I always get a chuckle out of how the repeal of DADT is handled in the Press. Let's assume that President Obama strikes DADT from being applied in the Military. What is the practical result? What is the UCMJ on the subject of sex?

If I've read the UCMJ correctly (Subchapter X, 920, article 120 as well as Subchapter X, 925, article 125 found here) the UCMJ does not make it illegal to be a Homosexual, or to be in the Military while being a Homosexual. One can presumably truthfully discuss one's sexual preference without fear of arrest or other legal actions.

What one CANNOT do, is commit a forcible sex act (rape), or have any sex with an underage female (statutory rape) or participate in unnatural sex with men, women, or animals. It's not who or what you are... it's what you DO. And frankly, seeing as the 'unnatural sex' law applies to sex with men OR women if there were to be a sexual activities purge the ranks of the Navies entire enlisted corps would be prosecuted.

(Pronunciation note to WH Staff... oh never mind.)

This guy's email sounds more like a Religious Screed than a political one; if you don't consider him a Religious Authority, ignore him. It WOULD, however, be interesting to see if he is all fired up against Heterosexual members of the Military engaging in sex acts performed in something other than the, er, "Missionary Position".

Another point is that he has ignored the real statement that is in the Bible (what he would call the "Old Testament"). What is forbidden is a homosexual act. Similarly, "sodomy" is not homosexuality, or even "unnatural sex". Sodom was punished for institutionalizing theft, murder, and rape in order to prevent what we would call "charity". There are a number of examples of this in the Talmud.

A poor person would beg and be given coins which were marked with the name of the owner. No-one would sell him (or give him) any food. After he died, everyone would retrieve his money from the body.

A daughter of Lot, gave food to a poor man. She was smeared with honey and staked over an ant hill.

In the Bible, Lot was attacked because "How dare you try to judge us, by bringing guests into your house". The attack on the "guests" was in order to prevent this from happening again, not in order to perform any form of sexual deviancy.

Well, as a conservative, I don't necessarily object to the idea of homosexuality in the military per se. As Mr. Michael points out, if we were actually to apply the UCMJ evenly, we'd have to get rid of a whole lot of people for "unnatural sex" (what does that mean? It has to be done outside in a tree?), not just those that have sex with with the same sex.

My objection is larger. It is to the whole gay rights construct. What is being advanced, for the first time, is that a particular private behavior is to be awarded special status. It is not to be held up for criticism, and if the rules of your organization prohibit it, the government has the right to make accept it. It's an attempt to use government to force the people to accept the activities of others. You want to talk about legislating virtue? The gay rights movement does that in spades, by attempting to legislate tolerance for their activities.

To the gay rights crowd: Honestly, I don't care what team you play for. What I care about is that you don't even want to give me the option of disapproving. For that offense, I will side with the religious fundamentalists and tell you to go to hell.

Ex-Chaplain Klingenschmitt, in an odd sort of way, offers an example of what I feel is the brilliance of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. He was apparently released from the Navy in 2007 because he was unwilling or unable to follow the Navy's nonsectarian, plain-vanilla guidelines for homilies offered while in uniform. He got up to offer a prayer at some official function, went off on some sort of fundamentalist tangent and was reprimanded, fined and released from service.

The Navy has a de facto DADT policy for fundamentalism in the chaplain's corps. As long as a minister can keep the peculiarly sectarian aspects of his creed sufficiently discrete and private to do his job then he can be a Chaplain. If he/she decides that this constitutes "living a lie" then he/she is encouraged to live their creed openly outside of the Navy.

I am not sure that I speak for all "Conservatives" in this matter -- and I am sure I don't speak for Mr Klingenschmitt but whether is is fair to blame conservatism for his views is less than clear -- but I have no particular desire to kick homosexuals out of the military -- nor fundamentalists out of the Chaplaincy, for that matter -- I just think the military is well served if everyone -- soldiers as well as their chain of command -- takes pains to see that the matter never comes up. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and by extension Don't Snoop, Don't Snitch and Don't Prance Around in Uniform Like Some Sort of Effin' Sugar Plum Fairy" still strikes me as a good policy.

