Gays in the Military and the UCMJ

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

I thought that the UCMJ didn't allow homosexual conduct.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I thought that the UCMJ didn't allow homosexual conduct.

Mayhaps there's a difference, even if semantic, between "homosexual conduct" and being homosexual.

-J-

 

[dross]

Mayhaps there's a difference, even if semantic, between "homosexual conduct" and being homosexual.

-J-

This is a question I've had from the beginning. My understanding of DADT was that it only allowed a person to BE homosexual, not to DO homosexual acts, regardless of whether they tell or not.

Did the new law authorize homosexual acts?

 

[rockhopper46038]

Does it fall under the section of "Conduct Unbecoming an Orifice"?

Oh man, I bet I'm gonna be sorry I posted this. But it just jumped out at me.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Does it fall under the section of "Conduct Unbecoming an Orifice"?

Oh man, I bet I'm gonna be sorry I posted this. But it just jumped out at me.

i tried to rep you but im out. thats funny **** right there man!

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

This is a question I've had from the beginning. My understanding of DADT was that it only allowed a person to BE homosexual, not to DO homosexual acts, regardless of whether they tell or not.

Did the new law authorize homosexual acts?

Thats how I thought it read. It didn't discriminate with the origin, but the act.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

I've been arguing with my wife over this issue. She thinks it's no big deal. However, I have lived in an open barracks with 75 guys, who all get dressed in the same room, and share open showers. Allowing an "openly homosexual lifestyle" in an environment like this is just wrong.

I equate it to this; Would women in the military allow someone of the opposite sex to share their showers? If there is a gay male 'couple' in my unit, I don't want the two of them walking in to my shower.

I don't have a problem with someone being gay, that's their own business. But our combat units are not the place to try out all these little 'social experiments'.

 

[mrjarrell]

This is a question I've had from the beginning. My understanding of DADT was that it only allowed a person to BE homosexual, not to DO homosexual acts, regardless of whether they tell or not.

Did the new law authorize homosexual acts?

It doesn't forbid "homosexual" acts. It forbids sodomy, heterosexual or homosexual. That particular bit has been ignored for heterosexuals for decades and will likely continue to be ignored, now that gays and lesbians are accorded the same rights to sexual freedom. Plenty of heterosexuals break those regs every day and nothing comes of it. Whereas, when a gay or lesbian soldier was caught (or assumed to have committed) the same "offence", they were discharged. The sane thing to do, so that all soldiers, sailors and airmen are treated as equals before the law is to repeal all the sexuality related regs, or else enforce them as they should be enforced. Discharge everyone.

 

[Eddie]

Here is what I could find:

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation 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.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ

 

[radonc73]

I don't think there are many open bay barracks anymore. When I was in in the early '90s they started the BOSS program. Better Opertunities For Single Soldiers. To get more to stay in and make it more collage like I believe. Not as many inspections and alot more freedom. Most of the rooms at Ft. Irwin were double rooms with a bathroom in each. I hear they have walkin closets at some of the newer places being built but I do not know about all the BCT Co.s.

 

[INGunGuy]

Well I was in the Navy before and after DADT was enacted, and before DADT it was "Unlawful" to be a homosexual in the military. After DADT was enacted, it allowed for homosexuals to serve but "DONT TELL" and if it came to light that the service member was homosexual, they were discharged. So, since DADT is now gone, does that now mean it is again "unlawful" to be a homosexual in the military.

INGunGuy

 

[grizman]

Unless the resolution to end DADT policy included the removal or modification of 925. ART. 125. SODOMY in the UCMJ then the old rules apply and anyone found in violation will be court marshaled and given "bad conduct" discharge. I would also assume if no such UCMJ changes were made recruiters can now inquire about sexual orientation as a screening tool once again. It has always been a no no to be openly gay in our military!
It is interesting that civilians believe that DADT made it against the rules to be gay in the military! When it in fact allowed them to serve with behavior limitations that concealed their sexual orientation.

All this aside if a gay person can perform the duties without causing problems I see no reason they could not serve.

 

[nawainwright]

Unless the resolution to end DADT policy included the removal or modification of 925. ART. 125. SODOMY in the UCMJ then the old rules apply and anyone found in violation will be court marshaled and given "bad conduct" discharge. I would also assume if no such UCMJ changes were made recruiters can now inquire about sexual orientation as a screening tool once again. It has always been a no no to be openly gay in our military!
It is interesting that civilians believe that DADT made it against the rules to be gay in the military! When it in fact allowed them to serve with behavior limitations that concealed their sexual orientation.

