UCMJ, gays, and laws that hold everyone accountable

First of all, this is not a gay bashing post, nor is it a pro-gay post. This is neutral. I simply want to point out some things that might change how everyone views what is going on, if you can separate yourselves from personal experience and opinions, one way or another. This post will hopefully ignite thoughtful introspection, not hateful debates one way or another. Consider the following before making a comment, and please add to it with thoughtful, respectful discussion.

When our country first formed an organized military, it needed rules to govern the unique culture that it is. Considering the time frame and moral and religious backbone of the men during that time, the UCMJ very much made sense. To hate the UCMJ, one would also have to hate the Declaration of Independence, because it was the same men who formed the very first "draft" that their military would be held accountable. Interestingly, most of what was covered in the original 69 Articles of War in 1775 (which was a year after the signing of the Declaration of Independence), had to do with desertion with stiff punishments of death, and behavior that was honorable and gentlemanly. It wasn't until the following revisions over the next century that great lengths were taken to define moral sexual ideals - apparently, lewd sex acts had warranted stiff guidelines straight across the board, to include heterosexuals. However, one article from 1775 would cover any indecencies that the "gentlemen" of those days would dare not put into words on a formal document...

Art. XLVII. Whatsoever commissioned officer shall be convicted before a general court-martial, of behaving in a scandalous, infamous manner, such as is unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, shall be discharged from the service.

Articles of War

On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army. Effective upon its ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces.[1] On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect. The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

UCMJ

So many people are so willing to bash the laws of the military, but I dare say few have ever read the UCMJ in it's entirety. Here's the problem with messing with military law....when you try to change it to fit one group, you end up implicating them and many others with other laws, so then THOSE laws will need to be altered, and then that affects other laws. It turns into an ugly mess. Forget gay rights for a moment, (yes, I have gay friends in the military, I'm a vet, and I'm straight, so this isn't about that)....what congress is about to do (IF they do), is to dismantle almost the entire UCMJ. Hear what I'm saying please....it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to reassemble it and still protect everyone while upholding law and order within its ranks. This is precisely why gay military members are still being told NOT to be open about their sexuality, but recruiters can now recruit gays without secrecy. Here's the problem....

If someone signed up under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it actually protected their careers, because once they "came out", then they were subject to the UCMJ under Article 83 for Fraudulent Enlistment, Article 125 for Sodomy, Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman (which also includes all ranks and females), Article 134-9 for wrongful cohabitation (if they were living with their lover), Article 134-19 for False Swearing under oath that they swore not to LIE and that all enlistment information was true to the best of their knowledge, and Article 134 for General acts that disrupt the good order and discipline of the armed forces, or brings discredit to the armed forces.

All those who KNEW someone was gay and didn't say anything would be charged under Article 77, for knowing that this military member was breaking the above UCMJ laws, but didn't say anything...this falls under Principles. Hence, "don't ask" protected the hetero military member from having knowledge that could implicate him/her, and "don't tell" protected the gay member from being caught in a lie OR from being charged with all the above articles.

There are possibly more articles that could apply to both gays and straights, but I think I made the general point. It's not just one simple rule that congress needs to change, it is many, but there is no way to unscrew this mess, which is why military officials are butting heads with congress right now. THIS is why the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came into effect to begin with, because it protected everyone from the laws that would prevent them from serving their country in the first place. Are you reading this?? Don't ask, don't tell was never a bad thing, folks, but now that it is getting shoved aside, what will happen next IS a bad thing. They either have to change all these laws, or punish a lot of people - lots of job losses! Overlooking the law is bad news - you can't run a military without laws. Congress is purposely backing the military into a corner, and the military heads are trying like heck to talk some sense into these politicians. Forget all the gay rights hype for a minute...unless they grandfather all the current members under a protection clause, there will be a lot of job losses if these folks ever decide to "come out". What is the military suppose to do, since they are at the mercy of Congress who makes and sets the laws for the UCMJ, and judges who aren't consulting with the men who know best?