JSchuler:

You make a good point about the gay agenda (which certainly exists); but it's a non-sequitur on this blog, since we don't support it.

For example, Sachi and I vehemently and proudly oppose:

• Same-sex marriage and "domestic partnerships" that have the same rights and privileges as real marriage;
• Teaching about homosexuality in school (or any other kind of sex; if the kids learn it on the streets, they probably get more accurate information anyway);
• The canard of an "epidemic" of heterosexual AIDS;
• That the Boy Sprouts should be forced to accept gay Scouts and Scoutmasters, and so on.

I support allowing gays to serve openly in the military not because they should have a "special status" -- but because I passionately believe that every member of society has the inalienable right to defend that society to the utmost of his ability.

There is no reason that some women cannot be excellent combat soldiers, sailors, or airmen; and there is for dang sure no reason that gays cannot be, as well. Let each individual qualify as an individual for whatever MOS he can.

I am unimpressed by the argument that some soldiers will be so horrified showering with a -- a -- a gay guy, that they will be unable to fight. Jumping Jesus, get a grip. (But in the communal shower, please be careful what you're gripping!)

I believe that gays should be protected from discrimination in public employment, public contracts, and public education; but private business owners and suchlike should be able to exclude anyone for any reason from employment... yes, even including vile racist reasons. Private property is sacred, as is freedom of assembly.

At the moment, straight soldiers can brag all they want about going "around the world" with a chippie in one of the hanging cages in Bangkok -- which would also violate the UCMJ, by my reading. But if a gay guy so much as mentions his "significant other" Myron, he can be dishonorably discharged, or at least OTH'ed.

Seems like the heteros are the ones with special status.

Dafydd

Dafydd, I didn't say that you supported it, but it is not a non-sequitur. However, allow me to make the following observation:

Political outcomes cannot be engineered. They are not the result of a central planner who carefully balances out who will get what on what grounds. Instead, political outcomes are determined by a collection of vectors from all involved parties. All other things being equal, the carefully laid construct of the political theorist will be put up against the raving fanatic, and the outcome will wind up somewhere between the two.

Thus, if you wish for your true political goal to be the outcome of a debate, you must make sure your political goal exists within the domain of compromise. That will not be the case if the political battle is waged on your doorstep. Just as in war, it is better for the fighting to be on your opponent's territory, rather than your own, as it's their ideology that will have to compromise first.

The question then becomes, whose ideology will do the most damage in its uncompromised form? Is it the social cons, who want to make sure all couples are plug-and-play compatible? Or is it the gay rights groups, that want to make sure all thoughts are PC.

I do not deny that in this case, the law is unjustly applied. I just see the motive force that is driving to change that law is even more unjust, and thus is to be opposed.

I think Mullen had it wrong also, though not necessarily on grounds of theology. I remember well the 1993 hearings and the report that came out of them. I agreed with both the findings and the policy at the time. There have been no hearings since - nor any type of in depth fact finding - that would lead me to conclude that the findings of the '93 hearings are no longer valid. Mullens only expressed fairness to gays, not to the rest of the military nor effect on military effectiveness - which, since he is CJS, really ought to be his first concern. Indeed, recent polls of our volunteer military indcate that a substantial percentage would leave the force were gays allowed to serve openly. Whether a person agrees or not, it is that fact which I think must override all else.

I just did a long post on just this issue explaining this in a lot more detail. If you are interested, it's here.

GW:

Indeed, recent polls of our volunteer military indcate that a substantial percentage would leave the force were gays allowed to serve openly.

Sorry, GW, but using your own link, I find this to be complete nonsense; see below.

This is precisely what white soldiers said when told that Truman was going to integrate the military: "If the president makes those [blacks] serve side by side with me, I'll quit!" He did... and they didn't.

Warning! This post is way too long for me to edit; so what you're getting is mostly raw first draft. Beware, there are surely tyops and mis,punctuations and poorly of formed grammars formed poorly. You have been warned.

