Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck a blow to the future of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the military policy that prohibits openly GLBT people from serving in the armed forces of the United States.

The policy is intended to avoid the “unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion” that the military maintains openly gay personnel pose. However, in Witt v. the United States Department of the Air Force, the court’s three-judge panel ruled that the Air Force must prove its dismissal of Maj. Margaret Witt, an 18-year service member, furthered troop readiness and unit cohesion.

This is a landmark decision because it means the military can no longer automatically discharge GLBT personnel.

The Air Force dismissed Maj. Witt, who was not openly gay, in 2006. Witt was two years away from retirement. But after an anonymous tip revealed her relationship with a civilian woman, the Air Force terminated her employment.

Witt sued. But a federal district court judge threw out the suit, finding that Lawrence v. Texas (the case that over ruled a Texas law effectively criminalizing sex between GLBT persons) did not apply to the military.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that such military policies are only enforceable when military officials can point to a real and immediate military concern. It found Witt had never engaged in sex while in active service; her relationship was with a civilian, and she had never been “openly” gay. Consequently, the court found that her sexual relationship had no impact on the military and did not constitute a threat to unit cohesion. And it reinstated her law suit.

Military officials argued in vain that the mere presence of homosexuals hurts unit cohesion. But the court found that the Air Force itself hurt unit cohesion by discharging Witt: Her colleagues, for instance, had been furious, and one had resigned in protest. The court found that unit cohesion is affected when gays and lesbians are discharged over the objections of fellow personnel and when there is a shortage of medical personnel: Witt, a flight nurse, had served in Afghanistan.

It would seem only logical that the Department of Defense would now modify its sex-phobic policies. But that would be naïve. There are those within Congress and the military who desperately want to keep DADT because they fear that without it, “Christian families will not send their boys into military service,” as Congressmember Duncan Hunter said recently during a debate among Republican candidates for president.

So it’s completely possible that the Witt case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which would probably rule in Witt’s favor by a 5-4 margin.

In the last two weeks, courts have rendered major rulings on gay rights. They are big steps in the right direction, but will the military be exempt from marching the path of progress? For instance, assuming GLBT military personnel get married in California, does the military have to recognize the marriages, thus awarding more pay to married service members?

That remains to be seen.