Commandant of the Marine Corps says no to Gays

[dross]

I'd like someone to explain to me how breaking an administrative rule is worse than violating the UCMJ, which is the law as well as tradition.

 

[dukeboy_318]

Okay, here we go.

All of this was gained from copies of the standard Army sexual briefing slide show. According to the slide show, all information is from the UCMJ MANUAL FOR COURTS MARTIAL.

920.ART.120. Subsection A) Any person subject to the UCMJ who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife or male not her husband, regardless of marital status shall be punished as a court-martial directs.

925.ART.125 subsection A) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation or acts of none vaginal intercourse with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.
Subsection B) any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial directs.

Article 120 para 45(b(13). The UCMJ defines sodomy as any sexual act other than vaginal intercouse from a natural position. A natural position is defined as the "missionary" position or the male on top of the female during vaginal intercourse.

Yeah, I looked that up, too. Where does it say anything about positions?

Read that last paragraph and line number section that I posted, Article 120 para 45(B(13). It spells it out. Basically it says anything but the missionary position is considered sodomy under the UCMJs definition.

 

[Eddie]

Read that last paragraph and line number section that I posted, Article 120 para 45(B(13). It spells it out. Basically it says anything but the missionary position is considered sodomy under the UCMJs definition.

Maybe I'm just groggy but the code in the UCMJ that I am reading is different from the posted text.

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

The section on sodomy looks the same but it doesn't have the definition that talks about the missionary position.

Uniform Code of Military Justice XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

 

[dukeboy_318]

Maybe I'm just groggy but the code in the UCMJ that I am reading is different from the posted text.

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

The section on sodomy looks the same but it doesn't have the definition that talks about the missionary position.

Uniform Code of Military Justice XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Hmmm that is weird, I didn't try looking it up online, I just copied it word for word from the binder I was given to teach that class back in 08 to my unit. I didn't see a pub date on that link u had, just for reference the pub date on this binder is October 1, 2006. Ill do some more research to see if maybe it changed sometime recently or if the Army added that provision

 

[Eddie]

Here is a link to that portion of the U.S. Code. It is a lot longer but I'm still not finding the stuff about positions and wives only. It reads fairly similar to the Indiana and Illinois code sections that deal with sexual crimes.

United States Code: Title 10,920. Art. 120. Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[dukeboy_318]

Here is a link to that portion of the U.S. Code. It is a lot longer but I'm still not finding the stuff about positions and wives only. It reads fairly similar to the Indiana and Illinois code sections that deal with sexual crimes.

United States Code: Title 10,920. Art. 120. Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct | LII / Legal Information Institute

Ok thanks, ill read through it and check too. Im not the one who made the slideshow, I think its a standard issued Army made one, so.... now im concerned about teaching 194 soldiers the wrong info. I may email TRADOC and see what they say, there the ones who makes the slides and training materials.

 

[Hoosier8]

The anal sex provision is in the usmj inorder to limit the spread of HIV or so our jag officer told us. Technically, the only authorized sex position is the missionary and between husbands and wifes at least according to the ucmj

So BJ's are OK? After the Clinton presidency, that isn't even considered sex anymore.

 

[nawainwright]

Corvette, imagine what it would be like if you were not allowed to serve you country because of <you own a Corvette>. Wouldn't you feel slighted in the least?

Gays have been serving in the military since it's inception. To deny this is to deny reality. I have agreed with the DADT policy because it allows all to have their illusions, but at some point in time, we have to face reality. Right now, the current crop of recruits are much less adverse to this than my generation.

I don't know the answer, but I would expect this to be much less of a problem than it appears to be.

I doubt anyone would consider owning a particular kind of car a "perversion" so I don't think your analogy works on any level.....unless of course we're talking about the Amish....but they're pacifists so who really cares what they think

 

[Son of Liberty]

The commandant is spot on with his assessment. This subject really makes me sick. The liberal left wingers always attempting to water down true American values and common sense. This is a christian nation. Homosexuality is wrong on all counts. People attempting to sugar coat the subject are not our friends. Gays have no business in our armed services. Openly gay people certainly have no place in our services. The powers to be need to listen to the ones that really know. Sickening IMO.

