Lawyers: Military Policy Like Colorado Amendment

Lawyers for two gay servicemen contend there are similarities between a Colorado amendment recently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuality.

Navy Lt. Richard P. Watson and California National Guard 1st Lt. Andrew Holmes appeared before a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an hour-long hearing Monday.

Watson’s lawyer, Christopher Bakes, cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s May decision striking down Colorado Amendment 2 because it excluded lesbians and gay men from equal-protection rights.

The high court called the law unprecedented because it placed gay people in a separate class.

Bakes contends the similarities between the Colorado law and the military policy on homosexuality are strikingly similar.

The military policy, like the Colorado amendment, “isolates one group and eliminates their rights,” Bakes said.

A lawyer for the government, Roy Hawkens, contends that the military policy differs from the Colorado amendment.

“This is less sweeping and is directed at military service members,” Hawkens said.

In March, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly ruled that the Navy had a constitutional right to discharge Watson, a decorated veteran who in 1994 revealed that he was gay and refused to promise not to abstain from homosexual acts.

Also in March, U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland, Calif., ruled that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was unconstitutional and ordered the National Guard to reinstate Holmes, also a decorated veteran, who in 1993 told his commanding officer that he was gay.

Lawyers for Watson and Holmes contend that the military policy violates the constitutional rights of free speech, equal protection and due process.

The government contends that it is necessary to discharge gay people to maintain cohesiveness and morale among military units.

The three-judge panel did not indicate when it would rule.