

Q. Did you have to do anything else to qualify as kennel
support?
A. I had to take a written exam. And then once I passed my
interview with Petty Officer Valdivia, I had to do an oral
exam with Chief Toussaint. And then I had to present myself
to the kennel and the kennel would have a vote as to whether
they felt that I should be part of their community.

Q. And who was Chief Petty Officer Toussaint?
A. Chief Petty Officer Toussaint was the kennel master.
Q. And who was Chief Petty Officer Toussaint's direct
supervisor?
A. To my knowledge, it was Lieutenant McPherson, the
regional security officer.
Q. In your experience, is it uncommon for a chief petty
officer to be supervised by a regional commander?

A. To my understanding, there was an entire chain of
command that was missing between the chief of our unit and a
regional officer who oversaw the entire region, yes.
Q. And did you meet and pass the oral exam at that time
with Chief Petty Officer Toussaint?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you meet the other qualifications in order to
qualify for kennel support?
A. Yes.

...

Q. Once you officially became a kennel support member, what
was your goal for the next step in your career?
A. My immediate goal was to earn dog school.
Q. And can you explain what dog school is?
A. The proper term is Military Working Dog School and that
is where we are trained to be able to -- well, to be able to
be either an explosive detection handler, a narcotics
detection handler, and a patrol handler.

Q. At this time did you also have a larger goal in mind?
A. Yes. I continued to aspire to be accepted to the United
States Naval Academy, and I put in an application that year
as well.

Q. And at the time you joined the dog handling unit as a
kennel support member, did you also participate in other
activities with the Marines on the base outside of the dog
handling unit?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain what those activities were?
A. I first started working individually with Marines
working out, training with them, and then by gaining their
respect and by them learning who I was and what my intentions
were, which was hopefully to get to the Naval Academy, and more so to become a Marine Corps officer, I was then -- I
began to train in more formal settings with them, combat
training, earning their own requirements with permission of
their chain in command, their martial arts qualifications,
their combat, swimming qualifications, and being allowed to
go out into the desert and train with them.

Q. And you did this because you thought it would help your
admission to the Naval Academy?
A. I did it out of pure interest; I really enjoyed those
things. And I also did it because I did think that it would
look good on my application, and I also wanted to be in top
physical condition if I were to be accepted to the Academy.

Q. Were the other members of the dog handling unit in top
physical condition?
A. No.

Q. Once you became a kennel support member, did you
experience any harassment from other members of the dog
handling unit?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you please describe how the harassment began?
A. I was instructed that I would have to earn my place
amongst that community, that I would have to -- I guess
that's the best way of describing it. And harassment started
with being forced to sing and dance for Toussaint on video
camera. It went on to being ordered to report to the kennel and then being hosed down in full uniform in the middle of
the day by three different hoses.

Q. Would you describe being hosed in the middle of the day
in your uniform as hazing?
A. Yes.
Q. What is hazing?
A. I think that hazing is being given an order that is
unlawful in a fashion to either punish you or humiliate you.
Q. Does the Navy policy permit hazing?
A. No.
Q. Did you report the hazing incident of being hosed down
to Chief Petty Officer Toussaint?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. He was there.

...

Q. Were there other incidents that you would describe as
hazing?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you please give me an example?
A. For my birthday Chief Toussaint called me into his
office and asked me why I hadn't told him it was my birthday.

I'm not quite sure what my response was, but he then ordered
that I bend over one of the desks in his office and he then
called in every handler that was available to, what he said,
give me their best until he was satisfied.

Q. What do you mean by give them your best?
A. Hit me as hard as they could 19 times. And these were
grown men in their mid-30s.
Q. How did that incident make you feel?
A. Well, considering that it was ordered by my chief, it
made me feel helpless and it kind of established that
whatever Toussaint wanted was going to happen.

Q. Did the nature of the hazing begin to change after these
first few incidents?
A. Yes.

Q. In what way?
A. By this time after April it started to become common to
speak of me as being gay. And I found out that Chief
Toussaint was telling the handlers that I was gay, so it
wasn't just in the bottom ranks or within my own peers, but
it was coming from the top. And the hazing began to focus on
the idea that I was gay.

