Panetta: So far, DADT A "Non-Event"

[MobBoss]

Lack of ujniformity was my point which I thank you for reinforcing.

And you misinterpret my point entirely. Nice job.

A subset was forbiddien from having evidence of their home life while the rest were allowed their wedding bands and pictures of their spouse.

No, they werent. Simply wearing a wedding band or having a photo on a desk wouldnt cross the line of 'telling'. In fact, we had several gay soldiers do precisely that, and it didnt cause an investigation as that would be against regulation.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, they werent. Simply wearing a wedding band or having a photo on a desk wouldnt cross the line of 'telling'. In fact, we had several gay soldiers do precisely that, and it didnt cause an investigation as that would be against regulation.

So if they actually told about their relationship and you told about your relationship, would their have been uniform treatment under DADT? For purposes of this question, I am assuming you are in a government-licensed heterosexual relationship.

 

[MobBoss]

So if they actually told about their relationship and you told about your relationship, would their have been uniform treatment under DADT? For purposes of this question, I am assuming you are in a government-licensed heterosexual relationship.

Its was Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue. Having a photo on your desk was never defined as 'telling' nor would wearing a ring on your finger. You were simply incorrect in your allegation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So what would be considered "telling"?

 

[Formaldehyde]

In the case of the Air Force officer/hero I posted earlier, it was due to him being falsely accused of rape. In order to defend himself in a court of law, he had to divulge he was a homosexual who had consensual sex with the accuser. And even after he was acquitted, the person continued to harass him by repeatedly informing Air Force personnel he was gay.

In the case of the woman whose interview I also posted earlier, it was after she was asked 21 times if she was homosexual, so they came to the conclusion she must be gay in other ways.

During DADT, there were 3 ways the military could discharge homosexuals:

http://www.sldn.org/pages/dadt-before-and-after

Statements — Statements are admissions of one’s sexual orientation, such as “I am gay.” Under DADT, a statement like this—or any other statement that would lead a “reasonable person” to conclude that a service member was gay—was considered homosexual conduct and was grounds for discharge.2

With the repeal of DADT, statements about a service member’s sexual orientation are no longer grounds for discharge, and service members are free to come out to whomever they would like, if they so choose.

Acts — Under DADT, a homosexual act was any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same gender for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires, and any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in a homosexual act.3

With the repeal of DADT, lawful acts with a person of the same sex are no longer grounds for discharge. Service members are free to engage in intimate conduct with a person of the same sex to the extent permissible under sexual-orientation-neutral regulations. However, there are other provisions that limit or prohibit certain acts, and that can have serious penalties. For more information, please refer to the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” and “Military Policies” sections of this guide.

Marriage — Same-sex marriage is currently available in several states and the District of Columbia. Other states have provisions for domestic partnerships or civil unions. Under DADT, any marriage or attempted marriage (which included civil unions, domestic partnerships or commitment ceremonies) was grounds for discharge.4

Today, service members are free to marry, obtain a domestic partnership or civil union, or have a commitment ceremony with another person of the same sex without fear of separation. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a same-sex marriage will not be recognized as a valid marriage by the military and other parts of the federal government, even if it is validly performed in a state that allows same-sex marriage. Spouses of service members, therefore, will be limited in the benefits available to them (for more information, please see the “Families and Benefits” section of this guide). SLDN is working to change this inequity, but service members can rest assured that they will not be separated for committing to the person they love.

But homosexuals can still even now be persecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex, despite state sodomy laws being rules unconstitutional almost 10 years ago.

http://sldn.3cdn.net/5d4dd958a62981cff8_v5m6bw1gx.pdf

The Senate version of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision that would repeal Art. 125, which criminalizes sodomy. Consensual sodomy would no longer be criminal under the UCMJ, while nonconsensual sodomy would be criminalized under a revised Art. 120, dealing with sexual assault. Until this provision becomes law and alters the UCMJ, the following information remains current.

