The problem, Mr. Cooper explained, is one of timing: “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not quite dead, and so the fight over killing it in the courts is still, improbably, alive.

The bill passed by Congress did not actually repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but only created a mechanism for doing so. The policy will not end until 60 days after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the Department of Defense “has prepared the necessary policies and regulations” to carry out the change, and that the shift will not damage the ability of the military to fight or recruit. Until then, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 expressly states that the old policy “shall remain in effect.”

And so the Log Cabin lawsuit continues in a federal appeals court in California, holding the government’s feet to the fire and defying politicians who have recommended reinstating the law. And the government has kept its policies in place.

On the day that President Obama signed the bill, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a memorandum to the secretaries of the military departments advising them it was “important that service members understand that the implementation and certification process will take an additional period of time.” The military will proceed “deliberately,” Mr. Gates said, and “at this time, there are no new changes to any existing department or service policies.” Thus, he added, “service members who alter their personal conduct during this period may face adverse consequences.”

Image Dan Woods, a lawyer in a case against “don't ask, don't tell.” Credit... Francis Specker/Associated Press

In earlier briefs, Department of Justice lawyers have made it clear that the administration does not support the law. A grudging footnote in a brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit before the Congressional repeal explained, “The Department of Justice in this case has followed its longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality.”