The PROPAGANDA of THE DON’T ASK/ DON’T TELL removal is convoluted. It was initially installed to help gays to NOT be removed from the military due to sodomy laws in the UCMJ. The removal of Don’t ask/ Don’t tell, should therefore reverse that and gays should then be fired from the military post haste. The military code of Justice has LAWS against SODOMY. This means that a man can’t lie with another man.
The term comes from the Ecclesiastical Latin: peccatum Sodomiticum, or “sin of Sodom.”
The men of the city of Sodom desired that Lot give them the two men so that they may “know” them. (In the Bible, the word “know” is occasionally used to refer to sexual activity.) Lot refuses to hand them over, and (going outside) offers his two virgin daughters instead. This offer is refused, and after the men press upon Lot and come near to break down the door, the two angels draw Lot back into the house and shut the door. They cause blindness to come upon the men of the city, thus bringing safety to those within the house. Even in their blinded state, the men outside still try to gain entry to the house and continue until they become wearied. We see here the extent of either their depravity or lack of hospitality, depending upon how one interprets the verses.
sodomy, noncoital carnal copulation. The term is understood in history, literature, and law in several senses: (1) as denoting any homosexual practices between men, in allusion to the biblical story of Sodom (Genesis 18:19), (2) as denoting anal intercourse, (3) as synonymous with bestiality or zoophilia (i.e., sexual relations between human beings and animals), and (4) as comprehending a number of other sexual activities, ranging from sexual contacts with minors to oral-genital contacts and oral intercourse between adults.
Sodomy is a crime in some jurisdictions and is condemned as a mark of abnormality in many others. Some legal codes provide penalties as severe as life imprisonment for homosexual intercourse, even if the relations are voluntary and between legally consenting adults. So-called sodomy laws, actually proscribing a variety of sexual contacts, appear to apply even to married couples. No such regulations are found in the codes of Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, or Switzerland, among others. The Wolfenden committee in England and the American Law Institute in the United States recommended abolition of criminal provisions in this area, except in cases involving violence, children, or public solicitation to commercial vice. This position was adopted in Illinois in 1961 (and later in numerous other U.S. states) and in England in 1967. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia antisodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick, but the decision was reversed in 2003, when the court struck down a Texas law that criminalized consensual sex between adults of the same gender. With the court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, antisodomy statues in 12 other U.S. states were effectively overturned.
I am a veteran of the Army. I served four years. There were 4 females that were lesbian. I know of only 3 men. The percentage of females was massive in my unit, as compared to men. We all knew who they were. This makes for extremely UNCOMFORTABLE situations. It was VERY uncomfortable for all the people that were NOT gay. This is a CLEAR example where the US is governing our live UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. The needs of a FEW are governing the MANY. Civilians don’t realize that one has to be in VERY close proximity to each other at times: in showers, in tents, and in latrines. One might as well make the military Co-Ed, so that women and men use the same showers and sleep together. This is how uncomfortable things CAN get. If one is in a life and death situation and there is a “couple” in the unit and they get separated, then there can be multiple different issues that crop up. The same issues crop up as if in a woman and man relationship. If in combat they were separated, then one would be worried about the other, to the detriment of the fellow soldiers life beside him. His buddy takes on a whole new meaning. The military unit has been severely compromised in this way. This is NOT either Democracy nor a Representative Republic. These laws are ONLY serving the few at the EXPENSE of the many. The security of this nation is at stake and this government has yet to admit that they are no longer governed BY the people. They are Dictators and have become Tyrants OVER the people.
Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, should make every homosexual in the military ILLEGAL. What the Democrats are doing is HIGH TRICKERY.
Don’t ask don’t tell was unconstitutional to begin with and now they are twisting the original LAWS. They are twisting HISTORY and they are LYING!
Please, see the actual LAWS of UCMJ after the CNN article:
U.S. expected to appeal order lifting ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy:
From Adam Levine, CNN:
October 20, 2010 9:45 a.m. EDT
Are you a military vet or currently serving? Share your thoughts on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ with CNN.
Washington (CNN) — The Obama administration is expected to appeal a federal judge’s order barring the military from enforcing its ban on gays and lesbians serving openly.
Any government challenge would go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.
Late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California denied the government’s request for an emergency stay of her order barring the military from expelling openly gay service members.
