Thread: Today 77 members of congress stand erect for the gay seamen and soldiers.

What? You mean the age old fear of the American heterosexual male thinking that the gay male is ogling him from across the shower with this unrational belief that not only is he God's gift to women, but also God's gift to gays?

Plain and simple: the benefits we offer to those in the military are paid by the taxpayer; therefore, they should available for all who to try for by serving. One cannot say that gays are unsuitable for military service because it is not criminal nor can they say they are disruptive for that argument is irrational in the modern age as it was in the days of segregated forces. The way around this, of course, is to offer veterans no benefits for serving.

We do not have a draft; therefore we do not pick the best people to serve in the military. We have to depend on volunteers. It is reasonable to set standards for entrance, both physical, mental, and medical. It is legal to have certain branches open only to certain people since at that point, one is not discriminating from employment.

But is not legal nor rational to deny people to possibility of serving just because of who they prefer in bed......especially since the subject of sex does not have a place in the tent nor the ship. The days of General Hooker are long over.
_____________________________________________
(Caligula has decided to balance the budget by putting the Senators' wives in a bordello. "Chaerea, what is your pleasure? I hear you have a taste for little boys. Is that not so?"--Caligula calling down to his general.
"No, Caesar, big boys, my soldiers!"--General Chaerea, (w,stte), "Caligula")

I haven't read the link, but the title of the thread seems to be full of puns.

heh sorry I went for the full of puns title idea, the link is serious. More or less don't ask don't tell is an executive order put into place by Clinton in the 90's. The letter is from congress to Obama urging him to overturn that and allow openly gay people to enlist, and to allow people who are currently in the military to come out openly about it and fear no repercussion.

Originally Posted by Maxor

heh sorry I went for the full of puns title idea, the link is serious. More or less don't ask don't tell is an executive order put into place by Clinton in the 90's. The letter is from congress to Obama urging him to overturn that and allow openly gay people to enlist, and to allow people who are currently in the military to come out openly about it and fear no repercussion.

good idea, what they do in the bedroom is none of my business and if they want to put their ass on the line to keep me and mine safe they can sleep with whom ever they can get get to legally agree to go to bed with them.

Zraver once you are in the military the UCMJ prevents sodomy and pretty much anything other than direct penile to vaginal intercourse. Most things that hetero couples do is either illegal or borderline, so pretty much anything a same sex couple could agree to go to bed to do other than sleep next to each other would be illegal. There is also all the difficulties when it comes to marriage, and benefiets. In some ways the UCMJ looks like the moral code laws of the 40's in the southern states.

As a commander, I could proffer criminal charges or adjudicate administrative punish for sexual harassment against heterosexual soldiers by other heterosexual soldiers. I could have done the same against homosexual soldiers that harassed other soldiers (provided they would have been allowed to serve openly) if they engaged in the same disruptive behavior. In either case (allowed to serve or not), my duty was to enforce the UCMJ whether it lined up with my personal values or not.

Bottomline, the tools are available to discharge disruptive soldiers no matter what the law is. It may be a leadership challenge to and there will be isolated issues (most likely because of intolerant, homophobic soldiers - give their intolerance in this issue, do we really want them serving in an Army whose main operational mission is counterinsurgency, which requires an open mind to other cultural values), but the surveys have shown that the vast majority of soldiers with combat experience in OEF/OIF support allowing openly gay soldiers to serve.

I've got no issue with it.

Originally Posted by Maxor

Zraver once you are in the military the UCMJ prevents sodomy and pretty much anything other than direct penile to vaginal intercourse. Most things that hetero couples do is either illegal or borderline

Incorrect on three parts

1. the Federal Government in all forms including the military is not allowed to peep in windows per Lawerence v Texas which established an absolute right to non-commercial sexual privacy between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.

2. Also based on the decision in Lawrence. Since the Military does not go sheet sniffing among its many married couples to do so against homosexuals as a class would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

3. While citizens serving in an official capacity give up some rights, mostly related to the 1st Amendment. They do not give up all rights. Unless the government can prove a compelling need that warrants a limitation of a right the right stands. Some examples of a restrained right include security clearances. If you as a perosn with privileged access to information give the NYT secret information. You can be charged, but the paper cannot because a different burden applies. That street works both ways. It is illegal for high school football team to open a game with a prayer. However the Government can and does employ chaplains to minister to the troops, build chapels and directly pay the salaries of the clergy and does make special allowances for even the most restricted members it has charge over military recruits and inmates- to get to religious services. A different burden applies vs a school or government office building.

