Over at AmericaBlog, Joe Sudbay and John Aravosis criticize the the Department of Justice, “which has aggressively defended the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law” for asking the court to delay its ruling in light of Congress’ recent action on the issue:

The problem with that is, of course, that the legislation 1) hasn’t passed: 2) doesn’t repeal DADT; and 3) no one, not even the Obama DOJ, can say when the discharges will end. DOJ notes, “The House and Senate bills contain identical language and are attached hereto Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, for the Court’s convenience and review.” But, that ignores the Senate floor process where we know opponents of repeal intend to offer killer amendments. This brief reads like something a first-year law student wrote.

I find it interesting that the DOJ argues that the court should defer ruling in a case when the DOJ chooses to defend laws like DADT and DOMA when it’s not absolutely necessary to defend those laws.

But the real problem here is the opposite. I’ll grant that repeal certainly isn’t final and faces some substantial hurdles in the Senate, but those obstacles are hills compared to the mountains we’ll have to climb if the court upholds the policy. A court decision supporting the ban could energize not only conservative advocates but also the men of the military who have publicly embraced the President’s decision as a general concept, but seem very uncertain about the prospect of actually regulating DADT out of existence.

It’s those men — Gates, Mullen and the Chiefs — who are responsible for actually changing the military’s regulations in this regard and (given their already considerable foot dragging on the issue) it’s just not believable to say that a court decision will spring them into action. To some degree, the policy change will have to occur on their time table, like it or not. And the time table of the Murphy compromise, is something we could all probably (however grudgingly) live with.

Duncan Osborne has an article in Gay City News highlighting the remarkable enthusiasm gap between supporters of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and advocates for its repeal. While repeal groups spearheaded an impressive campaign micro targeting six swing senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee, “tight-wing groups that opposed repeal don’t appear to have worked very hard“:

“A number of Congressional offices have indicated that they have received very little grassroots calls, emails, faxes, etc., opposing repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Christian A. Berle, director of the Washington office of the Log Cabin Republicans, wrote in an email. “This is a far cry from the vitriol that was being espoused by those opposing gay rights, when Congress debated open service in 1993.”[...]

The Alliance Defense Fund, Focus on the Family, the American Conservative Union, and the Center for Security Policy announced their opposition to repeal in a February 11 press event produced by the Center For Military Readiness, but these groups do not appear to have done more than that.

HRC began working with Servicemembers United last year to produce the Voices of Honor tour, which visited 50 cities and featured gay and straight veterans speaking in support of repeal. HRC generated 350,000 emails to members of Congress, sent nearly 30,000 letters or postcards, and made roughly 1,000 lobbying visits. [...]

Repeal supporters and opponents lobbied on dozens if not hundreds of issues, not just Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, during the first quarter of 2010, but the difference in resources spent is striking. On all the issues they lobbied on, repeal supporters spent $1.75 million while opponents spent just $125,000.

The lack of enthusiasm from the other side, the military leadership’s support for repeal, and the growing acceptance of gay people, raises the question of why opponents of the policy couldn’t secure a better deal or garner more “swing” votes. Some members, like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), are still not comfortable with gay people. Others, like Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) are playing politics with repeal. There is certainly more blame to go around, and the White House probably deserves some of it. But given these spending numbers, the frustration over the delay in actually repealing the measure is certainly understandable.