Wow. Check your birth certificate to see if you are an American.
Don't you love your freedoms?
Why is it that you would choose to take them from someone else?
Especially since your judgement for them is based on religious belief.
Most of the forefathers may or may not have been christians, that dosen't matter, the government was set up not to be governed by a religion.
Your post seems like you have a real dislike, maybe even hatred towards these people.
Even to deny these folks their rights.

I agree with you on some points, I personally am against homosexuality HOWEVER our fore fathers set this country up on basis that every citizen be allowed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One has that freedom to chose homosexuality, however if chosen there is no place in the military to be flaunting it openly because not only of unit moral, but personal safety. As I said above, if they want to serve openly, okay, let's make the barracks and latrines co-ed. Also fyi, the US constitution that I swore to protect has religion seperate from the government aka separation of church and state and the freedom to worship any religion you want, even though a most of our fore fathers were christians, I don't consider us a christian country.

Agreed on most points.
However, I would like to ask you something about the flaunting it statement.
The non-open gays that are in the Marine Corp and other branches of service are not walking around saying "hey girlfriend", and being flambouynt, why would they start once they were able to be open?

Futhermore I don't know if these people do or not, but I would assume that the gay people often have to make up stories about their lives and themselves to cover the fact that they are gay.
Making up girlfriends and wives, etc. etc.
That is what I think is at the core of the issue, these people want to not have to look over their shoulders, wondering if someone will find out and rat them out.

 

[CaptainMorgan92]

For those that are fine with gays in the military, you are the problem.

I guess they shouldn't have allowed me to enlist in the Navy, being as according to you, I am the problem. If someone qualifies mentally and physically to join the armed forces, why should we stop them?

 

[dross]

I think it's clear that most of you who condemn gays in the military are guilty of violating your oath of service in a more serious way, a criminal way, by violating the UCMJ.

 

[Joe Williams]

No, the military isn't the place to test social experiments.

American lives, and particularly soldiers lives are very important to me. I've lived that value.

Yes, it boils down to a bedroom preference. The military should be nuetral on bedroom preferences. I happen to be straight, but I'm pretty damned kinky. The military never seemed to have an opinion one way or the other about that.

Why does this issue seem to bring out these imaginary trump cards? Agree or disagree, you don't have some kind of special hotline to the absolute truth.

True, I think what they do in their own bedroom is their business. Problem is, it's not their own bedroom, or bathroom. They are sharing it with others. Frankly, there is no difference between forcing a straight man to bunk and shower with a gay man than there is in forcing a woman to bunk and shower with a man.

While I think homosexuality is morally wrong, I'm not revolted by it, nor do I condemn those personally who are gay. I've got my own sins to worry about, I pray Christ will forgive homosexuals their sins just as I pray he will forgive me mine.

I was hit on more than once in the military, serving in two different branches. I think those who don't think there are gays in the military just aren't aware of it because their strong dislike is well known, so they aren't bothered. THIS is why don't ask, don't tell works. Folks with wildly differing viewpoints are able to live together... because as you know they do have to live together.

Fighting together is one thing... but service members also have to LIVE together, often in very close quarters.

Oh.. and the military certainly DOES have an opinion on straight people being kinky... get too open about it, and you will face disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.

 

[r3126]

"Conway says these few gays don't cause a problem now because their homosexuality is not known publicly. But he said if their sexuality does become public, "90 to 95 percent of the Marines" he has informally surveyed are concerned about the consequences. Conway cited impromptu surveys he has conducted by a "show of hands" among Marines at town hall style meetings." quoted from above mentioned FoxNews article.

Sounds like a pretty solid stat to be passing around.

ed. note: not sure if that's the correct pantone for the "sarcasm" statements, but it should read as sarcasm.

Have you got a better stat? Sounds like you are shooting with blanks. I would like to see your stat regarding acceptance of gays by the Marines!

 

[Joe Williams]

Hmmm, eleven years? Did you take a short to re-up?

I also served 11 years... two years in the Army, transferred to the Air Force, re-upped once, and an extension so I could take an assignment I liked.

 

[CorvetteTom]

I guess they shouldn't have allowed me to enlist in the Navy, being as according to you, I am the problem. If someone qualifies mentally and physically to join the armed forces, why should we stop them?

