Subject: Gay Naval Officer Argues Case Before U.S. Appeals Court;
From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:43:23 -0400

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND
Press Release

Gay Naval Officer Argues Case Before U.S. Appeals Court;
Challenges to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"  Make Their Way Up Courts

(ALEXANDRIA, Va., September 8, 1995)   In another legal challenge to the
government's ban on lesbian and gay servicemembers, attorneys representing a
gay naval officer will present oral argument before a panel of three
appellate court judges on Tuesday, Sept. 12, 1995.

"All challenges to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'  boil down to the same issue,"
 said Beatrice Dohrn, legal director at Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund, which submitted a brief in the case.  "It is unconstitutional to
discharge military officers who are openly lesbian or gay simply because some
members of the armed services do not want to serve with gay colleagues.
 Governmental policies based solely on prejudice are in direct violation of
the Constitution."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Alexandria, Va. will hear
the appeal of Lt. Paul G. Thomasson, a P-3 surveillance aircraft pilot who
was discharged from the Navy after announcing his sexual orientation in a
letter to his commanding officers.  The letter, which was sent one day after
the new regulations took effect in March 1994, stated, "It is unfortunate
that knowledge of my orientation may make some 'uncomfortable,'  but the time
has come when I can remain silent no longer.  I am gay."   With those words,
the discharge proceeding against Thomasson began.

Lambda's brief, submitted jointly with the American Civil Liberties Union,
contends that the revised regulations, which were codified by Congress and
President Clinton in 1993, are based entirely on the presumed prejudices of
others.  The brief further contends that the National Defense Authorization
Act, as the codified regulations are named, violates the constitutional
guarantees of free expression and equal protection.  

In a ruling that conflicts with a federal judge's decision in New York, a
district court judge in Alexandria ruled against Thomasson on June 14, and
upheld the constitutionality of the military s exclusion of lesbians and gay
men.  "The military has concluded that allowing homosexuals to serve in the
military would undermine unit cohesion and military readiness,"  wrote U.S.
District Court Judge Claude Hilton.

"The lower court was mistaken in its analysis," said Dohrn.  "This policy was
not based on any assessment of the ability of lesbians and gay men to perform
in military jobs.  By the government's own admission, gay people are capable
of serving, have served, and are serving in the military with distinction.
 You only need to look as far as the spotless service records of people like
Thomasson to see that job performance is not the issue under-lying these
discharges.  The issue is prejudice, and whether the Constitution will permit
laws based purely on it."

The case in New York, Able v. USA the first lawsuit to directly challenge the
new law is also making its way up to the appellate level.  Last March, U.S.
District Court Judge Eugene Nickerson of the Eastern District of New York
dealt a major blow to the law by striking it down on several constitutional
grounds.  Lambda, which brought the case jointly with the ACLU on behalf of
six lesbian and gay servicemembers, will be submitting its appellate briefs
on Sept. 27th.   Oral argument is expected to be scheduled in October.
(Thomasson v. Perry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No.
95-2185.)

--30-- 

Contact:	Beatrice Dohrn, (212) 995-8585/8985