Q. Do you know how the idea that you were gay became spread
through the unit?
A. It was awfully simple. There was a culture of drinking, smoking,
gambling, and soliciting prostitution, and at that age I did none of
those. I was asked if I -- it got to the point where I was asked if I
would sleep with a hooker if they bought it for me that same evening,
and I said no. And that led to the absurdly simple question of, are
you a faggot. And I refused to answer. And I think that was enough for
them. That gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Q. Did you know at that time that you were a homosexual?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know when you enlisted in the military -- I'm
sorry, in the Navy that you were homosexual?
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you enlist in the Navy knowing about "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" and knowing that you were homosexual?
A. I had only just discovered that I was gay and I had no
intentions of having a relationship any time soon. And my
desire to serve was far more important to me than my being
gay. And more so, I really did think that the policy would
protect me, and I thought that it was as simple as if I never
told anyone I was gay I could be as successful in my career
as any other service member.

Q. So back to the base in Bahrain, what did you do when you
were accused of being homosexual by the members of the other
dog handling unit?
A. I simply refused to answer them.
Q. Why did you refuse to answer?
A. I had too much honor to say that I was straight and I wasn't, and I
knew that it was against the law to say that I was.


...

After describing other various incidents of harassment

Q. Did you report this incident to anyone?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because this specific incident were first and second
classes. They were the senior handlers in the kennel. And I
knew at this point that not only had Toussaint set the
example but that Toussaint knew what his senior handlers were
doing.

...

Q. Tell me about the worst hazing you experienced relating
to your sexual orientation.
A. The worst hazing I experienced was during the training
scenario at the Department of Defense Dependent School.

Q. And why were you going to the Department of Defense
School?
A. During the summer the Department of Defense Dependent School was a
prime location to train the dogs because of the environments, the many
rooms, and the many different scenarios that we could build there.

Q. What do you mean -- when you say different scenarios
what do you mean? What was a typical training exercise for
the dogs there?
A. A typical training exercise would be that there was, say, a bomb
threat. And the handler would be given a general location and the
handler would then be examined as he performed as though it were real
life. Other scenarios, we would also have to train the dog not only in
detection but also in patrol. So say a scenario would be created where
there was domestic violence in a room that had been reported or maybe
reports of insurgents in the building.

Q. How many dogs did you bring to the training site that
day?
A. I would estimate that there was at least a dozen dogs.
Any dog that was available would have been there.

Q. What happened next?
A. I entered the building with Chief Toussaint and with
another kennel support, Seaman Martinez. And Chief Toussaint
would be the person who would decide what the scenario would
be.

And this day he decided that the scenario would be of me pretending to
perform oral sex on Seaman Martinez. And he instructed how he wanted
it to happen. He had us pull a sofa over and away from the door. He
instructed Seaman Martinez to sit down facing away from the door, to
spread his legs.

He instructed me to get on my knees and position myself in front of
Seaman Martinez's crotch. And as each handler came through, I was
instructed to pretend to perform oral sex on this service member. I
was coached each time as to how to be more gay and more queer.

I was ordered to add hand gestures suggesting wiping semen off of my
face.

And when the handlers came in, I was instructed to jump up and be
queenie and pretend as though we were having a lover's quarrel and
just -- I mean, he coached this to great detail.

Q. How did this incident of harassment make you feel?
A. I don't know that I've ever quite recovered from that. It was
dehumanizing. I felt like an animal. And I simply could not understand
why it was happening.

Q. Did you report this incident?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. At this point I was approximately one month from earning
dog school, and at this point I had gone through so much
harassment and so much hazing and so much abuse that I had to
have something to prove that it was all worth it. And dog
school was that something. I had to get something out of
this.
 
...

Plaintiff wants to introduce a performance review of the witness into the record. Defense objects. After some back and forth, the performance review is admitted as evidence.

Q. Can you please turn to the second page. And whose
signature is on this report?
A. Petty Officer Valdivia.
Q. Are there any other signatures on this report?
A. Yes, Chief Toussaint.
Q. Can you please read the comments on performance section
for the Court?