The defense of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy is vagueness and "argument by meaningful glances" personified, even in your own post. Consider this example from the report by Sen. Coats, a very conservative Republican from Indiana -- who noted that in the report you cite, he was speaking for himself:

I am not speaking for the committee. I am not speaking for any member of the committee. These are conclusions I have drawn from the six hearings that we have conducted.

Here is some of his evidence that gays must not serve openly:

We were told in the committee that homosexuality disrupts the development of cohesion.

Told by whom? He's got a list of names.

Gen. Calvin Waller said, "Most surveys indicate that this type of cohesion and teamwork cannot be attained with avowed homosexuals in their midst."

Um, what "surveys" were those? Who conducted them? Who analyzed them? Were they vetted by experts in statistics and polling? We don't know... it's just another vague and tendentious claim.

Then there's Norman Schwartzkopf:

It was General Schwarzkopf who commented--and General Schwarzkopf, I might note, was commander of personnel during the eighties before he advanced to his assignment as commander of our forces in the Persian Gulf, and so he had some very direct experience with personnel policies--and commenting on that he said:

In every case--

Not most cases--
in every case where homosexuality became known in the unit, it resulted in a breakdown in morale, cohesion, effectiveness--

With resulting dissent, resentment, and even violence.

In every case... wow, 100%! Except I've known gays in the Navy, and friends in the Marines and Army have been in units where it was known that some members were gay, and they didn't see this sort of breakdown.

And I have a spectacularly good witness that maybe, just maybe, Schwartzkopf was... well, telling a bit of a stretcher there. Do you recognize this witness?

As to our modern military, for myself, as a former infantry officer, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.

I guess that was the exception that "proves" Schwartzkopf's Universal Proclamation. Oh well, we move on.

Here's another interesting angle; recall, this is from 1993, which means the examples the witnesses cite are from earlier, going back to what -- Vietnam? Korea?

I specifically asked Dr. Marlowe what sexual attraction, either between the soldiers in a small unit or soldiers and their leader, would do to unit cohesion. He replied:

It destroys it *** because of the implications which can never be kept out, of favoritism, of differential behavior and differential reward.

We then turned to the question of sexual tension within the unit and why or why not that might cause unit breakdown. We discovered that sexual tension is a particularly powerful force under cohesion. Witnesses testified this is the reason why we separate men and women in the military, but some also argue there is no practical way to avoid sexual tension if we allow homosexuals in the military.

This is particularly fascinating -- because these days, ten years and several wars later, many, many units in combat zones have significant numbers of women in them; and quite a few of these women find themselves actually in combat. I'm not talking about cute, little nurses; I'm talking about people like Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester.

But... if Dr. Marlowe's claim is true, and sexual attraction "destroys [unit cohesion] because of the implications which can never be kept out, of favoritism, of differential behavior and differential reward"... then why have those units in Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones conspicuously failed to break down?

So sexual attraction and sexual tension between men and women doesn't seem to lead to the dire catastrophes that Dr. Marlowe predicts; but the mere knowledge that some soldier is gay, no matter how effective he is and regardless of whether he expresses any sexual attraction to any other soldier, must necessarily cause his unit to fracture, even if it costs them all their lives?

This is the perfect example of projection: So and So doesn't like gays, doesn't want to be around gays, is extremely upset in the presence of gays; clearly then, gays are disruptive!

Substitute "blacks" or "Jews" for gays, and you really do have a prescription for destroying our military. Particularly with all the emphasis on (undefined) "shared values." But what values, exactly, are shared?

Does that mean only white Christians? Obviously not. All right, how about only native-born Americans? No, that's not right either. Evidently, those values needn't be shared to have a cohesive military... because we simultaneously have the most diverse and the most cohesive military in the world.

So what values must be shared -- and how do we know that one of those essential values is desiring sex only with members of the opposite sex? Is this firm conviction based upon anything other than a few cherry-picked generals and psychologists saying so?

Dr. William Henderson testified before the committee:

A significant characteristic about a cohesive unit is the constant observation and evaluation of the behavior of unit members. Any deviation from unit norms, values, or expected behavior brings immediate and intense group pressures to conform to group norms. If the behavior is not corrected, then cleavage results in the group and cohesion is weakened.