Certain members of congress are purposely using the gay rights issues and increased public fervor to pressure these changes, (thanks to the media), but I challenge everyone to set aside temporary and/or perceived discomforts for a moment and consider WHY this is happening. It is not good! I believe this has little to do with gay rights. I propose that gay rights are being used to piggyback a different agenda....one that will need to disarm the laws that govern behavior in our military services. Why? I don't know...that's for the conspiracy forum. But having the experience and connections that I have, I am not alone in feeling that this bypasses gay constituent demands. I believe there is something much deeper going on here.

Have a made a clearer picture for everyone yet?

Well said. I am also a veteran and straight. There was no question that there were gays in the military when I served. I had a few friends in the Army that I suspect were gay but it wasn't something that we discussed. They were all good soldiers and I had no problem going to war with them. I think most soldiers felt the same way that I did: if you did your job and you were not "flaming" no one cared what you did in your personal life.

I agree with you. I think that there is more going on than trying to right some perceived social injustice. Destruction of the UCMJ would be disastrous for a "free" country. I can't think of a quicker route to the destruction of our Republic.

I'm thinking perhaps this is setting the stage for a complete rewrite of the UCMJ, which will allow congress to "sneak in" other stuff. Kind of like the Patriot Act. Everyone will be focused on the gay issues, not paying attention to the other stuff that gets changed. Isn't that how they always work anyway? Just look at all the "Propositions" in California....politicians and voters push one or the other for their own agendas, but piggybacked on those are other things that most people would never consent to. For instance, propositions that address gay rights, yet also address property taxes or something else completely unrelated...but you never hear about those other parts unless you read it for yourself. Sneaky! Then God forbid you vote against a prop that has gay rights because you are protecting your civil liberties or tax laws or public school issues or anything else, and someone calls you...a homophobe. That's insulting to me, yet that's how the system is set up. When politicians want to sneak in something, they slide it in under something else that is emotionally charged because THAT will get all the focus.

Mark my words....when the rewrite comes out, it will definitely be worth running through with a fine-toothed comb to see exactly what has changed. Then the conspiracy theorists will have their day with trying to solve that one.

And I too echo your sentiment with my past service....I knew gays then, I know gays now. To me, a person's character was far more important than their sexuality, and as long as they did their job and weren't "flaming", nobody cared. It stayed out of the workplace, and all was good. Neither straights nor gays could talk about ANYTHING that might be interpreted as sexual harassment, and a person's personal life was left out of the workplace, as it should be. Don't get me wrong though....I knew some "freaky" folks who were straight, and if anyone found out about that, they'd have the UCMJ thrown at them as well under all the same conduct laws that the gay rights folks are pushing to do away with.

Oh for Pete's sake, would you guys give the OP a flag and star please?

He's brought a particular angle to this that is very insightful, and extremely pertinent. In fact, I am going to alert staff for applause on this. Doesn't mean they will, but won't be cause I didn't try.

GREAT POST.

I think you have made a pretty damn good case that "DADT" was the best option, and still is the best option.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I think you have made a pretty damn good case that "DADT" was the best option, and still is the best option.

And it appears for now that a federal appeals court agrees with both of us:

A federal appeals court has granted -- at least temporarily -- the Obama administration's request that the military's "dont ask, don't tell" policy continue to be enforced, says a report at MetroWeekly.

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted a temporary stay against a federal judge's order earlier this month that the Pentagon stop enforcing its ban on gays serving openly in the military.

www.rawstory.com...

reply to post by Gseven

From my vantage point in SA the US politics on gay issues I've been following can be mind boggling, with all the propositions and legalities.
It appears to me that societies that have a short supply of a population group from which soldiers can be drafted are less likely to specifically exclude gay troops. In the old SA all white males between 16-55 were drafted (and were called-up for annual camps after an initial two-year draft). The conditions of gay men varied greatly from place to place. Technically gay acts could be punished by up to 7 years in prison, but some units had renowned gay barracks. It was never political and needed no policy of silence. The SADF was convinced it could cure homosexuality, and visible people could end up in the infamous Ward 22 which did human experiments and forced sex change operations. Some gay men spent time here and were eventually dismissed from service. Some straight men who pretended to be gay to avoid the draft were also sent to the gay ward, where they quickly changed their minds. Dr Aubrey Levine who ran Ward 22 was renowned for sexual abuse, and was recently arrested in Canada for abusing patients.
This system served the state well - it allowed the SADF to use gay talent and resources, while preventing gay people from organizing politically or coming out publically without any deliberate policy.