A. Master-At-Arms Seaman Rocha is a dedicated, extremely
reliable performer who approaches every task with enthusiasm.
Highly motivated. Achieved JQR Level 1 qualifications in
less than 30 days. Volunteered 25 off-duty hours at the
kennel learning the basic knowledge, procedures, and
importance of kennel support duties. His interest and
initiative in the MWD program led to his being hand-selected
for the position as kennel support. Demonstrated
professional initiative while off duty by completing six
college credit units, and is currently enrolled in six
college credit units at Grantham University. Mission
oriented. Meticulously maintained all vital military working
dog --

Q. Mr. Rocha.
A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Can you just read a little bit more slowly, please.
A. I'm very sorry.

Meticulously maintained all vital MWD probably
cause, training and archive folders to maintain 100 percent
proficiency. Dependable and reliable. Responsible for maintaining the
health and welfare of 20 military working dogs stationed at NSA
Bahrain, in addition to transcient MWD's. Ensures the MWD food and
stool charts are accurate and maintains proper medications for each
MWD. Assisted 12 MWD teams with training, vehicle and water craft
inspections, and perimeter patrols, while ensuring the safety of NSA
personnel and visiting ships. Master-At-Arms Seaman Rocha is a proven
performer. He is highly recommended for advancement.


...

Okay, his story does not stop here (it gets worse), but I run the

risk of completely cut/pasting the entire transcript here. Read it

yourself - Of course, I strongly encourage it.

Court is adjourned for recess. The next post (and respective volume of

testimony) takes place afterwards, with this same witness continuing

his testimony.

Day 2, Volume 3: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Note: This transcript was clearly done by someone else as the format
is a little different (and harder to deal with). There may be some
(more :) formatting errors, sorry. There are also no apparent
timestamps in this volume. This was the last volume of day 2.

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-2-vol-iii.pdf


MR. SIMPSON, Defense atty.

Q. = Ms. Feldman, plaintiff atty.

A. = ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN
Currently a professor of law, University of California
Hastings College of law. [Served in the USAF, a space
operations officer and as a strategic analyst in Denver,
later posted to Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base in Colorado Springs
as an orbital analyst related to the Strategic Defense Initiative.]

Testimony regarding her Masters thesis...

Q. And did any part of your master's thesis relate to the issue of
gays and lesbians in the military?
A. It did.
Q. How did it relate to gays and lesbians in the military?
A. One of the primary concerns by the -- the officers and
civilians who were deciding about women's military uniforms
was making sure women did not appear too mannish, that they
look like men in uniform. And this was -- this was
reflected in the minutes of the boards that met and the
committees and also in the designers' notes as they did
this. And it was -- it was very difficult for the designers
to come up with acceptably feminine uniforms within the
confines of a -- of the -- the functional requirements of
those uniforms.

So what I wrote about in part was how the fear of women looking like
men, which is very closely related to the fear of women being
lesbians, shaped the design of women's military uniforms.

...

Q. How long were you employed at the Air Force Academy?
A. About two years.
Q. Why did you decide to leave the Air Force Academy?
A. Because I realized I was a lesbian and that I couldn't
stay in the Air Force and still maintain the standards of
professionalism that I felt obliged to maintain.
Q. And what do mean by that, you felt that you couldn't
maintain the standards of professionalism?
A. Every day when I walked past the elevator in -- on the
sixth floor of the building where my office was, I saw a
sign that said "Academy core values: Integrity first,
service before self, excellence in all we do." And I felt that I
couldn't be -- I couldn't maintain those values and not -- not be open
about my sexual orientation.

Q. Do you feel that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" prevented you
from remaining a teacher at the Air Force Academy?

MR. SIMPSON: Objection, your Honor. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.



...

After testimony certifying her an expert in military law and justice.

Q. Can you describe the role of women in the U.S. military
following the end of the draft and moving into the
all-voluntary force?
A. Women rescued the all-volunteer force. Their quality
indicators were higher than the men who enlisted in those
first years without a draft. Women gradually moved into an
increasing number of military occupations, and they also
gradually moved up the promotion chain and were appointed
and earned higher levels of military service and control.
The restriction on women's ability to command men was
lifted, and the rules regarding women not being permitted in
certain jobs were lifted, especially in the 1990s.

