Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[DuncanONeil]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

I do not know who designed the poll questions but they do not allow for a reasoned analysis. The intent behind the poll must always be considered before you allow yourself to make your Regis answer (Is that your final answer). I could answer "no", yet I have no problem with the current policy. I only object to the "requirement" of losing your position in the Services. So presuming that the poll is to help in determining the countries feeling toward open gays in the Military, I can not answer at all. But the point is not the actual sexual orientation, it is one of security.

In spite of the potential risk ghays have always been in the Services!

[DuncanONeil]

Our favorite kink will also get you in trouble with the power structure in the Services!

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

Fraternization covers a lot more than just sex!

I would just like to remind us all (myself included) as this may be a heated topic for some of us, to please refrain when discussing opposing views from doing so in a manner that seems as if we are making personal attacks at each other.

I would also purpose the question then: Do policies like "don't ask don't tell" apply to a military member's off base lives? What kind of restriction is that really? Isn't it a rather subjective kind of thing that forces one to hide all the time?

And if sexual relationships or fratrenization as Oz so kindly pointed out the military term for us, isnt allowed period between serving hetro-sexual men and women, then whats the problem with letting homosexuals stop having to live behind closed doors allways affriad of aqusation and come out into the open?

What really makes sexual orientation such a hurdle? Other than "fear" of the suposabely unknown?





PS I would also like to thank fetish for bringing up the ancient greeks, the Sacred Band of the Thebans in paticular is where we have the most evidence of male to male pairings of a sexual nature being encouraged and also proved quite effective for them as
They did after all defeat the pedastic Spartans dominion over the Peloponese.

[DuncanONeil]

That is not the same thing. There is no provision in the UCMJ prohibiting BEING homosexual. The "requirement" to separate a homosexual from service is a policy not a law.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Actually fraternization is not about regulating sex. It is about the command structure, I have been trying to find a comparable civilian term to help in understanding the term. Just while typing this got a hit on the search macro, Fraternization is akin to nepotism, for those not related "sleeping their way to the top". It is all about favored treatment not from skills and abilities but from a personal relationship of some kind.

It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

[DuncanONeil]

Not quite! The act of sex alone is insufficient.

"(O)ne of the Court of Military Appeals' earliest decisions observed, "It is true, as urged by appellate defense counsel, that fornication, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, has been held not to be an offense under military law. United States v. Ord, 2 CMR(AF) 84. This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual." United States v. Snyder, 1 C.M.A. 423, 427, 4 C.M.R. 15, 19 (1952). Later in the same paragraph, CMA noted that "simple fornication is not an offense cognizable under military law." Id.

Chief Judge Everett has provided this helpful synopsis of the law governing fornication in the military:

In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable." (http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2007/09/...itary-law.html)

United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).

(as an indecent act under Article 134, UCMJ, fornication is open and notorious, flagrant, and discrediting to the military service if committed in the actual presence of others, when the participants know that a third person is present, or under circumstances where it is reasonable likely that others will view the act).

(evidence was legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where, although appellant hung a sheet between beds, two of appellant’s roommates were present during the fornication and both were suspicious of the activity behind the sheet).
(evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).

I don't know Duncun, more than a few of my friends that are in the service have told me, that if they get cuaght doing it with anyone else in thier command in the field or at sea, on even on base property in some cases; that there are consequences, even if its on shore leave or off post sometimes.

More often than not they go after the woman alone and eaither don't penalize the male or have far less harsher penalty enforced, and regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

[DuncanONeil]

I can understand your feelings on this matter but I am afraid I must disagree with your assumptions and conclusions.

I understand what you are saying, but as you say you are unfamiliar with UK service law. I do know that a lot of the laws that are used today in the UK army, and were in place during the Napoleonic war. They are very much in difference to the ones you talk about, but whether UK or American, even if it were not against military law, there would be found another reason why the gays would not be allowed in the military of either country. 1: there is not an American officer above the rank of colonel which would jeopardise his/her career to openly defend a gay staying in the forces, with the fear of themselves being called camp. 2: with their stiff upper lip, and pomp and ceremony, the British officers are no different. The higher ranks, in the war departments on both sides of the pond, are full of outdated bigots, and they are dinosaurs of the free world.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

You assume they are bigots! Yes, assume! You take one piece of information. The objection and determine an entire raison d'etre behind that objection.

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

We had huge discussions in SCA about our female members that wanted to engage in combat. It was a long and interesting battle but it became apparent that women in combat, while rare, was not an aberration. But even making that determination it was clear that by and large such was not the case. And I was speaking to the larger population rather than specific. Specifics can be a tough nut to swallow when discussing large groups.

I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

[DuncanONeil]

How do you protect against hate??

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[DuncanONeil]

It is entirely possible that this will turn out to be another feel good policy that does nothing. If a mixed sex couple can be charged and punished for openly sexual practices the same would be true of openly gay couples.

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.
In a letter to President Obama obtained by CNN, three congressional sponsors of legislation to repeal the policy outlined the proposed agreement that would set contingencies based on completion of a military review of the matter already under way and subsequent final approval from the president and military leaders.

Specifically, the proposed agreement calls for repeal to become final only after completion of the military review expected by the end of 2010, followed by a review certification from Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration endorsed the proposal in a letter sent to the congressmen Tuesday from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who wrote that the agreement "meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Congressional Democratic sources said they hoped Gates himself would explicitly support the compromise language because that could determine whether the measure will pass. Several Democrats in the Senate and House have said they are reluctant to support any legislation that doesn't have complete backing of the Pentagon.

There was no formal comment from the Pentagon on a possible agreement.