All this aside if a gay person can perform the duties without causing problems I see no reason they could not serve.

This is the problem with the American people. Its a law thats wasn't even 2 decades old and no one knew anything about it other than what they were told by politicians. No one looked, no one researched, no one thought. And now the idiotic masses are jumping up and down cheering not knowing they put the rope around the neck of those they tried to save.

 

[Expat]

Sorry to say but all this is really moot. Obviously the Congress and the POTUS believe they have legalized practicing homosexuals to be in the military. The service Chiefs have been ordered to start getting an orderly process set up for the homosexuals to start coming out and new ones enlisting. It is also clear that CINC and SECDEF will be looking to protect and promote the serving homosexuals. Any discipline of them will be at the risk of someone's career.

 

[grizman]

Sorry to say but all this is really moot. Obviously the Congress and the POTUS believe they have legalized practicing homosexuals to be in the military. The service Chiefs have been ordered to start getting an orderly process set up for the homosexuals to start coming out and new ones enlisting. It is also clear that CINC and SECDEF will be looking to protect and promote the serving homosexuals. Any discipline of them will be at the risk of someone's career.

Not moot, sure the POTUS can tell the joint chiefs to look into and or investigate the possible procedures blah blah blah. The fact remains BHO and the idiots in his camp just did away with the only thing technically allowing gays to remain in service.

The quoted article from the CUMJ if left as currently worded will allow gays to be CM'ed and discharged for bad conduct if caught in the act, for sodomy, not for simply being a homosexual. Sodomy is not an exclusive act limited to the male gay demographic, this fact makes the statute a non discriminatory regulation applicable to all active duty personal. There was a E3 male soldier CM'ed and given a bad conduct discharge in IIRC 1993 at FT. Stewart GA, he was caught in the consensual act of sodomy with a female E3.

You must understand the military mindset. The letter of the code is the final work not the intent as perceived by POTUS. It still remains "illegal" under the CUMJ for a homosexual male to have intercourse with his partner and is a punishable offense separate from the fact of sexual orientation.

DADT was the savior policy for gays in the military not a career killer!

 

[Zephri]

So what you're saying is you can't have sex in the military?

Who would've thunk!?

 

[Bill of Rights]

So what you're saying is you can't have sex in the military?

Who would've thunk!?

No. What they're saying is that anything other than intercourse involving male and female genitalia exclusively (one set each), is unlawful in the military. In other words, it doesn't matter if you are hetero- or homosexual, if you're doing anything involving penetration of either end of the alimentary system, it constitutes "sodomy". Interestingly enough, I suppose this might allow for lesbians to do their thing as long as it did not involve any penetration.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I've been arguing with my wife over this issue. She thinks it's no big deal. However, I have lived in an open barracks with 75 guys, who all get dressed in the same room, and share open showers. Allowing an "openly homosexual lifestyle" in an environment like this is just wrong.

I equate it to this; Would women in the military allow someone of the opposite sex to share their showers? If there is a gay male 'couple' in my unit, I don't want the two of them walking in to my shower.

I don't have a problem with someone being gay, that's their own business. But our combat units are not the place to try out all these little 'social experiments'.

Just because you are gay doesn't mean you are going to be banging others in the barracks. It also doesn't mean you will be starring at someones junk or trying to touch other soldiers.

Ya know they are no different than anyone else, they do have self control. You would think that all gay people are sexual deviants if you read some of the posts on here.

Call me crazy, but I would prefer to have the best person available for whatever job they have. Doesnt matter if they are gay, straight, black, white, etc.

 

[Zephri]

No. What they're saying is that anything other than intercourse involving male and female genitalia exclusively (one set each), is unlawful in the military. In other words, it doesn't matter if you are hetero- or homosexual, if you're doing anything involving penetration of either end of the alimentary system, it constitutes "sodomy". Interestingly enough, I suppose this might allow for lesbians to do their thing as long as it did not involve any penetration.

Blessings,
Bill

Ah I see.

Then why didn't it just say that. Instead of Unnatural carnal copulation?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ah I see.

Then why didn't it just say that. Instead of Unnatural carnal copulation?

Dude. It's written by lawyers. You expect it to be simple?

Blessings,
Bill