Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don't Ask'

[TMC]

Homosexual behavior is an offense under the uniform code of military Justice. Why would a person admit to engaging in homosexual acts if they did not?

No, it is sodomy that is an offense under the UCMJ (Article 125, I believe), whether homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

ore than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was instituted…In addition to those translators, 11,000 other service members have been ousted since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was passed by Congress in 1993. Many held critical jobs in intelligence, medicine and counterterrorism. An untold number of closeted gay military members don’t re-enlist because of the pressure the law puts on them.

That doesn’t make me feel any safer…

 

[Orleans_Attny]

They have? Are women allowed to serve in combat postions? Are women enlisted personell allowed on Submarines?

Yes to the first question, and net yet for mostly logistical reasons on the second.

That is partly because the plan will start with only about 19 women - all of them officers - who will command various units on the boats. In addition, Bruner says there will be at least three women on every gender-integrated sub, so none of them has to serve alone among about 160 men on each boat.

The admiral says that so far, there is no plan to allow enlisted women to serve on submarines, which would involve larger numbers and might require re-fitting the boats to have more-private living quarters.

But to hear Admiral Bruner talk, if the female officers succeed on submarines, enlisted women might soon follow.

Link.

Pax,
OA

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

If I’m not mistaken, officers and enlisted can be punished for having a relationship with each other.
.

There was a time when enlisted soldiers could not date NCO’s that is long gone. It depends if you’re charge you cannot date people working under you.

I know officers married to enlisted and it’s not a big deal today; when it first started happening in the eighties it did not help the officer’s career at all—so usually the enlisted soldier got out and did the husband/wife thing.

BTW about off duty I use tell my troopers you are off duty when you ID card expires a soldier is on duty 24/7 now do they have some off time? Yes but you still conduct yourself as a soldier that represents the United States and that means the People of the United States; so don’t get stupid—yeah some troops don’t listen to good advice and do dumb stuff like I did when I was a Private so you take into account if a trooper gets drunk and stupid and cusses you out—so I would just fart it off, well that’s the beer’s talking.

Usually they would wake in morning and knock on my door and say. “Sorry Sarge I was drunk.”

Like myself I’m on the retirement roster my ID card says INDEF which means it will never expire but I’m still in the United States Army and can be called back to active duty up to age 62 all military retirees fall under this regulation not unless there is some medical condition.

Oh sorry for getting off topic and going on a tangent I’m known to that sometimes.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

They have? Are women allowed to serve in combat postions? Are women enlisted personell allowed on Submarines?

I had female soldiers in combat support units above the FLOT (Forward Line Of Troops) yes they do serve in combat just not in not so-called non-combat arms units. Trust me they’re in combat but not like the grunts but what about females that are MP’s they get in fire fights they’re on guard duty in combat zones.

What about female chopper pilots they’re in combat support units but they do fly troops into combat (LZ) areas—hello they’re in combat.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I had female soldiers in combat support units above the FLOT (Forward Line Of Troops) yes they do serve in combat just not in not so-called non-combat arms units. Trust me they’re in combat but not like the grunts but what about females that are MP’s they get in fire fights they’re on guard duty in combat zones.

When I was a Missile Launch Crew Commander, we started to get women at the sites. We were a four man crew, and the women had to be bunked behind some electrical panels, and couldn’t use the room with the beds. It was a long enough while ago that there was still apprehension about having women bunk in the same room with the crew. But they used the same toilets we did. With four people, of course, there wasn’t any problem about having a “unisex” bathroom.

Everything can be overcome with a focus on the mission whther one is gay or straight.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, it is sodomy that is an offense under the UCMJ (Article 125, I believe), whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Let me see if I understand this.

If, then, DADT was repealed, but without also repealing the article you cited, commanders, etc, could ask a soldier if he/she is actively homosexual and, if so, the soldier would be subject to dismissal or discipline, since sodomy is the exclusive sexual act of homosexuals. So, to achieve the presumed homosexual objective, DADT would have to be repealed and sodomy would have to be removed as an offense as well. Is that correct?

 

[TMC]

Let me see if I understand this.