Homosexuals are not discharged for having homosexual sex, but for being homosexual. No overt sexual element is required. An 18 year virgin could join decide all those sweaty bodies during PT made him dizzy and decide he was gay. Still a virgin if he reveals that to anyone in uniform he will be discharged for homosexuality. Enforcement of article 125 for off duty conduct that did not disgrace the uniform or violate don't ask, don't tell would never stand on appeal.

Originally Posted by zraver

Incorrect on three parts

1. the Federal Government in all forms including the military is not allowed to peep in windows per Lawerence v Texas which established an absolute right to non-commercial sexual privacy between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.

However if you live in base housing which many military members with families do they have the right to enter at any time, while rarely used it does exist. The military can't go window peeping in off base houses but they can enter at will at any time any on base facility without any given reason.

2. Also based on the decision in Lawrence. Since the Military does not go sheet sniffing among its many married couples to do so against homosexuals as a class would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Ah but they do on occasion, usually as a side prosecution in another case but it does happen. It would essentially require sodomy + something else as a base reason for investigation as long as the something else is a valid reason for investigation, and wouldn't require conviction you could get the article 125 to stick.

3. While citizens serving in an official capacity give up some rights, mostly related to the 1st Amendment. They do not give up all rights. Unless the government can prove a compelling need that warrants a limitation of a right the right stands. Some examples of a restrained right include security clearances. If you as a perosn with privileged access to information give the NYT secret information. You can be charged, but the paper cannot because a different burden applies. That street works both ways. It is illegal for high school football team to open a game with a prayer. However the Government can and does employ chaplains to minister to the troops, build chapels and directly pay the salaries of the clergy and does make special allowances for even the most restricted members it has charge over military recruits and inmates- to get to religious services. A different burden applies vs a school or government office building.

Homosexuals are not discharged for having homosexual sex, but for being homosexual. No overt sexual element is required. An 18 year virgin could join decide all those sweaty bodies during PT made him dizzy and decide he was gay. Still a virgin if he reveals that to anyone in uniform he will be discharged for homosexuality. Enforcement of article 125 for off duty conduct that did not disgrace the uniform or violate don't ask, don't tell would never stand on appeal.

First as per US v Marcum it is unclear weather or not US v Lawernce applies to the US military members, though I'd say you'd likely win saying that it does.

Enforcement of 125 may stand , Its doubtful it'd stand unchallenged but really what would be claimed as a basis for appeal? In winning an appeal against 125 which successfully was prosecueted you'd pretty much have to admit to disobeying 80, 90 and 134. Once you show some other military regulation is involved as per the tripartite framework for addressing Lawrence challenges within the military context:

First, was the conduct that the accused was found guilty of committing of a nature to bring it within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence? 539 U.S. at 578. Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?


In order for sodomy to be protected by lawernce you would have to show that you weren't aware that sodomy wasn't illegal under article 125, and that you weren't willfully participating under 92.


Now the whole exercise is fairly stupid on a number of fronts to think about. There will be very very few cases of sodomy without other stupidity or illegality ever being prosecuted. A military member would both have to make their active homesexual relationships public, and either have been disruptive in a way to make their commander wish for them to go away, or have a commander who hates homosexuals enough that they are willing to loose a good troop for what he or she does in their off time.

What I don't like is congress using manipulative political tactics to attempt to force the president to use the military as a social expermint to please special interest groups with an agenda.

Oddly being unabashedly gay doesn't always result in dismissal today under current rules those are just the ones we hear about.

Originally Posted by Maxor

First as per US v Marcum it is unclear weather or not US v Lawernce applies to the US military members, though I'd say you'd likely win saying that it does.

US v Marcum is probalby not a good test case. That case deals with all sorts of clear violations outside of the sodomy issue.

Enforcement of 125 may stand , Its doubtful it'd stand unchallenged but really what would be claimed as a basis for appeal? In winning an appeal against 125 which successfully was prosecuted you'd pretty much have to admit to disobeying 80, 90 and 134. Once you show some other military regulation is involved as per the tripartite framework for addressing Lawrence challenges within the military context:

If the only violation is 125 and the nature of that violation is with a consenting adult then 80 has no basis for enforcement under Lawerence. I don't see how striking a superior 90 and adultery 134 have any bearing on a general run of the mill hey look a couple gays in uniform case. In all likelihood a gay is going to be outed by someone with an agenda.

First, was the conduct that the accused was found guilty of committing of a nature to bring it within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence? 539 U.S. at 578. Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?