The ruling came as the Pentagon has begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.
<THIS IS A PROPAGANDA. THE DON’T ASK/ DON’T TELL was initially installed to help gays to NOT be removed from the military. The removal of Don’t ask/ Don’t tell, should therefore reverse that. Gays should then be swiftly removed and an exodus should occur. The military code of Justice has SODOMY LAWS. This means that a man can’t lie with another man. SODOMY is what occurs, particularly in MALE on MALE copulation. >
The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.
The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.
<Without the DON’T ASK/ DON’T TELL, the recruiter has to somehow ignore the SODOMY LAWS on the books. >
The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to “manage expectations” of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy could be reinstated, Smith said.
Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military because the policy is still being appealed in courts.
<The opposite should be occurring. This is against the UCMJ. >
One group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, sent a statement out Tuesday reiterating the concern.
“During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up,” SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in the statement. “The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon.”
<It should be used NOW.>
Judge Phillips’ ruling on “don’t ask, don’t tell” stemmed from a lawsuit by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, challenging the policy.
<Repeal don’t ask / don’t tell. Kick the GAYS out!>
Former Army Lt. Daniel Choi, an Iraq war combat veteran who challenged “don’t ask, don’t tell” and was discharged, moved to rejoin the military Tuesday afternoon. “I’m here because I want to serve my country,” he said.
“In the recruiting station. Apparently I’m too old for the Marines!” he said in a tweet. “Just filled out the Army application.”
Choi said he told recruiters he was gay and that there was no reaction or delay in the enlistment process. He indicated he would complete his paperwork Wednesday and that he did not care what rank he would assume.
Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, president of Log Cabin Republicans’ San Diego, California, office, tried Tuesday afternoon to be reinstated by the Marines.
“Once a Marine, always a Marine,” said Rodriguez-Kennedy, a corporal who was honorably discharged in February 2008.
He served three years of a four-year term. “It’s a feeling of not having completed a full tour,” he said.
Recruiters told him Tuesday there were no current slots and they would call him in January, Rodriguez-Kennedy said. One option is to join another branch of the service, but Rodriguez-Kennedy said he might speak with Marine officers or get legal help.
Reinstatement would allow him to keep the corporal rank and resume benefits.
Rodriguez-Kennedy, 23, served as a provisional military police officer in Iraq in 2007. He said he was open to new responsibilities. “I love the Marine Corps,” he said.
CNN called several recruiting stations in New York and Chicago. They referred inquiries to the Pentagon.
CNN’s Larry Shaughnessy, Vivienne Foley and Phil Gast contributed to this report
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
By Rod Powers, About.com Guide
“(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.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.
(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
Lesser included offenses.
(1) With a child under the age of 16.
- (a) Article 125—forcible sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (2) below)
(b) Article 134—indecent acts with a child under 16
(c) Article 80—attempts
(2) Forcible sodomy.
- (a) Article 125—sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (3) below)
(b) Article 134—assault with intent to commit sodomy
(c) Article 134—indecent assault
(d) Article 80—attempts.
- (a) Article 134—indecent acts with another
(b) Article 80—attempts
(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.
(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
Is Obama’s Excuse for Not Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Legitimate?
President Obama claims he must defend and enforce the ban on gays serving in the military, even though he opposes it. But most experts in constitutional and military law say he has other options.
Since he was elected, President Obama has been dragging his feet on his campaign promise to let gays serve openly in the military—and gay-rights activists have been fuming. After avoiding the issue during his first year in office, Obama announced his intention to overturn the policycreated in 1993, called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT), which currently bans gays from serving. But he demanded that Congress do the law changing. After the president requested that the military study the issue, top generals and Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified to Congress that DADT wasn’t working. But in September Senate Republicans successfully filibustered the defense authorization that would have repealed DADT. With Republicans poised to gain Senate seats in the coming midterm elections, repeal looks even more in doubt, unless Democrats manage to pass it in the lame-duck session between the elections and the new Congress being sworn in next year.
Then last week, came a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates. A federal district courtruled in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States that the current policy against gays was unconstitutional. But on Thursday the Obama administration, which had defended the law in court, asked the court to stay the injunction against enforcement of DADT while they appealed it. (On Monday, Judge Virginia Phillips said she was tentatively inclined to reject the administration’s request.)
