Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[Sonic]

Maybe so.

I heard the other day that the Secretary of Defense is not inclined to change its present status.

Wait, this gets more interesting, and you can draw your own conclusions from this in reference to my previous findings.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7082472&postcount=193
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7082728&postcount=194
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7083010&postcount=196

Title 10 Section 654 Subsection B provides another instance, which does not require the military to dismiss someone for homosexual behavior.

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;

(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

source: law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

So, that’s twice in Title 10 Section 654 that it states that an individual does not have to be dismissed by the military.

Also, 831 Art. 31 states clearly…

§ 831. Art. 31. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited

(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any question the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from, an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

(c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

So, if the UCMJ allows that there are circumstances where a person does not have to be dismissed for homosexual conduct, then what conclusions should we draw about the highly political and publicized debate over DADT? What conclusions can we draw about reported cases of dismissals over DADT?

 

[donsnow]

My conclusion would be that all the media hype is merely more Gay Rights propaganda. Which, as usual, is misinformation.

 

[RobHom]

So, if the UCMJ allows that there are circumstances where a person does not have to be dismissed for homosexual conduct, then what conclusions should we draw about the highly political and publicized debate over DADT? What conclusions can we draw about reported cases of dismissals over DADT?

Sonic…the UCMJ does not allow circumstances where a servicemember does not have to be dismissed… the allowances are made in law promulgated in the US Code. The UCMJ provides the legal procedures of the military legal system from soup to nuts.

If it has been found that a person in uniform has violated Article 83, 84, 125, and or 134, that person can be disciplined any number of different ways from a letter or reprimand, Article 15, Summary Courts Martial, Special Courts Martial, and possibly even General Courts Martial. The severity of the charge determines the level of action.

From my experience in the Army over a 10 year period…I can honestly say that far more often than not any man or woman subject to action pursuant to violation of articles dealing with “homosexuality” were most often quietly discharged from the service. Commanders have that discretionary power, and it would be granted to them the USC’s and military regulations that allow them to have that person discharged under several different discharge regulations and levels.

Sorry for the rambling dissertation… But to answer your question… The DADT policy was invoked to make allowances to actually make it easier for gays to serve while not making their sexual orientation known. The older enlistment forms specifically asked the question, and falsifying the answer was an Article 83/84 issue. With the DADT the question was moot. I think all the “hoo-ha” over this is political hyperbole that is unnecessary but both sides of the coin are rattling sabers. I also believe it to be a political tool as described here huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/collins-equates-senate-de_n_733135.html and tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/senate_blocks_dadt_repeal.php and it would appear that their is a tie in to the DREAM act which is/was intended to make it easier for non-citizens to attain accelerated citizenship eligibility through service in the US military. I also think its got something to do with the mid-term elections…

Rather than address issues far more important to the country…we get this…

 

[RobHom]

My conclusion would be that all the media hype is merely more Gay Rights propaganda. Which, as usual, is misinformation.

I forgot to mention this in my meandering answer to Sonic…but you are right, it could very well be this as well. I sincerely hope that the Gay Rights people are not pushing for “rights” that allow gays to enlist openly and blatantly exhibit their orientation…as I fear that the net result would wholly undesirable.

 

[donsnow]

I forgot to mention this in my meandering answer to Sonic…but you are right, it could very well be this as well. I sincerely hope that the Gay Rights people are not pushing for “rights” that allow gays to enlist openly and blatantly exhibit their orientation…as I fear that the net result would wholly undesirable.

You and me both.

I think it doesn’t hurt for me to repeat myself: I believe in the same civil and criminal rights for everybody; conversely, I don’t believe in any other special rights for different lifestyles.

 

[larkin31]

You and me both.

I think it doesn’t hurt for me to repeat myself: I believe in the same civil and criminal rights for everybody; conversely, I don’t believe in any other special rights for different lifestyles.

So, you certainly are not against the policy of allowing gays to serve, right? Or, let me put it this way:

Are you against

1. having gays, both known and unknown, serve in the military?
2. having known gays serve in the military?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

You know I’ve seen photos of soldiers [in uniform] on a few social websites that were young troopers and officers that have worked for me; I can’t post them here and say these are some of the troops that I served with that are homosexual because I would out them.

You see today they are high ranking active duty Commissioned and Non Commissioned Officers; training and leading soldiers into battle.

I salute them.

 

[larkin31]

You know I’ve seen photos of soldiers [in uniform] on a few social websites that were young troopers and officers that have worked for me; I can’t post them here and say these are some of the troops that I served with that are homosexual because I would out them.

You see today they are high ranking active duty Commissioned and Non Commissioned Officers; training and leading soldiers into battle.

I salute them.

I do too.

 

[donsnow]

I just wish that militant and other active gays realize that their sexuality just isn’t that important.

Frankly, my, and anybody else’s, sexuality is low on my list of priorities.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I just wish that militant and other active gays realize that their sexuality just isn’t that important.

Frankly, my, and anybody else’s, sexuality is low on my list of priorities.

Thank you brother me too I really don’t care if they’re consenting adults it’s none of my business—something they have to take up with our Lord someday just like I’m going to have to take up my demons with our Lord someday.

 

[Aquinas62]

I just wish that militant and other active gays realize that their sexuality just isn’t that important.

Frankly, my, and anybody else’s, sexuality is low on my list of priorities.

Amen!!!

 

[donsnow]

Thank you brother me too I really don’t care if they’re consenting adults it’s none of my business—something they have to take up with our Lord someday just like I’m going to have to take up my demons with our Lord someday.

Amen, brother! I got plenty of my own issues to deal with to get straight with the Lord, without my “pronouncing” about anybody else’s sins.