Specifics, anyone? Anything other than homosexuality? How about political norms -- are Democrats allowed in the armed forces? Or what about Mormons... now there's a group so abnormal that many Christians deny that they're even fellow Christians!

We've already mentioned Jews, but what about neopagans? There is a minority of servicemen who profess belief in Wicca or Druidism or some other neopagan religion. Where are the calls to require them to maintain utter and eternal silence about their cockamamie religious views?

Do you call for a new policy, GW, of "don't ask, don't cast a spell?"

If not politics or religion or gender, how about sports deviance? Nearly everybody in the military is vitally interested in football, basketball, or baseball. But what about soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who don't give a hoot for those sports -- but who love curling or figure skating or equestrian? "Don't ask, don't curl?"

Somehow, with all this high-falutin' talk about "shared values" and "deviation from unit norms," the only norm whose deviation brings an immediate call for OTH expulsion is... sexual preference.

It has nothing to do with shared values; gays can believe just as fervently as straights in America, God, Mom, apple pie, freedom and liberty, the duty to defend one's own culture, protection of civilians and of American institutions, and even in traditional marriage.

And now we come to your most potent claim, the one I labeled "nonsense" at the very top of this (overly long) comment. You wrote:

Indeed, recent polls of our volunteer military indcate that a substantial percentage would leave the force were gays allowed to serve openly.

Um... I hate to ask this, GW, but -- did you read your own link? I think you should have read a little closer:

There is evidence that allowing gays to serve openly would have a negative impact on recruitment and retention; Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center and author of “Unfriendly Fire” a book on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, said the last time the military cooperated with researchers to allow internal polling in 1993 [that's 17 years ago -- DaH] they found strong opposition among soldiers to allowing gays into the military.

"Polls have consistently shown resistance to letting gays serve," Frank said. "But that resistance has dropped precipitously over the past 17 years. The news is the trend towards tolerance."

However a Military Times poll in December 2008 found that 58 percent of U.S. troops do not want gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Ten percent of respondents said they would leave the armed forces if the ban were lifted and 14 percent said they would consider doing so.

Polls of soldiers in the United Kingdom similarly found that as many as two-thirds of soldiers said they would consider leaving the service if gays were allowed in, but the British military reported that very few soldiers actually chose to depart when the ban was lifted in 2000. There was significant resistance among senior officers, while younger personnel tended to be more open to allowing gays to serve.

And there you have it, GW: When questioned, many soldiers say, "Oh yeah, if they let gays serve openly, I'll quit!" But when the policy is actually implemented, and members of the military must actually decide whether to throw away their careers... well, it seems it's not such a big deal afterall.

Exactly as you report happened in the wake of Truman's integration of the troops: Lots of sound and fury, threats of a complete breakdown in unit cohesion and morale, that in the end signified nothing. Just huffing and puffing, and people living up to the verbal cultural expectations of their peer groups.

The fact is that a number of mililtaries have rescinded their bans on openly homosexual soldiers in the past couple of decades; and if there is a one of them that experience any significant adverse effects traceable to that policy change, the opponents of repealing DADT have mysteriously failed to cite them.

GW, "evidence" in favor of keeping DADT is easy to find; but it's all of the apocalyptic prediction kind. Easy to make dire claims of complete catastrophe.

What's impossible to find is any actual example of such predictions coming true, because there just aren't any.

Dafydd

Hello Dafyyd

It seems I have rattled your cage on this one. Thanks for the detailed response. It seems apparent that you read some of the links I provided, but not the entire post, as some of the central criticisms you raise I in fact addressed.

This is precisely what white soldiers said when told that Truman was going to integrate the military: "If the president makes those [blacks] serve side by side with me, I'll quit!" He did... and they didn't.

There are several substantive differences between 1948 and 2010. As I point out in my post, chief among them – the military in 1948 was a conscript military, not a volunteer one. Our soldiers are under no compulsion to stay in the service beyond their enlistment, nor is anyone under any compulsion to sign up for the service to replace them. As to officers under a general period of service – essentially all Captians (Lt. for you swabbies) and above - they may opt out at any time. And if you ignore the recent Military Times polls that show a majority do not want gays serving openly in the military and that a significant percentage of our military would leave the service rather than re-up because you think they are lying or simply won't act in the manner they say, it is a very dangerous act of hubris indeed.

