DADT: Unconstitutional. (Seriously?).

This WaPo article tells the story.

Judge in California rules on military’s ban on openly gay service members

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 10, 2010; 1:31 AM

A federal judge in California said Thursday that the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members violates the Constitution, the most recent in a string of court rulings overturning restrictions on the rights of the country’s gay men and lesbians.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is a violation of due process and First Amendment rights. Instead of being necessary for military readiness, she said, the policy has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

Read more>>>>

Suddenly? After all these years? Somebody figured out how/why DADT violates the U.S. Constitution? Really? How many dedicated, well-trained, talented service members have been discharged since DADT went into effect? How hard was it to figure this out? I just saw Dan Choi on MSNBC (with a huge smile) saying that DADT does violate First Amendment rights of some people in some instances. Three little words, he explained, like “I am gay,” or “I love you,” or “I love X” (or Y as the case may be) spoken in the presence of the wrong person are enough to get an otherwise able-bodied service member discharged. How long did it take to figure this out? Where is the Executive Order striking DADT down?