Are you gay or do you just think they should be able to join? Since the US military stated for about 230 years that being gay disqualifies someone from joining, I'd say yes, that should stop them. It's no different than the illegals in this country, just because they are here doesn't automatically make them Americans and it certainly doesn't qualify them to become Americans. Why should the military have to accommodate a sexual preference, a perverted, counter-nature one at that? There are no flamboyant gays in the military... because open gays cannot serve in the military. Change the law and watch that change quickly. This isn't simply a matter of 'oh just let them have their way'!! Damn... some are so willing to play with the lives of our soldiers under the guise of freedom. It's pitiful and shameless.

 

[Garb]

Are you gay or do you just think they should be able to join? Since the US military stated for about 230 years that being gay disqualifies someone from joining, I'd say yes, that should stop them. It's no different than the illegals in this country, just because they are here doesn't automatically make them Americans and it certainly doesn't qualify them to become Americans. Why should the military have to accommodate a sexual preference, a perverted, counter-nature one at that? There are no flamboyant gays in the military... because open gays cannot serve in the military. Change the law and watch that change quickly. This isn't simply a matter of 'oh just let them have their way'!! Damn... some are so willing to play with the lives of our soldiers under the guise of freedom. It's pitiful and shameless.

There's a huge difference between allowing and accommodating here. And I suppose you think that the military should discharge troops for engaging in anal sex, even if it's with another woman, considering that is also perverted and counter-nature. You claim you don't want their wishes imposed on you, as you impose your wishes on them.

 

[CarmelHP]

As I've posted many times on these threads, I was in for eleven years, I knew and knew of gay soldiers in every unit I was in, never saw it cause a problem.

Being in the military doesn't automatically mean you feel a particular way about this issue. Reasonable people can disagree.

This is a problem, in and of itself. You should not have been privy to any of the sexual preferences or adventures of those serving with you. Where I work, who is sleeping with who is not discussed. It's a matter of professionalism. If it has the potential to cause problems in the military, then it is Congress' absolute power to forbid it being discussed. The military is not a social experiment to make everyone feel good.

 

[Expat]

If we say that homosexuals have a Constitutional right to be in the military and proudly announce they are homosexuals, then they also must have their other Constitutional protections. This has not been the case for all the years. So do all service personnel now have Speech, Unreasonable Search & Seizure, etc. rights. I don't see how you turn back now on granting the full Constitutional protections to the folks in uniform. That just ain't going to work.

 

[Son of Liberty]

Are you gay or do you just think they should be able to join? Since the US military stated for about 230 years that being gay disqualifies someone from joining, I'd say yes, that should stop them. It's no different than the illegals in this country, just because they are here doesn't automatically make them Americans and it certainly doesn't qualify them to become Americans. Why should the military have to accommodate a sexual preference, a perverted, counter-nature one at that? There are no flamboyant gays in the military... because open gays cannot serve in the military. Change the law and watch that change quickly. This isn't simply a matter of 'oh just let them have their way'!! Damn... some are so willing to play with the lives of our soldiers under the guise of freedom. It's pitiful and shameless.

This is the stupidest thing I have read to date.
You really think the gay service member over in the sand box fighting and killing right now, is going to hear about the removal of "dont ask, don't tell"
and start walking around all flamboyant, and running from battle.
He/She is not going to do anything of the sort, they will as with all the other days they have served continue to protect and serve, you and all
of your ideas of hatred, that their service allows you to have and speak about.

 

[dukeboy_318]

My problem isn't with them being gay or lesbian, my issue is with the close quarters shared by soldiers.. for those that have never served in the military, its hard to grasp just how close it is. When sharing an open bay style shower with 20 showerheads but in a 10ftby 12ft room, your showering shoulder to shoulder, soldiers shouldn't have to worry bout someone who might I repeat might take enjoyment out of that in a weird way. Thats where my example of just making it co-ed if gays are allowed to serve openly comes in. I don't see the difference between a gay guy taking showers with straight guys or women and men sleeping in the same barracks and using the same latrines. Even though being gay is a choice or freedom, whatever, like ive said this entire thread I still feel there isnt to go public with it. In otherwords don't kiss and tell. Leave it how it is.