In the US it was also the case that homosexuality was socially stigmatized and gay acts were illegal.
This kept gays in silence. However, it also allowed draft-dodgers to play the gay card, especially during the Vietnam era (I read Jim Morrison told the army he was queer). Some actually admitted they were gay and were ignored by medics, or it was laughed off (see Randy Shilt's "Conduct Unbecoming"). It seems when a country really needs "men", homosexuality itself is often no excuse for youngsters to avoid the draft, and it is expected to be somehow socialized out of people in the army.
However, as soon as the army drops the draft for a more professional career-orientated force, then gay men are suddenly no longer wanted. It is two-faced at best.
Sex-acts like sodomy are no longer illegal, as was the case during America's founding, or even during the Newport navy scandal. Society and stigmas have changed since the late 1960s. I've seen documentaries where female soldiers are placed with men on special survival courses with no apparent special privacy, and this too would have been unthinkable to the founding fathers.
There are however some concerns from my "queer" perspective:
Recruits are expected to reveal whether they are gay. Since many of these recruits are very young, they may not be sure of their orientation, they may be in denial or assume the army can somehow turn them into "real" men (a view the military has historically encouraged in all kinds of implicit ways). The military thus expects people to make identiy choices which they are not ready to make, and which heterosexist society actively discourages young people from making. They may even be in religious counselling and "conversion therapies" that convince them they are "cured" from being gay. Coming out to oneself can be a lengthy process.
Therefore, expecting people to know their sexual identity at recruitment is a violation of human rights and a farce.
Furthermore, sexual identities have moved beyond the gay/straight paradigm. HIV/Aids studies now speak of men who have sex with men but regard themselves as straight (MSM). "Gay" only refers to a core of same-sex possibilities.
However, there are brain scans and devices that measure sexual arousal according to erotic material, and at least a type of latent "homosexual" could be identified by such tests. Thus, if the military truly wants to exclude gays, it would have to put new recruits through such humiliating technology. Arguably that could also go very pear-shaped.
As a pacifist I'm torn between gay military staff and their rights, and the option of homosexual exclusion should a draft ever return.
We should indeed be careful what we wish for.
My main concern is that people's lives are dictated by constructed terms from gender politics and homophobia (or rather identities and visibilities that arose to deliberately confront homophobia).
But at least the two-facedness should stop. Either American kids are taught what being gay is (and that it can be OK) so that they can give an informed answer at recruitment, or the military cannot accept sauch testimony either way and must find a scientific mehod to screen out the homosexuals.

"I'm not homophobic but bla bla bla"
"I'm not racist but bla bla bla"
"I'm not anti-semitic but bla bla bla"

Openly gay people in the military does not mean the sky will fall in, all it requires is a culture change that prevents hate based attacks on people and encourages diversity and inclusion from the top down. As can be seen by the posts in this thread, there is a huge problem with bigotry and ignorance in the military, which requires a culture change from the top in order to resolve this issue and encourage an inclusive environment that does not tolerate hate based attacks and exclusion of anyone. This will enable the most talented people to rise to the top (not just a small clique of good 'ol boys), and increase moral and team-work by rooting out the small handful who usually incite the bigotry among many others. The private sector has been doing this for many years with great success and the military must do the same, despite what a few good 'ol boys at the top may still think.

I don't see why being gay should be such a big deal to the military. Someone's sexuality is merely one component in the multifaceted individual. Why should we define them by one little thing? Should we also define people by their favourite colour, music, taste in food, what beer they drink, what car they drive, what team they follow in the football? It's completely ridiculous and I can't help but feel that straight people that concentrate on this one minor trait are somewhat obsessed by it. People don't ruminate over that which they do not fear. Speaks volumes! If your not gay, then it cannot effect you in any way, shape or form. Relax!

We are all different in a multitude of ways. Why concentrate on sexual preference?

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I don't see why being gay should be such a big deal to the military. Someone's sexuality is merely one component in the multifaceted individual. Why should we define them by one little thing? Should we also define people by their favourite colour, music, taste in food, what beer they drink, what car they drive, what team they follow in the football? It's completely ridiculous and I can't help but feel that straight people that concentrate on this one minor trait are somewhat obsessed by it. People don't ruminate over that which they do not fear. Speaks volumes! If your not gay, then it cannot effect you in any way, shape or form. Relax!

