The Log Cabin Republicans' case against the military's ban on openly gay troops wound down in federal court in California on Friday. "Our military will give a convicted felon a gun but will not give a gay guy a typewriter," said Dan Woods, the lawyer representing the Log Cabin Republicans, in closing arguments. Judge Virginia Phillips interrupted Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Freeborne during his closing arguments to dispute his understanding of the scope of the court's review.

The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy fails to set forth a government interest that warrants intruding on the constitutionally protected rights of openly homosexual members to serve, the Log Cabin Republicans argued as the trial in the organization's challenge to the policy wound down on Friday.

"It is indisputable that Don't Ask, Don't Tell intrudes on the personal and private lives of homosexuals," said Dan Woods, a partner in the Los Angeles office of White & Case who represents the gay Republican group pro bono.

"Log Cabin Republicans have brought this case to trial to call out the government on the wrong it's doing on current and future homosexuals who wish to serve their country," he said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Freeborne, defending the policy for the government, replied: "Log Cabin has endeavored to spend the last few weeks presenting the court with a policy debate — a debate it lost in 1993 before Congress. Congress exhaustively considered the same matters that plaintiffs rest their experts' opinions on."

The arguments concluded a bench trial that began on July 13 before U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy requires the military to discharge service members who are found to have engaged in a homosexual act, have made a statement that demonstrates a propensity to engage in a homosexual act, or have entered into a same-sex marriage or attempted marriage. Congress and the Obama administration have moved in recent months to repeal the policy, but the outcome is by no means certain.

Last month, Phillips set forth the standard of proof that both sides had to meet. She based it on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's 2008 decision Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force — that the policy is necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest.

On Friday, Woods maintained that the policy served no such interest.

"Lawrence established that Americans have a constitutional right to engage in private, consensual homosexual conduct," Woods said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, where the court found that state's criminalization of private, consensual sodomy unconstitutional. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell infringes on that right, punishing individuals who engage in a constitutionally protected activity."

During the trial, Woods introduced numerous reports and expert witnesses who concluded that the policy has done little to maintain troop cohesion. In fact, he said, the evidence showed that the policy disproportionately harmed women and noncombat service members. He noted that service members work alongside foreign militaries and private contractors, both of which permit open homosexuality.

"Our military will give a convicted felon a gun, but will not give a gay guy a typewriter," he said.

Several former members of the military testified about their experiences being discharged. Their stories provide the "emotional core of our case," Woods said.

He pointed to recent statements made by President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who favor overturning the policy.

On his First Amendment claim, Woods argued that the statute is overbroad because it chills the speech of service members as well as their families and friends.

"It must be very dark in that closet for a homosexual member of our Armed Services," he said.

Freeborne responded that the due process and First Amendment claims fail "as a matter of law" because the Log Cabin Republicans brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the policy. That requires both parties to focus on the face of the statute and its legislative history — not the experiences of individuals, he said.

Phillips interrupted, disagreeing about the scope of the court's review.

"The government's argument it has made throughout this case and on which it has relied to contest the admission of nearly every exhibit, and most of the testimony, overlooks that the court is directed to look at the effect of the challenged statue," Phillips said.

Freeborne said he would "respectfully disagree" with that analysis. He also disagreed that the Witt standard, which dealt with the circumstances of a single service member and not the statute as a whole, was appropriate in a facial challenge.

Freeborne deflated the importance of many of the documents on which Log Cabin Republicans relied — noting that Congress had reviewed them when it deliberated about enacting the statute that undergirds the policy in 1993.

As for the statements by Obama, Mullen and Gates, Freeborne offered this explanation: "Those discussions and subjects only serve to highlight that the policy's determination is one for Congress and the executive branch, and not one to be made by the courts."

In defending the statute against First Amendment claims, Freeborne used the example of a witness who was not discharged even after coming forward about being hazed and harassed about his homosexuality.

"After enduring it for months," Phillips replied.

Finally, Freeborne continued to assert that the Log Cabin Republicans lacked standing to pursue the claim.

"Mr. Woods gave short shrift to the subject for obvious reasons: Log Cabin cannot identify a single member who has the right to challenge the policy in his or her own right," Freeborne said.

Neither of the individuals claiming to be Log Cabin Republican members has identified himself as a Republican, he said, and both failed to pay dues.

During trial, Woods introduced several officers of Log Cabin Republican who vouched for their membership.