As to the soldiers whom I knew or suspected were homosexuals, at both officer and enlisted rank, each and every one were not in the combat arms branches. Speaking as a former infantry officer, I can say that there is an exponential difference between life in combat support and service support units and life in combat arms. I don't know how many infantry soldiers you know, but they live in a different world entirlely in terms of how much time they spend together, the amount of time spent in the field, whether in training or at war, and their aggressiveness. That is where unit cohesion comes in. Now I at various times had command over a fair number of infantry soldiers. Where there gay soldiers in my units? I am sure there were simply as a matter of percentage. But it was never made known, Had it been, I am relatively certain, knowing intimately (in a platonic sense) the soldiers that I commanded, that it would have been problematic indeed.

Your point on women serving in the military is valid, but only to a point. Again, while “sexual tension” is something that can be managed and not be too disruptive in combat support and service support units, that is a world apart from combat arms. That said, there is also a world of difference between the “sexual tension” involving women and gays. While you may be tolerant of the gay lifestyle, that hardly means that everyone has to accept your secular take on it. I find it troubling indeed that so many people wish to jam complete acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of those who object to homosexuality on religious grounds and believe it to be immoral. That said, it is a bit afield from my argument. In this instance, what I think and what you think on that issue is immaterial. It is collectively what the military thinks that is important.

My point in giving a brief glimpse at the 1993 report – and using Sen. Coats's brief summary of some of the testimony – was to establish the base line from which we need to address this issue. It was not cited as proof of the reality that gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military today, but it is the very last word we have on this issue from any sort of comptent body to do a fact finding effort. (and as an aside, I find your questioning of some of the testimony, such as that of Schwartzkopf, with no factual basis upon which to do so, to be less than a legitimate argument) Again, if you had read to the end of my post, you would find that my argument is keep the don't ask don't tell policy in place until there has been another hearing of the 1993 type to determine whether attitudes have changed sufficiently inside of our military to justify allowing gays to serve openly. Polls of civilians don't matter. Neither do issues of fairness – whether to gay soldiers, none of whom are prevented from serving in the military today – nor to fairness to our entire volunteer military. The sole issue at any time, let alone in the ninth year at war, has to be on how this would impact our military.

Polls of soldiers in the United Kingdom similarly found that as many as two-thirds of soldiers said they would consider leaving the service if gays were allowed in, but the British military reported that very few soldiers actually chose to depart when the ban was lifted in 2000. There was significant resistance among senior officers, while younger personnel tended to be more open to allowing gays to serve.

Again, you didn't read down to the bottom of my post. I specifically address that. To quote from my post:

We are not Britain. We are a much more conservative and religious nation than any to be found in secular Europe, and indeed, I think it safe to say that many of the things that have happened in socialist Britiain over the past decade - from restrictions on free speech, open borders immigration, and enforcement of political correctness on an insane scale - would have led to blood in the streets in America. Indeed, the decision of the British government to transfer British sovereignty to the EU without a promised referendum of the people would have led to full scale civil war if that had happened in America, yet it barely drew a peep from the people of Britain. Anyone who points to the experience of Britain or other European nations as a means to short circuit debate and forego a searching and thorough period of fact finding before allowing gays to serve openly in the military today is being disingenuous at the very least. They risk doing mortal harm to our volunteer military for purely political reasons.

The bottom line, this is an issue that deserves a lot more fact finding before gays - all of whom can serve in the miliatary today - are allowed to "tell." This is first and last a question of what impact it will have on our military.

GW:

The bottom line, this is an issue that deserves a lot more fact finding before gays - all of whom can serve in the miliatary today - are allowed to "tell." This is first and last a question of what impact it will have on our military.

I have no problem whatsoever with a "go it slow" approach that includes another full-scale evaluation of the policy change. But that evaluation cannot rest exclusively on a poll of soldiers: What they say when asked about gays serving openly is not a proxy for how they will actually react when it happens; and how they will react is an element of, but not itself a proxy for, how the change will impact the military.