We are all different in a multitude of ways. Why concentrate on sexual preference?

IRM

InfaRedMan, you nailed it. A lot of bigotted people go totally nuts about gay people and it really exposes their pathalogical violent hatred towards sections of the community. Bigots will often try to use every argument and justification in the book to legitimise their hatred, however it usually just requires a small challenge or two and out pops the violently hateful maniac. You see the same old routine over and over again from extremely ignorant, hateful people, and it gets really old after a while.

reply to post by lostinau

I'm not sure if I've just seen too many American Vietnam movies, or recall too many SADF anecdotes.
However I still have this picture of topless recruits running in formation and grabbing their crotches while shouting: "This is my rifle this and this is my gun, this for fightin' and this is for fun".
It seems that a culture of expletives focused on sexism and homophobia was once encouraged to delineate "military masculinity" from "sissies".
I'd like to think this culture that displaces anything weak on being a "queer" or "fag" as method of forming cohesion has passed. Has it?
Could it be be that homophobic lingo is still a part of "making men", and reinforcing their masculinity?
Perhaps this is the anxiety - the tough military culture will have to become politically correct, or the gays will complain of homophobia? Perhaps anti-gay discourse is a vital part of training?
Perhaps if recruits realize that being "queer" has nothing to do with how masculine or feminine a fellow soldier acts, a vital and established part of training will fall away?
Well, such methods would be a minor scandal in any case.

One thing that is clear from the brain scan material - it is now understood that gay men have certain talents, and score higher (like females) on linguistic and emotional tests. This does not necessarily effect how masculine or feminine they are in behaviour. So while being gay was once tolerated in some cases as a negative side to a good soldier, it is now a possible positive in itself. A focused, masculine gay man with better verbal skills could be a valuable addition to any unit. I think those in the know about such research in the military are themselves at odds with other methods. They are just not quite sure how to balance it all.
One thing I do note is that the debate is almost exclusively about gay males - rather than lesbians - in many of the threads on this (although it has been an issue for queer women).
I think that says a lot.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by lostinau

 

One thing that is clear from the brain scan material - it is now understood that gay men have certain talents, and score higher (like females) on linguistic and emotional tests. This does not necessarily effect how masculine or feminine they are in behaviour. So while being gay was once tolerated in some cases as a negative side to a good soldier, it is now a possible positive in itself. A focused, masculine gay man with better verbal skills could be a valuable addition to any unit. I think those in the know about such research in the military are themselves at odds with other methods. They are just not quite sure how to balance it all.
One thing I do note is that the debate is almost exclusively about gay males - rather than lesbians - in many of the threads on this (although it has been an issue for queer women).
I think that says a lot.

I don't think many people doubt the masculinity or fighting ability of the ancient Spartans (one of the Marines role models), the ancient Greeks, Alexander the Greats' Armies and especially the ancient Romans. In the fighting forces of all of these societies bisexuality and homosexuality was considered totally normal and was practised at every level. Alexander the Great famously lead his armies with his boyfriend, Hephaestion, by his side, while he conquered the entire known world while leading his troops in an orgy of violence. Being exclusively heterosexual in any of these armies would've been considered unusual. Kind of exposes the whole argument about gay people being effeminate sissies as complete BS.

reply to post by lostinau

That is certainly true.
The irony is that the Western gay movement itself responded to homophobia by becoming more masculine. The effeminate men (and spaces where such men and "straight men" would meet), the drag-queen and so forth increasingly became sidelined and atypical of the gay ideal since the 1970s.
Anyone who knows modern gay spaces or even erotic websites will see the hyper-masculinity that is dominant today.
Yet, media stereotypes have been slow to reflect such changes. We still only see men in fashion or Will and Grace, although that is far from the gay ideal.
Many will still think that homosexuality is a diluted straightness, while it is now almost an extreme of masculinity.
Perhaps that's the really scary thing about it.