If the conduct is what would be normally protected off duty, out of uniform and off base then I think the liberty threshold would be met. Now if private Doe and private Smith were doing something on duty is does not matter the sexes involved.

In order for sodomy to be protected by lawernce you would have to show that you weren't aware that sodomy wasn't illegal under article 125, and that you weren't willfully participating under 92.

No order or regulation is lawful if it violates the constitution. The Court has said that homosexuality is not a crime and further that the sexual practices of non commercial sex between consenting adults in the privacy of the home cannot be regulated thus 125 where it deals with those two aspects is not a lawfully binding regulation. I think the inverse would hold that citing Lawrence you could argue that you were aware that those sections of 125 lacked legal sanction to be enforced and thus no violation of 92 exists.

Now the whole exercise is fairly stupid on a number of fronts to think about. There will be very very few cases of sodomy without other stupidity or illegality ever being prosecuted. A military member would both have to make their active homesexual relationships public, and either have been disruptive in a way to make their commander wish for them to go away, or have a commander who hates homosexuals enough that they are willing to loose a good troop for what he or she does in their off time.

Or be outed by someone with an agenda such as a spurned ex-lover.

What I don't like is congress using manipulative political tactics to attempt to force the president to use the military as a social expermint to please special interest groups with an agenda.

Desegregating the military was a social experiment that worked wonders. The Same as allowing women into the uniform. The US military is probably the least racist least sexist part of the country. The prohibition against women in ground combat roles is based on solid tactical/operational needs. Where such actions serve to promote equality I don't have a problem with it.

In the Canadian Forces openly gay members serve with no problems. I don't see why the US couldn't do it.

IMO, Congress should not be dictating to the military their policy. As follows:

The Constitution gives Congress wide powers over the American military. In many respects, though, Congress finds its ability to exercise these powers frustrated by what Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 70 called the president's inherent advantages of “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” The ability of Congress to override these inherent advantages depends ultimately on the wisdom and the political popularity of what the president seeks to accomplish

Obviously there has to be a standing idealism for why Obama wont implement this. Maybe the public should ask him in open debate. He's not shy and I'm fairly certain he would answer but none the less Congress should not be dictating to the military. If we allow that then many things are going to get screwed up now at a time where we cannot afford to loose focus nor waste money and time.

The US easily could dprime, I'd much rather see it happen from within than be used as a political banner by a couple of congressmen wanting campaign sound bytes.

The secrataries and the president are the interface between the military and the civilian government, the the military is involved in politics the worse off the military the people and the governement are.

I knew of at least 4 gay lesbian and/or bisexual troops while I was in the service. In the case of two of them it wasn't even a suspision but actual knowledge. One of the others came out shortly after his enlistment ended and went to live as a triangle with his girlfriend and his boyfriend. I can't say that he was or acted on being homosexual while in the airforce but I'd say the likelyhood was about 99+%. The other, a woman I am less certain of but the behavior of hanging out at a number of gay and lesbian friendly clubs, and spending large ammounts of he off base time with women that were openly lesbian was clear.

Anyways of the two people who were openly gay and command new it, with the one who wasn't flamboyantly flaunting it regularly in commands face, it was known and perfectly ok with everyone in the unit. It only became an issue with the other person after he did alot of other things to become a troublemaker within the unit. since at that time he was a few months from the end of his service he was essentially granted commanders permission terminal leave and an honorable.

to zraver 90 isn't just striking an officer. It is also willfully disobeying. That one would fit and 134 is the anything that annoys the military command clause.
“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Originally Posted by Maxor

to zraver 90 isn't just striking an officer. It is also willfully disobeying. That one would fit and 134 is the anything that annoys the military command clause.
“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

134 requires marriage....

90 willfully disobeys a lawful command. The command cannot give a lawful order if it involves regulating the service members private non-commercial sexual conduct in the privacy of their or their partners home. 134 is lawful because of the institution of marriage and how breaking that vow or acting in a way that allows the breaking of that vow negatively impacts the armed forces. IIRC in 90-91 a lower enlisted was messing around with a unit sgts wife and got her pregnant. Both the lower enlisted and the wife had thrown in it the NCO's face. One day while the wife was giving birth the NCO cut the head off the lower enlisted took it to the hospital and dumped it on her bed. This happened in Germany as was fairly big news in the Army at the time. I want to say it was 1/41 Inf 2AD (forward). So adultery can have a very negative affect on the military. In this case 2 services members lost 1 dead and 1 in prison and a child left fatherless.