If, then, DADT was repealed, but without also repealing the article you cited, commanders, etc, could ask a soldier if he/she is actively homosexual and, if so, the soldier would be subject to dismissal or discipline, since sodomy is the exclusive sexual act of homosexuals. So, to achieve the presumed homosexual objective, DADT would have to be repealed and sodomy would have to be removed as an offense as well. Is that correct?

No, because commanders would not be calling in homosexual soldiers and asking them to describe their sex acts, any more than they currently call in heterosexual soldiers and ask them to describe their sex acts. The military is not now (and to my knowledge never has) enforced violations of Art. 125 if the acts were between consenting adults. If the military starts prosecuting consensual acts of sodomy they will be kicking out a lot more heterosexuals for that reason than homosexuals.

 

[Medic_Mark]

From a completely secular standpoint, it seems to me that seeing as how the principal role of a soldier is to kill and become cannon foder, that it would behoove the military to accept any and all bodies capable of doing so. Since the military has a gross proclivity toward the heinous to begin with, I doubt homosexual soldiers will impact it negatively at all.

 

[edwest2]

That doesn’t make me feel any safer…

That is just a fear tactic and the military knows this is happening. Time to buy those instant language CDs and start training people.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The purpose of repealing DADT is simply to have the government equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. The military will have to accept open expression of it and homosexual relationships on an even footing with heterosexual relationships. And, it will not be able to avoid the homosexual community using its elevated status in the military to promote equivalency in the society as a whole.

This is the same sort of thing as the movement for gay “marriage”, teaching children that it’s normal for “Heather” to “have two mommies” or the programs in some schools to encourage youngsters to “celebrate their gayness” while they’re forming their sexual identities.

An increasingly corrupt civil society may ultimately be fine with all of that, but it’s still, from the Church’s point of view, grossly immoral and scandalous. It’s obvious that homosexuality has its apologists; some of whom have gathered in this thread. But official government endorsement of homosexuality, or any other form of immorality, is not, in my opinion, what the government ought to be doing. And if one opposes, as I do, official government sanctioning of homosexual activity and recognizes its full expression in word and act as a “right”, the person has (for now) a right as a citizen, to oppose it. As a Catholic, one has a moral obligation to oppose it regardless of how accepting the society may be of it.

One supposes that the same people who so greatly favor official governmental endorsement of homosexual expression and activity, would oppose overt immorality of other sorts. Most particularly, one would expect Catholics to do that. Pedophilia, sadism, adultery, fornication, polygamy. People would not want the government to endorse those things or declare that they are, in all important respects, to be viewed as equivalent to, say, marriage, and to be protected in the military for what they are. There is really no reason why a secular society should oppose governmental endorsement of those things as long as they do not adversely affect military efficiency. But people wouldn’t favor their official acceptance by the government.

It is only because homosexuality is a “politically correct” cause that people are willing to accept “in your face” immorality of expression and activity, and not other things that are in no way less immoral.

Nor does anyone really know how the military will be affected. Earlier on there was a poster who cited some poll indicating that 10-15% of the present military would quit if DADT is repealed. One would not be speculating overmuch to think, then, that at least that many would not join the military at all because of it. The very title of this thread began with the proposition that repealing DADT bears “low risk” to the military. Well, how low? What is “low”? A 20% decline in personnel? Is that “low”? A few violent encounters here and there when the inevitable solicitations occur? Is that acceptably “low”? We all know the Marine Corps Commandant opposes repeal, as, for the present do the Joint Chiefs.

But the reaction of the pro-homosexualists here to such things is “Let them quit!” “They don’t belong anyway!” “We don’t want (opponents) in the military anyway!”

In short, those favoring the repeal of DADT are willing to gamble the safety of the nation for the benefit of what cannot be more than 5% of enlistees and potential enlistees. And not so they can serve, which they can now, but so they can tell their fellows they’re homosexual, bring their same gender partners to social events, wear their uniforms in gay pride parades, appear in the media in uniform with their partners, or (almost certainly) in schools.

And, one assumes, these results are part of the “low risk”, meaning to proponents of repeal that those things are worth it if only homosexuals can present their sexuality as “just a variant of normal” in that and other venues.

DADT will be repealed. Of that I have no doubt. But certainly, as the consequences develop, those who favor its repeal will need to accept that such scandal as occurs is their responsibility.
But then, in this society, who really cares about scandal? Well, the Church does, but why pay any attention to it?