Let's just say that to define the "ideal man", the "queer" was needed as a counter-point (everything the Green Beret song is NOT). To devalue that binary makes things very confusing.

reply to post by lostinau


Again with a culture change for everyone but the ones causing the disruption. Don't ask don't tell definitely has a place, butinstead we have a biased judge make a decision for the military. How come everyone who disagrees is violently bigoted, hateful etc? Anyone who disagrees is these things, or just those you deem special? DADT needs to stay, liberal judges ned to stay out of it and the military will handle it's own business......as should be. If, as was stated 95% of the troops disagree with repealing it, they should be the ones making the decisions, not people sitting comforatbly behind a computer screen at home.

reply to post by adifferentbreed

Yeah, just act straight and don't disrupt things.
It's so easy, any idiot can do it for years.
(sarcasm)

Stop disrupting gay and lesbian lives and it will all go away.
Homophobes cause the disruption!

reply to post by halfoldman


You miss the point, here, sparky.

Sodomy is punishable under the UCMJ. Kind of monkeys with the whole premise of allowing homosexuality into the military.

"Just make it okay, then."

Why? To appease a cultural group? Perhaps we should just make pedophilia okay, too. Or relax those regulations about sexual harassment - people just need to chill out and enjoy the grab-ass while it lasts.

There's no shortage of able bodies. Don't Ask; Don't Tell is in place to protect the rights of those who serve.

When you all can figure out whether or not you want them to be allowed to marry in your state, then you can preach to the military about allowing them to serve openly. Otherwise - fruitiness is secured.

reply to post by Aim64C

Hey Aim64C.
Well, gay marriage has been legal in South Africa since 2006.
Furthermore, another thread claims that there has been no specific article or law to prevent gays serving in the military since Clinton coined "don't ask, don't tell".
(see Juston's two posts with copious US military attachments in my short thread): www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nice to see you feel as strong as ever on the subject.
I also wanted to get my facts straight on the issue once and for all, and I was quite surprised at his answer.

Originally posted by lostinau
As can be seen by the posts in this thread, there is a huge problem with bigotry and ignorance in the military, which requires a culture change from the top in order to resolve this issue and encourage an inclusive environment that does not tolerate hate based attacks and exclusion of anyone. This will enable the most talented people to rise to the top (not just a small clique of good 'ol boys), and increase moral and team-work by rooting out the small handful who usually incite the bigotry among many others. The private sector has been doing this for many years with great success and the military must do the same, despite what a few good 'ol boys at the top may still think.

You've never been in the military, have you?

"This will enable the most talented people to rise to the top (not just a small clique of good ol' boys").... Sorry to break this to you, but for the most part, the most talented troops to rise do the top. Allowing gays in the military isn't going to change this. And your statement sounds like, "gays are more talented than the troops actively serving".

And just because the private sector does it (with "great success" according to you), doesn't mean it will work in the military. It's two different cultures and lifestyles. I don't think many corporate execs have to worry about running over an IED while on the way to work.

reply to post by halfoldman


usmilitary.about.com...

Granted, I'm probably one of the few in the military who can honestly and factually claim to have never broken article 125. It would still stand to reason that a homosexual pairing pretty much follows a violation of article 125.

That's how it slices and dices.

Fruitiness remains secured.

reply to post by Aim64C

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

Yeah well, if you want to see that as pertaining to specifically gay sex, I suppose fruitiness indeed prevails.
Anything outside vaginal sex wasn't really meant to win here.
Hope they dismiss most of the current army.

I guess the lesbians should run the show.

Originally posted by lostinau
I don't think many people doubt the masculinity or fighting ability of the ancient Spartans (one of the Marines role models), the ancient Greeks, Alexander the Greats' Armies and especially the ancient Romans. In the fighting forces of all of these societies bisexuality and homosexuality was considered totally normal and was practised at every level. Alexander the Great famously lead his armies with his boyfriend, Hephaestion, by his side, while he conquered the entire known world while leading his troops in an orgy of violence. Being exclusively heterosexual in any of these armies would've been considered unusual. Kind of exposes the whole argument about gay people being effeminate sissies as complete BS.

The Homosexual Agenda. The Spartans were neither homosexual nor pederasts as policy. Were there possibly one or two here or there - probably.

The Athenians on the other hand....