"Given that Congress insists on addressing this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Initial votes on the measure in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House could occur as soon as Thursday, sources said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, praised the agreement.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops," he said in a statement Monday. "Today's announcement paves the path to fulfill the president's call to end 'don't ask, don't tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The agreement emerged from a meeting Monday at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, the sources said. There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

Gates has said he supports repealing the policy, but also has launched an extensive review of how to make the change. The review won't be finished until the end of the year.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently said he would push for a measure now to repeal the law. Gates opposed the idea, saying in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee chairman that he "strongly opposed" any changes before completion of the military review.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on defense issues, also indicated his support for the military review before any possible repeal.

"I think most members really would like to hear from our commanders and men and women in uniform and get their input on a decision like this," said Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain committed to taking the time to get views from troops.

That process is well under way, the official said, noting that a survey will go out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views. In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The official noted that military commanders have been telling the troops for weeks that the review process was intended to ensure their views were incorporated in contingency planning in the event that Congress changes the law.

According to the official, changing the process now before completing the review could be harmful because some troops believe the whole repeal initiative is an effort to appease supporters of repeal.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

The Obama administration letter indicated the agreement would address those issues, saying its approach "recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions."

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's mid-term election and be unable to pass the measure then.

A senior administration official said Monday it was the understanding at the White House that "Congress is determined to act this week."

[DuncanONeil]

They do! The UCMJ!

i WILL LEAVE THIS ISSUE TGO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. the military should have one law for all

[Thorne]

In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable."

Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?

"This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual."

I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

As I said 41 Minutes Ago in message #66
United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).
(evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).

Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?


I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.

[Thorne]

As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.

Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.

[DuncanONeil]

I can agree with that. Hell yeah I can agree with that!

Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.

[mkemse]

No, ANYONE be they Gay, Lesbian etc. if they so choose to Serve our Country they should be allowed to
Just as I feel if woken wantto be allwoed to fight onte front lines they should be aloowed to as well
Rember that paer tha twas written in 1774, called the United States Contitution, the Bill of Right ect it does says in ther ALL MEN A RE CREATED EQUAL, it does not say ALL Men, unless they are Gay, Women who are Lesbians etc, are not Equal
The Billof rights and Our Constition does not sperate Striaght from Gay, TG. L etc whyshould the Miitary, if they are wiling to srve, they should be allowed to serve
Just my thought

[Lion]

How do you protect against hate??

Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party:

Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.

Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

[mkemse]

Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party:


Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

And I wonder what would happen in any Texas election if the race(s) were so close that the winner won by viture of Gay, Lesbian or TG votes, may then it would make the Republican retinnk their views of their Platform, don't laught it could happen alot of reacesNation wide recently have been close and have been decided by a paricualt group in those states

It is also intresesting that Texas has had more State Executinos of Inmates then ANY other State in the Union of the last decade, butthat is for a whole differentthread

[DuncanONeil]

I very specifically asked how you protect against "hate" You come back with the arificial construct of "hate speech". The artificial construct of "hate speech" falls into the same category of "sexual harassment" and "rape" - pre DNA. You have to prove you did not do it. And even then you never really get out from under when you do prove that you did not.

Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party:


Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

[IAN 2411]

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.

US Senate votes to lift military gay ban

Politicians in America have voted to repeal the ban against gays serving openly in the US military and sent the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate voted 65-31 to end 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell," policy. The US House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week as lawmakers pushed to complete their work before the new Congress is seated in January.

"By ending 'don't ask, don't tell,' no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love," Obama said in a statement before the final vote.

Obama vowed during his 2008 presidential campaign to end the ban, which he denounced as unfair, unwise and a violation of basic human rights.

He had been criticised by liberal groups who said he had failed to push hard enough to end the policy.

More than 13,000 men and women have been expelled from the US military under "don't ask, don't tell," which allows gays to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. Many of those dismissed have said they hope to return to service.

****

Why was everything done so public as if fanfared? When the UK changed the rules of "Dont ask, Dont tell" no one knew of it not even the gays. It was never against British law to be gay in the forces after gays were given equal rights, it was only in the military book of regulations. However when the UK made that law the Military left the book of regulations shut tight.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[Lion]

I'm happy that congress has finally recognized the rights of those who proudly wear the uniform. Hopefully this will translate to full gay rights in every part of the country.

[denuseri]

Hip Hip Hoooorahhhh!! WOOOOOOOOOOOTZ! AWsome!!!! This is just fantastic and really fills me with hope that our governement isnt completely broken!

Its been a long struggle here in the states for this freedom to be extended finally.

[Thorne]

While I agree that this is long overdue, I think I'll withhold any celebrations pending the installation of the new Congress in January. If the Tea Baggers don't come up with some way around this, or something even worse, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

[brwneydgirl]

If the Tea Baggers don't come up with some way around this, or something even worse, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

I think Tea Baggers are a WHOLE different group of folks...just sayin'.

[Thorne]

I think Tea Baggers are a WHOLE different group of folks...just sayin'.

Context, girl. Everything in context.

Still, it can be hard to tell the two groups apart, sometimes.

[denuseri]

Blinks...um ...the Tea Baggers don't = the Republican party people...no matter how much some Republicans or some Democrats may want us too...(yesh I am a full on Tea Bagger).

Additonally most of the tea baggers Ive spoken with are for the repeal!

[Thorne]

Like most other groups, the Tea Party people are diverse, spanning from the ultra-conservatives to the slightly more moderate. Unfortunately, the ultra-conservatives tend to be more vocal, more colorful, more insane, and thus more noticed. They get the press coverage and thereby taint the Tea Party, and the Republican Party, with their bizarre platforms. To my mind, the only hope the Republicans have to retain any credibility is to separate themselves from these whackos, before it's too late.

[IAN 2411]

Remind me as i am not American, who are the Tea Baggers and Tea Party?

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}