...

Q. Professor Hillman, based on your research, how has
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" impacted women in the military?

A. Much more than it has impacted men in the military.
The reason for that is what we just talked about. The
military is a non-traditional career choice for women, and
the appearance of women in military uniform is more
masculine than the appearance of women in many other
professions. For women to join a nontraditional masculine
profession, they are automatically suspect to accusations
that they don't like men, that they wish to be men, that
they are, in fact, lesbians. So women are vulnerable to
charges of lesbianism in a way that men in the military are
not.

Q. And have you studied the percentage of women that have
been discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

A. Yes.
Q. What percentage of women are discharged from the
military compared to the percentage of total women in the
military?
A. It's two to three times as high as the men who are
discharged. In other words, women are 15 percent of the
total force. Women are, perhaps, 30 percent of the
discharges. But I will say those discharge figures don't
represent the full impact, the disproportionate impact, of
that policy on service women. Because in many ways the
harassment and derision that is associated with accusations
of lesbianism doesn't show up in the actual discharge
figures for the policy itself.

...

Q. You mentioned "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before. Do you
believe that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" furthers the incident
of sexual harassment against women in the military?

A. Yes.
Q. Why do you believe that's the case?
A. Because it makes it more difficult for women to rebuff
sexual advances of men. Because it makes lesbian-baiting
possible because of the ban on women's open service by women
who might be lesbians and because it creates a hierarchy of
sexual orientation that clearly privileges heterosexuality
over homosexuality.

Q. Can you describe or explain for the court what
lesbian-baiting is?
A. When a women is accused of being a lesbian and is
therefore subject to discharge and censure under the policy.
Q. And you talked about a hierarchy of sexual orientation.
Can you explain what you meant by that?
A. Well, if a wom[a]n didn't have to fear being accused of
being homosexual, then there wouldn't be this potential for
harassment and abuse within the confines of a military
workplace.

...

Q. And why does "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" disproportionately
impact African-American women?

A. That answer is not extant in the literature. But the scholars who
study this surmise that it is because African-American women in many
different workplaces who are in positions of authority are more likely
to be challenged, and they are more likely to be challenged sexually,
in particular. So they are in an even more vulnerable position than
non-African-American female service members.

Followed by cross examination by defense (US Government)

Q. = MR. SIMPSON, defense atty
A. = ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN


...



Q. Now, I believe you testified regarding "lesbian
baiting."
Are you familiar, Professor, with the hearings
before Congress that occurred before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
was enacted?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware that Judith Stiehm provided testimony
regarding this phenomenon that you've called lesbian
baiting?
A. Yes. And no one listened to her.

Q. Nevertheless, that testimony is included within the legislative
record; correct?
A. Yes. A voice in the wilderness. [Emphasis added]

...

Q. Professor, are you aware that the Department of Defense
has recently issued new regulations regarding "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell"?
A. Yes.
Q. Those regulations -- is it true, that those regulations
limit what constitutes credible evidence of homosexual
conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. Those regulations -- is it true, that those regulations
limit what constitutes credible evidence of homosexual
conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that those regulations make more
difficult the use of lesbian baiting to discharge a female
service member?
A. They might, yes.
Q. Would you agree, Professor, that most discharges under
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" result from a statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Maybe I should go back a little bit on that. This
charge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fall either within one
caused by a statement or one caused by conduct, and act;
correct?
A. Yes, although there is a very blurred distinction
between statement and conduct. I do know that the numbers
of discharges that the government attributes to statements
of sexual orientation accounts for the lion's share of
discharges under the policy.
Q. Do you know what that percentage is?
A. I believe it's upwards of three-quarters.
Q. That are attributable to statements?
A. Yes.

Really?! Statements?, would be nice to know the breakdown

between self-statements and 3rd party statements.

What follows was lots of evidence related arguments, time discussions, etc. Court adjourned

at 3:54 p.m

Day 2, Volume 2: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

DADT trial, day 2 highlights. This will be long, sorry. I mainly
focus on Stephen Vossler's testimony, perhaps too much of it. An
actual soldier, who served with actual gay people in the actual army.