There are many things that the service chiefs themselves, along with the entire officer corps, can do to dramatically mitigate potential sources of problems or damage to morale, esprit de corps, unit cohesion, and so forth, from education to close monitoring to banging heads when necessary.

Back in June, I devoted an entire post, Straight Eye for the Queer Guy, to a (heterosexual) current training officer who served two tours in Iraq as a mid-level commissioned combat infantry commander; for purposes of the post, he went by the name Boss Mongo. Although he opposes changing the DADT policy, I asked him what he, as a training officer, would do if the prohibition is lifted.

Let me quote from the intro to the piece:

I was naturally aware that many, particularly in the military, rejected the policy of gays serving openly in military service; so when I heard from one such -- an officer in Iraq, a "Transition Team Leader" who blogs under the name Boss Mongo -- I responded, and we had a friendly and fascinating discussion.

Please make no mistake: Boss Mongo very much opposes the policy change I support. He is an upper mid-level commissioned officer who served two tours in Iraq and now commands a training team. He believes that such a policy change would be "prejudicial to good order and discipline," and would damage our warfighting capability.

But I was much more interested in Boss Mongo's expertise than his opinion; I've heard opinions on all sides from officers and enlisted, many with similar combat experience. But this was the first time I was able to speak, one on one, with a training officer who could move the discussion forward beyond the hand-waving stage (on both sides!)

I urged Boss Mongo to tell me what he would do to mitigate the damage -- what training he would have to institute (were the policy ordered) to preserve "good order and discipline." The thought experiment I gave him specified that Congress, the Commander in Chief, and and Pentagon had all agreed -- and no branch of government had consulted Boss Mongo before making its decision (amazing!) So now, the orders have come down the chain (in this hypothetical), and he is ordered to take charge of the training program to prepare current and incoming soldiers, gay and straight, for the New Way.

What, I asked him, would you do? He agreed that he would not resign his commission; he's a career guy, and he would stay in the military and obey orders. So with those caveats, here is Boss Mongo's plan -- including how he arrived at it, which is amazing in itself... I think I spawned a series of high-level meetings that may have set-off a policy prairie fire; what power these blog-things have! Here is what we would need to do in order to make such a policy change work, if the government decides to do so.

As a blogger I know likes to say, read the whole post!

Note that I brought Boss Mongo on, despite our difference of position on the policy, because I'm always interested in new quality data, no matter what side it comes from. Nobody else I know could talk knowledgeably about what training would be needed and how effective it would be in the real world of combat arms.

I reiterate: If we had a perfect system, I wouldn't be calling for any changes; and my argument -- per this post -- is not that we should remove the prohibition because of "fairness" or even because of the very real and vital right of all members of the American community to defend the country. Rather, I make the argument because I believe it would actually make our military stronger, not weaker, by removing a very dangerous vulnerability.

The problems that arise would be temporary and can be mitigated; the benefit of no longer having a significant group of military members who are constantly subject to blackmail and extortion would be permanent.

I don't know how many infantry soldiers you know...

Hardly any; we didn't have many infantry soldiers in the Navy. We do, however, have SEALs; and when I was wandering around asking everybody from the Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET), who was a vice admiral, down to lieutenants and ensigns my informal survey on women in combat and gays serving openly, I also asked the SEALs, who were all petty officers or chiefs. (I knew them because they had taught us water-related skills and device training in OCS.)

Among the SEALs, most (6 out of the 11 I asked) were somewhat opposed to gays serving openly (more so than they were to women serving in combat positions); none said that he would refuse to reenlist if that change were made; all said that having an openly gay sailor in their SEAL team would not be as bad as having someone who smoked dope (I asked that of each responent as a comparison).

Even the ones opposed to changing the policy didn't seem that worked up about it. It seemed it would be an annoyance to those six SEALs, but not a deal killer by any stretch.

Amongst the junior commissioned officers (ensigns, JGs, and lieutenants), about 70% thought the prohibition should be lifted on both (women in combat and gays serving openly). Even several who said they really disliked gays thought the military itself should not have a blanket prohibition.

