May Ask, Can Tell?

I like Equal Rights...except when I DON'T

         This week, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, officially rendering the current military policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional--which, of course it is, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  However, this is still a tentative step in the direction toward equality, and experts are currently predicting that this, the issue that was successfully filibustered out of the senate just months ago, will reach the nations highest Bench by mid-2011.  That being said, gays within the military have been cautioned against coming out to their superiors, as protocol is still uncertain--a similar state of limbo to that which gay couples found themselves in the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling with regards to Proposition 8 in the state of California. Although this and other recent decisions (i.e. Judge Joseph Tauro's of Boston's twin rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act, another semi-archaic piece of legislation that looks suspiciously unconstitutional) have been steps in a positive direction for gay rights groups advocating for equality, the country is still at an uncertain stage in this, the latest Civil Rights Movement.
          Having several good friends and various family members that happen to be gay, I am hoping that when these cases hit the Supreme Court within the next couple of years, the judges rule in the favor of those whose civil rights are clearly being denied by discriminatory legislation such as Prop. 8 and DADT, rather than in favor of their opponents, whose most ardent backers tend to belong to fundamentalist religious organization trying to push their own agendas.  Along with Freedom of Speech, I believe the Constitution is also relatively explicit with regards to the Separation of Church and State.  I'm just saying.....
          Morality and constitutionality aside, however, DADT still doesn't make any sense.  According to a recent Newsweek article, which featured interviews with veterans discharged under DADT, the policy is actually a costly one, as thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars in training are put to waste.  Some of the veterans interviewed had had highly specialized occupations, such as interpreters of obscure dialects of Pashto and other languages within Afghanistan.  If such people were discharged arbitrarily, whole missions might be jeopardized--it all seems a bit senseless.
          That said, I think it is important to remember that as well as being discriminatory and unconstitutional, laws such as the ones struck down in California and Massachusetts are also often inefficient and grounded in prejudice and fallacious thinking.