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-2-vol-ii.pdf


MR. GARDNER = defense atty

Q. = Ms. Myers, plaintiff's atty

A. = STEPHEN VOSSLER, plaintiff witness,
Korean language specialist, testifying on what it was like sharing
quarters with another Korean language specialist (Derek Thomas)
who was undergoing discharge proceeding under DADT.


10:58
Q. And during the time that you lived with Mr. Thomas, was he
in the process of being discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell"?
A. Yes. When I moved into the room that he was already
occupying, he was already in the process of being discharged.
Q. And during that process, about how long did you live with
Mr. Thomas?
A. About nine months.

Q. During the time that you lived with Mr. Thomas, did you
find that he, in your experience, was doing well as a soldier?
MR. GARDNER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I noticed that Derek wasn't -- just
generally speaking, wasn't doing well. I thought it was very
difficult on him, because he was such a talented soldier. He
had graduated the Korean basic course. He graduated very well.

He certainly passed his course, which is difficult. He was also very
good at the physical training portion of being a soldier. He was also
very skilled at some of the other type of tasks while he was there. He
volunteered to be a trainer of other soldiers and taught them some
basic soldiering skills. And he was very proficient at all of that.

And during the discharge process, he was doing day-to-day duties that
consisted more of things that would generally be reserved for somebody
who was either being punished or was being discharged because they
couldn't meet the requirements for being a soldier, whether it be they
weren't technically or tactically proficient enough or they couldn't
pass the physical fitness test. And he was none of those things. He
was, generally speaking, a very good soldier, an above-average
soldier, and was just doing things that -- he was separated from the
rest of the unit, doing things that he was overqualified for.

...

11:02
Q. And during the time that you were living with him, you
said that Mr. Thomas was not participating with his unit any
longer; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And in your view, what does it mean if a soldier is not
allowed to participate with his unit?
A. Well, that generally means that he or she is a bad
soldier.
Q. Is that what you thought of Mr. Thomas?
A. Initially, yes.
Q. And why did you think that?
A. Well, I guess the logic was that if the Army saw fit to pull him
apart from the rest of the unit in terms of day-to-day duty, then it
must be just.

...

11:06
Q. Is it your understanding that Mr. Thomas was overqualified
for the jobs that he was doing during the time he was being
discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
A. He was -- yeah, he was obviously overqualified for his
tasks. I mean, in order to even have an opportunity to train
for the job that he was trained for, you have to be quite
exceptional.
Q. Did you have any problems living with Mr. Thomas?
A. I did not. It was awkward at first, but that passed.
Q. And why was it awkward at first when you started living
with Mr. Thomas?

A. I was not comfortable being in such close proximity to
somebody who was gay, a gay man. That was something that I had
never experienced up until that point. And I guess I had it in
my head that that would be something that I would constantly
have to battle, in that he would be coming onto me or -- I was
just worried that it would be a very sort of tense living situation.

Q. Was it a tense living situation?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Did any of your concerns about how Mr. Thomas might behave
come to pass?
A. Other than having to listen to a little bit more Cher than
I would normally choose to do, no. It was actually a pretty
great living situation.

LOL - re: Cher reference :)

Q. And why was it a pretty great living situation?
A. He was a very good roommate. He was very courteous. If I
was sleeping or just relaxing or something when he came back
late, he would leave the lights off. He's very quiet; he's
very clean. He would bring friends over. We would all hang
out. We'd go out to dinner. It was a good friendship. It was
a good living situation.

...

11:10

Q. Did you develop close friendships with other people while
you were at the Defense Language Institute?
A. Yes. I developed a lot of close friendships while I was
there.
Q. Was one of those close relationships with Specialist
Jarrod Chlapowski?
A. Yes, it was.

Q. What were some of Specialist Chlapowski's characteristics
that created the foundation for your friendship with him?

A. We were very similar in sort of our outlook on the
military. We were both young men, very competitive, very
physically fit; and we spent time on our own sort of
cultivating those skills. We tried to be the top of our class.
We studied very hard. We worked very hard, at our language, at
our soldiering skills. We were fellow nerds. We would read
books and discuss things. I was a science fiction guy; he was
a fantasy guy. And we shared a lot of the same personal
interests. They weren't exactly the same, but they were close
enough to interest us, but not so far apart that we were
disinterested.