That’s precisely the goal. Right now, a soldier can appear on TV and declare he’s gay but he will not have official approval. Once DADT ends, he will be a part of the socially engineered “new normal.”

And this is just another attempt at rearranging the social furniture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

since the military has a gross proclivity toward the heinous to begin with.

WRONG ANSWER! :tsktsk:

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Let me see if I understand this.

If, then, DADT was repealed, but without also repealing the article you cited, commanders, etc, could ask a soldier if he/she is actively homosexual and, if so, the soldier would be subject to dismissal or discipline, since sodomy is the exclusive sexual act of homosexuals. So, to achieve the presumed homosexual objective, DADT would have to be repealed and sodomy would have to be removed as an offense as well. Is that correct?

Wrong.

Sodomy is not the exclusive act of homosexuals. The term is very clearly defined in Article 125 of the UCMJ. And I can assure you - as a Navy JAG - that the people charged with Sodomy are almost always heterosexual.

Perhaps more importantly there are two main cases on this subject: Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Marcum (CAAF 2004)

In Marcum, CAAF applied Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (S. Ct. 2003), to the military justice system. CAAF adopted a three-part test for determining whether Lawrence applies to conduct that would otherwise violate Article 125:

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? Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?

The cliff-notes version of these cases is this: There must be a direct and articulable military nexus before the Article 125 crime of consensual sodomy to get over the constitutional hurdle.

There are all sorts of other reasons why a mere admission to homosexual conduct (absent DADT) shouldn’t result in a discharge predicated upon Article 125. But it’s sufficient to say that: We don’t prosecute people for consensual sodomy. When Article 125 is charged it’s a tack-on crime to another (more serious) criminal act. Article 125 is not homosexual specific - the UCMJ doesn’t criminalize homosexuality or some homosexual acts. The Supreme Court cut much of the legs out from under extremeist interpretations of Article 125; fortunately, those interpretations were disfavored to begin with.

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

. . .Since the military has a gross proclivity toward the heinous to begin with, I doubt homosexual soldiers will impact it negatively at all.

You know very, very little about the military. So it will suffice for me to say that you’re very wrong.

Pax,
OA

 

[Medic_Mark]

WRONG ANSWER! :tsktsk:

I don’t see how I am wrong about the military having a strong proclivity toward heinous acts. The common theme of every armed forces ever created whether it be the American Army, the Red Army, the Nazi Army, etc. has been to instill the fear of death and destruction or bring about those ends. I don’t see a soldier and get proud, I see a soldier and wonder how many people he has inflicted suffering upon. We can babble on and on all day long about their role in the fallen world, but in the end, that single fact is non-negotiable.

You know very, very little about the military. So it will suffice for me to say that you’re very wrong.

Pax,
OA

Greetings OA,

You’re right, I know very little about the military in general or about the reasons why they may not want homosexuals amongst their ranks. The most common theme I hear is that it is bad for unit cohesion, and I can see that. The majority often does like to beat down on the minority, especially when their behavior is alien. If that is the case, they’d simply have to tighten the noose of discipline amongst the ranks. But overall, I don’t think I am wrong in what I’ve said. More able bodies = filled platoons = more overwhelming firepower with an actual voluntary willingness to kill or be killed = fulfilled military objectives. If I were a soldier and I were being shot at, I wouldn’t care if the guy next to me liked to bat for the other team. All I’d care about is whether he can shoot. I don’t romanticize it at all.



Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

Peace be with you fellow’s now and forevermore.

 

[cyberwolf001]

You’re right, I know very little about the military in general or about the reasons why they may not want homosexuals amongst their ranks. The most common theme I hear is that it is bad for unit cohesion, and I can see that. The majority often does like to beat down on the minority, especially when their behavior is alien. If that is the case, they’d simply have to tighten the noose of discipline amongst the ranks. But overall, I don’t think I am wrong in what I’ve said. More able bodies = filled platoons = more overwhelming firepower with an actual voluntary willingness to kill or be killed = fulfilled military objectives. If I were a soldier and I were being shot at, I wouldn’t care if the guy next to me liked to bat for the other team. All I’d care about is whether he can shoot. I don’t romanticize it at all.



Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

Peace be with you fellow’s now and forevermore.

Dude ya really don’t gt it. Killing America’s enemies is only one of there many functions and these days the military is more of a large scale police force than anything else.

 

[Medic_Mark]

Dude ya really don’t gt it. Killing America’s enemies is only one of there many functions and these days the military is more of a large scale police force than anything else.

Yikes. That makes me feel so much better about it. Thanks. :ehh:

 

[bbarrick8383]

I don’t see how I am wrong about the military having a strong proclivity toward heinous acts. The common theme of every armed forces ever created whether it be the American Army, the Red Army, the Nazi Army, etc. has been to instill the fear of death and destruction or bring about those ends. I don’t see a soldier and get proud,** I see a soldier and wonder how many people he has inflicted suffering upon. **We can babble on and on all day long about their role in the fallen world, but in the end, that single fact is non-negotiable.

That is an extremely odd reaction to soldiers. Many of them are not even combat, they may be medics, mechanics, quartermaster(supplies).

Of course there have been times in other countries, one that I know about when they knew American soldiers were coming and some of them committed suicide out of fear of what they would do. Only to find out that the troops, for the most part, did their best to protect the citizen.

Then you have the National Guard who tend to get called up to help in all sorts of national disasters.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Greetings OA,

You’re right, I know very little about the military in general or about the reasons why they may not want homosexuals amongst their ranks. The most common theme I hear is that it is bad for unit cohesion, and I can see that. The majority often does like to beat down on the minority, especially when their behavior is alien. If that is the case, they’d simply have to tighten the noose of discipline amongst the ranks. But overall, I don’t think I am wrong in what I’ve said. More able bodies = filled platoons = more overwhelming firepower with an actual voluntary willingness to kill or be killed = fulfilled military objectives. If I were a soldier and I were being shot at, I wouldn’t care if the guy next to me liked to bat for the other team. All I’d care about is whether he can shoot. I don’t romanticize it at all.



Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

Peace be with you fellow’s now and forevermore.

Not necessarily disagree on all points - though I think your thoughts about a broader pool of applicants renders a more capable military might be too simplistic.

My problems with what you said involve two of your apparent beliefs:

1. Members of the military of predisposed (or trained) to commit heinous acts. I interpreted that to mean, in your opinion, that they were predisposed to act immorally.
2. That the majority of the members of the military don’t want homosexuals in the ranks. That’s patently untrue. For the most part, we don’t care. As you’ve properly identified, the sexual orientation of the person laying down cover fire isn’t relevant.

Pax,
OA

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wrong.

Sodomy is not the exclusive act of homosexuals. The term is very clearly defined in Article 125 of the UCMJ. And I can assure you - as a Navy JAG - that the people charged with Sodomy are almost always heterosexual.

Perhaps more importantly there are two main cases on this subject: Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Marcum (CAAF 2004)

In Marcum, CAAF applied Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (S. Ct. 2003), to the military justice system. CAAF adopted a three-part test for determining whether Lawrence applies to conduct that would otherwise violate Article 125:

The cliff-notes version of these cases is this: There must be a direct and articulable military nexus before the Article 125 crime of consensual sodomy to get over the constitutional hurdle.

There are all sorts of other reasons why a mere admission to homosexual conduct (absent DADT) shouldn’t result in a discharge predicated upon Article 125. But it’s sufficient to say that: We don’t prosecute people for consensual sodomy. When Article 125 is charged it’s a tack-on crime to another (more serious) criminal act. Article 125 is not homosexual specific - the UCMJ doesn’t criminalize homosexuality or some homosexual acts. The Supreme Court cut much of the legs out from under extremeist interpretations of Article 125; fortunately, those interpretations were disfavored to begin with.

Pax,
OA

Perhaps I did not express myself well. I did not say that only homosexuals commit sodomy. I intended to say that all homosexual sexual acts cannot be anything other than sodomy. Consequently, one’s saying that one is an active homosexual is to say, necessarily, that one engages in sodomy.

It was not my purpose, either, to ask what the prosecutorial practices are in the JAG corps. If Article 125 is “tacked onto” another more serious criminal act, then obviously sodomy is considered a criminal act under the code, whether it’s the primary focus of prosecution or not.