The remaining 30% (it was a small survey; I'm rounding percentages) opposed lifting DADT... but all of the junior officers supported allowing women to serve in combat, if they could pass all the training at the same level as the men's standard.

Among the senior officers (captain up to vice admiral), it was about 50-50. In contrast with the JOs, more of the senior officers were okay with lifting the prohibition on gays than on women!

(I didn't have contact with any mid-level officers at that time, waiting around for ground school to begin.)

This was in 1985, by the way; I am with Nathaniel Frank: I suspect sentiment has shifted significantly towards lifting the prohibition on both in the last quarter century.

While you may be tolerant of the gay lifestyle, that hardly means that everyone has to accept your secular take on it. I find it troubling indeed that so many people wish to jam complete acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of those who object to homosexuality on religious grounds and believe it to be immoral.

You misapprehend my argument. I wouldn't dream of demanding you "accept" homosexuality, any more than I would demand you accept heterosexual sex outside of marriage -- which is also objectionable on religious and moral grounds.

Nevertheless, I do believe the UCMJ should be updated to remove the vague prohibitions against (as a previous commenter put it) anything but the missionary position between man and woman.

In practice, in recent decades, charging under those sections has pretty much been used for only two situations: members committing adultery with (or in betrayal of) other members; and anyone accused of being gay, even if he has been celebate since enlisting.

Rather, a sexual act should violate the UCMJ if and only if the act itself -- not some third party's unreasonable reaction to it -- would disrupt good order and discipline. For example, having sex in view of others should be prosecutable whether it's gay or straight; unwanted sexual attention (whether gay or straight); sexual harassment (ditto); sexual assault (obviously).

But discreet and responsible sex -- from having gay sex behind closed doors to a husband having oral sex with his wife -- should only be an offense if done in a way to disrupt good order and discipline... with the burden of proof in a court martial or NJP on the prosecution.

By the way, I reiterate: I reject most elements of the gay-activist agenda; but I do support both individual rights for civilians and also any change to military regulations that I believe will make the services stronger.

Dafydd

ON a related, yet lighter note: How can you rely on what Servicemen tell you about an issue when the issue is Don't Ask, Don't TELL? Beyond being a punch line, it's about as reasonable as asking if you believe in eating onions, when the expressed belief in eating onions means you'll be kicked out of the Military.

The result of the Poll would be directly linked to the Servicemen's trust in the privacy of the poll. How much privacy do they get in the Military? I didn't get to serve, so I can't speak to that...

I will read the Straight Eye post tomorrow. No chance to tonight.

Just a few things to add at the moment.

The problems that arise would be temporary and can be mitigated; the benefit of no longer having a significant group of military members who are constantly subject to blackmail and extortion would be permanent.

That is an interesting point that I did not consider. Actually, until last week, it did not dawn on me that a third party could "tell" on a gay servicemember and that would get them bounced from the service. During my time in, I only saw two servicemen in a support unit bounced from the sevice for homosexuality and that only because one complained to the CQ about how much his butt hurt from having anal sex with his sgt. for the first time (true story).

Now that I think about it, the problems that you raise should have dawned on me from the grotesque outing (and subsequent discharge) of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez by gay activists and the liberal media, he having previously appearing in gay porn. That said, the policy actually changed within the past week, if I recall correctly. The new policy is that "the military will no longer pursue disciplinary action against gay soldiers whose sexual orientation is revealed by a third party." That is a change I fully support, particularly in light, as you mention, of the possiblity of black mail, etc.

Nevertheless, I do believe the UCMJ should be updated to remove the vague prohibitions against (as a previous commenter put it) anything but the missionary position between man and woman. . . . But discreet and responsible sex -- from having gay sex behind closed doors to a husband having oral sex with his wife -- should only be an offense if done in a way to disrupt good order and discipline... with the burden of proof in a court martial or NJP on the prosecution.

Agreed - and indeed, I always have. St. Augustine has haunted the world for far too long. Bring back St. Bacchuss (hmmm, can't remember when he was cannonized, but I do say prayers to him on occasion.)

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)