The UCMJ prohibits all service members from engaging in sodomy as defined in Art. 125 (primarily oral and anal sex between members of the same or opposite sex). Service members found violating this article can be courtmartialed and imprisoned if found guilty. Some confusion about the military’s prosecution of sodomy has arisen following the June 2003 United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
83 In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas sodomy statute prohibiting two persons of the same-sex from engaging in private consensual sexual conduct, and all similar state laws, are unconstitutional.

Service members should operate under the assumption that they can be arrested and prosecuted if caught engaging in sexual activity falling within the definition of sodomy in Article 125 of the UCMJ. Convictions under Article 125 can result in up to five years in prison for each act, punitive discharge, reduction in pay and fines and forfeitures.86 Service members have gone to prison for violating Article 125 of the UCMJ.

They can also be persecuted for engaging in "indecent acts":

Indecent Act: Service members can be charged with an “Indecent Act” if they engage in “indecent conduct,” which is in turn defined as “that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity that is grossly vulgar, obscene and repugnant to common propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or deprave morals with respect to sexual relations.” This includes “observing” another person without their consent and “contrary to that other person’s reasonable expectation of privacy” in their naked body or while engaged in a sexual act. LBG service members need to beware that an “indecent act” charge could result from someone making a false allegation about leering in the showers or watching a roommate change.

In addition, officers can still be persecuted for "conduct umbecoming":

Service members may also be court-martialed for same-sex sexual conduct under Articles 133 and 134 of the UCMJ. Articles 133 and 134 are referred to as the general articles, and serve as a catch-all for conduct that the military wishes to make illegal but has not been specifically outlawed in any of the other articles. Art. 133 outlaws “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.”87 Art. 134 outlaws conduct that results in the “prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” as well as conduct that “brings discredit upon the armed forces.”88

Conduct that has been considered a violation of Articles 133 and 134 includes: adultery, fraternization and soliciting another to commit an offense. For more information on each of these offenses, see the Military Policies section of this Guide.

 

[MobBoss]

So what would be considered "telling"?

Well, for starters, asking to be discharged because of homosexuality. Thats the one that I saw as most prevalent. Others would be applying for a marriage license with someone of the same sex, marching in a gay pride parade in uniform, being in a sex video with homosexual sex, etc.

In the case of the Air Force officer/hero I posted earlier, it was due to him being falsely accused of rape. In order to defend himself in a court of law, he had to divulge he was a homosexual who had consensual sex with the accuser. And even after he was acquitted, the person continued to harass him by repeatedly informing Air Force personnel he was gay.

And that would be telling as well.

In the case of the woman whose interview I also posted earlier, it was after she was asked 21 times if she was homosexual, so they came to the conclusion she must be gay in other ways.

This wouldnt. Asking someone like that is against regulation, and she should have registered a complaint with the inspector generals office. In fact, I would find this hard to believe in the Army for the simple reason its widely common knowledge that doing that is forbidden by regulation.

But homosexuals can still even now be persecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex, despite state sodomy laws being rules unconstitutional almost 10 years ago.

Your own link also says:

The Senate version of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision that would repeal Art. 125, which criminalizes sodomy. Consensual sodomy would no longer be criminal under the UCMJ, while non-consensual sodomy would be criminalized under a revised Art. 120, dealing with sexual assault. Until this provision becomes law and alters the UCMJ, the following information remains current.

Further it also says:

Following the decision in Lawrence, there were multiple appeals of consensual sodomy convictions in the military court system challenging the constitutionality of Art. 125. In August 2004, the military’s highest criminal court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), ruled in United States v. Marcum that while the Lawrence decision does apply to the military, the military could still prosecute consensual sodomy if the conduct fell outside of protections provided under Lawrence, or if the conduct is prohibited because of additional factors solely relevant to the military context.84 In other words, CAAF determined that the military could constitutionally continue to prosecute consensual sodomy under limited circumstances.85 In Marcum, the court ruled that because the accused service member’s involvement was with a subordinate, his conduct was outside the constitutional protection defined by the Supreme Court and therefore his consensual sodomy conviction was correct.

Way to cherry pick.