Q. And what language was Specialist Chlapowski studying?
A. He was also a Korean language student.
Q. And to circle back quickly, during the time that you lived
with Mr. Thomas, did you ever have any problems sharing a
bathroom or shower space with him?
A. I did not have any problems.
Q. During the time that you became friends with
Specialist Chlapowski, did you learn anything else of interest
about him?

A. Yes. At one point his roommate showed me a picture of Jarrod and
another man standing very close to each other on a beach, and he said,
Did you know that Jarrod was gay?
Q. How did you react to that information about Mr. Chlapowski's sexual
orientation?

A. I thought it was -- I just thought it was kind of a crazy
story that his roommate made up, because, in my mind, there was
no way that Jarrod could be gay. So I just -- I didn't dismiss
it in terms of I just forgot about it, but I did dismiss it in
terms of its point. I didn't think that Jarrod was gay. And
then later in the week, when I confronted Jarrod about it, I
didn't ask him, Hey, are you gay; I said, Hey, can you believe
this crazy story your roommate told me; he said that you were
gay; isn't that crazy?
Q. And why didn't you think Specialist Chlapowski could be
homosexual?

A. Up until that point, I still held some very stereotyping
beliefs about gays and lesbians. I thought that -- whereas
Derek Thomas sort of fit the bill, so to speak, he was very
flamboyant, very effeminate, Jarrod was quite the opposite. He
was very masculine, very sort of centered. He's a very sort of
mellow personality, very professional, very calm.

...

Q. When you talked to Specialist Chlapowski about his sexual
orientation, what was his reaction?
THE WITNESS: He was obviously very uncomfortable. I
think he was probably scared, maybe a little embarrassed. I
don't really know what his emotions were. But he was obviously
very uncomfortable. And rather than denying it, rather than
saying, No, I'm not gay; ha ha, that is a very funny story, he
said, Yeah, I am gay; is that a problem?

Q. And how did his disclosure of his sexual orientation make
you feel?
A. Well, it was awkward at first. It was something that I
didn't expect, and I was kind of in disbelief, because I didn't
think it would be possible for me to cultivate a friendship
with a gay man.
Q. Did that prove to be not the case?
A. Yeah, that's definitely not the case. We're very good
friends.

...

11:41
Q. And why have you spoken out against "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" and devoted so much time to that issue?
A. In my opinion, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is -- it's a very
discriminatory law, and I've watched it have some pretty grave
effects on people. It was very difficult on my friend Derek.
Jarrod always wanted to make a career out of the military, and
he got out. And it just, in my opinion, doesn't seem in line
with American values. It's very discriminatory, and I don't
understand how it's a law in my country.

I'll stop here, otherwise you might as well just read the PDF

yourself. And you really should, they end up serving together for some time and remain good

friends.

Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

On July 13th, a federal trial commenced in U.S. District Court, Central California, pitting the Log Cabin Republicans (LRC) [Plaintiff] against the United States of America [Defendant], in an attempt to have the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy declared unconstitutional.

I had been reviewing the daily transcripts and posting snippets of them to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker Blog, but as they are not following this trial, I felt it was probably inappropriate for me to attach lengthy posts to whatever thread was currently active.  No one complained, but still...

In addition, their commenting system makes it impossible to go back and correct mistakes in comments (and I've made a few).  So, instead, I will post these summaries on this blog, and let the people on the P8TT site know where to look for those that are interested in this subject.

The transcripts I am using are being made available on the LRC site here.

I recommend reading them directly if you are interested.  On this blog, I will only provide highlights as well as a direct link to the PDF transcript on the LRC website.

My next two posts will be essentially a cut and paste of what I already posted on the P8TT site, for completeness (and a few bug fixes that I could not correct on the P8TT site).

It takes quite some time to wade through these transcripts, so there will be delays from when the day's court has ended, when the transcripts become available from LRC, and when I get time to read them and provide some highlights.  There are usually 3 PDF's per day of court, though I will not necessarily provide a post for each one, nor will I necessarily post for each day.


Enjoy!