They can also be persecuted for engaging in "indecent acts":

You do understand that Art 125 also covers sex with animals, right? And while it may come as a shock to you, we have had that occur, and the correct article to use is article 125. Your link mentions some have been discharged under that article, but fails to indicate what precisely for.

In addition, officers can still be persecuted for "conduct umbecoming":

Which covers a very large range of conduct, and generally not specifically about sexual conduct, as adultery and fraternization also have other specific articles that address those crimes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmm, in my opinion only the first sounds sensible. More Don't ask, don't ask, but that's technical.

 

[MobBoss]

Hmm, in my opinion only the first sounds sensible. More Don't ask, don't ask, but that's technical.

Rofl, you dont think making a sex video with gay/lesbian sex acts in it and then showing it to your co-workers is sensibly 'telling'?

Okey dokey.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"and then showing it to your co-workers" You kind of left that a bit out of your answer.

If it's a gay sex video, the only one going to see it would be .... gay. But I'm guessing that any kind of sex-video presentation would be frowned upon.

 

[MobBoss]

"and then showing it to your co-workers" You kind of left that a bit out of your answer.

How else do you think it came up? I thought it was rather implied.

If it's a gay sex video, the only one going to see it would be .... gay. But I'm guessing that any kind of sex-video presentation would be frowned upon.

Precisely correct.

 

[JollyRoger]

Wow, having to watch gay sex videos as part of military duty? Makes me think some disability claims could be related to priapism.

 

[MobBoss]

Wow, having to watch gay sex videos as part of military duty? Makes me think some disability claims could be related to priapism.

Well, its more than obvious that some have hard-ons for vets and the military in general, isnt it?

Change your shoe Jolly...you've toe-tapped that one out.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, its more than obvious that some have hard-ons for vets and the military in general, isnt it?

Change your shoe Jolly...you've toe-tapped that one out.

Its not toe tapping, it's a wide stance.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And that would be telling as well.

Of course it is. After all, the bone fide hero certainly had a choice. He could have simply not "told" and be convicted of raping a male. I'm sure that wouldn't have been considered to be "telling".

The only thing that remains to be seen is how many more homosexual soldiers who are proudly serving their country will still be the victims of even more witch hunts based on sodomly laws which are now considered to be unconstitutional for all civilians, or who are the victims of those who will claim they are peeping in the showers or at the urinals.

After all, everybody knows that no straight soldiers would ever engage in anal or oral sex being such unspeakable "sins".

 

[MobBoss]

Of course it is. After all, the bone fide hero certainly had a choice. He could have simply not "told" and be convicted of raping a male. I'm sure that wouldn't have been considered to be "telling".

How do you know he would have been convicted?

The only thing that remains to be seen is how many more homosexual soldiers who are proudly serving their country will still be the victims of even more witch hunts based on sodomly laws which are now considered to be unconstitutional for all civilians, or who are the victims of those who will claim they are peeping in the showers or at the urinals.

Try reading your own link again, this time carefully and in context. What you allege isnt happening. At all.

 

[BasketCase]

Archivist Super Punch!!

I do know this, though: the repeal of DADT is creating terrorists. Yes, you heard that right. Repeal of DADT, creating terrorists. Devout Muslims such as the Taliban hate gays. In fact, they execute gays. The repeal of DADT is drawing more of them into the suicide-bomber ranks.?

Do you have any evidence for that ludicrous assumption?

The fact that devout Muslims such as the Taliban execute gays. In many Muslim nations, and yes, I'm referring to national laws here, being gay is a capital offense.

 

[Leoreth]

Do you really think there is a Muslim terrorist-to-be who thinks "Huh, you know, gays in America might be tolerated too much, but at least in their military they must hide their sexuality. What? That's been repealed? MUST BOMB THE PENTAGON RAWR "?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't think he knows what the word 'evidence' means. I think he thinks it means: vague far-fetched rationalisation.

 

[Leoreth]

It's not even about evidence, I'm already baffled that one might really think such a situation is plausible.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It must be great to be the most awesomesuace debater in one's own head. As far as delusions go, it's a rather harmless one, but it brings a lot of joy.

The only downside is you have to constantly point this out to people.