Obama has now repeatedly angered the gay-rights advocates: first by refusing to undo DADT himself, then by vociferously defending the law in court, and now by appealing the ruling and asking for it to be stayed. “Obama has made choices identical to those that would have been made by the Bush administration,” says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University.
At the very same time that the Department of Justice was issuing its request to the court, President Obama was asked pointedly during his MTV town hall, why he does not just overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” by executive order, as President Harry Truman had desegregated the military in 1948. Obama replied that the situation was not analogous because in this case Congress had actually passed a law imposing the discriminatory rule, and so only Congress can repeal it. (Obama did promise that repeal would happen on his watch.)
But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? Most legal experts agree that a president cannot simply change a law by fiat. “Obama is correct in the most general terms,” says Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches law at the University of Florida. “Federal law can go away in one of two ways: Congress can repeal it or a court can find it unconstitutional.” And it would seem hypocritical for liberals, who complained during the Bush administration that the executive branch was arrogating too much power to itself, to decide suddenly that they like the unitary executive when their side controls it. “I would be unhappy to hear Obama reading his commander-in-chief power to ignore Congress,” says Robert Burt, a professor at Yale Law School.
There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. At the time that DADT was passed, it was constitutional because there was no Supreme Court precedent establishing that homosexual relationships are protected under the implied privacy rights of the Bill of Rights. Then, 10 years later, the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturned an anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it violated the privacy rights of gay couples. Since then, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state interest to justify them. “Since Lawrence v. Texas, you can no longer discriminate against gays without reason,” says Mazur. “The constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has changed since Congress enacted it.” Given that top military leaders have said that DADT is harmful to the military, Obama could have simply announced that, absent the state interest to justify DADT, it is now unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced.
Obama’s other option: simply using his executive power to decide how the laws will be, or won’t be, executed. So Obama could simply order the military to stop applying the law, or to use it much more narrowly and infrequently. “There are a lot of laws on the books he doesn’t rigorously enforce,” notes Geoffrey Corn, a military law expert who teaches at South Texas College of Law. “The courts have recognized that while Congress has full authority to pass laws, the president has authority over when to enforce laws,” says Turley. Many criminal statutes, for example, are often unenforced and prosecutors have a lot of discretion on when to bring charges and what sentence to seek.
The president would be on strong footing in this case because he has especially wide latitude in interpreting laws that govern the military. Congress clearly was acting within its authority under Article I of the Constitution to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Some experts would argue that President Obama would be trampling that right if he chose not to enforce DADT. But others note that the president has historically been granted a lot of freedom by Congress and the courts to manage the details. “Traditionally, the executive is given latitude in putting meat on the proverbial bones,” says Corn. “There are certainly options the president could take with an executive order, particularly as commander in chief of the military,” says Mark Zaid, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who frequently represents members of the military. “From a strict constitutionalist standpoint, a presidential order contradicting a law could lead to a judicial battle. But courts defer to the president as commander in chief.”
Could Obama choosing not to enforce a law be challenged in court? Theoretically, but the only people who could plausibly have standing to sue for enforcement would be military officers and members of Congress, neither of whom would necessarily want to do so.
If Obama didn’t pursue one of those permanent solutions, he could temporarily let gays serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his stop-loss power, which was explicitly granted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed. “Stop-loss authority is a statutory authority enacted by Congress,” Mazur explains. “It gives the president authority to suspend any law that involves the discharge of service members. In times of national emergency there might be lots of reasons.” Given all the accounts of valuable servicemen and servicewomen, such as Arabic translators, being discharged under DADT, it would seem a fairly straightforward case for Obama to make. That would buy a couple of years for Congress to act or the current legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court. “The president has not openly discussed why [he is not using stop-loss],” says Mazur. “Typically, he has denied that he has any such authority and no one has really pressed him as to why.”
And even if Obama chose none of those options, once the Log Cabin Republicans suit was filed, Obama could order that DADT not be enforced pending the suit result. But what especially makes some DADT opponents’ blood boil is that the administration is fighting so hard for DADT in court. The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”
Some experts wonder why the administration even chose to defend the law in the first place. Turley maintains that they didn’t have to: “The president has a duty to separate his administration from an unconstitutional statute. If a statute required racial discrimination, would the president seriously be arguing that he and his administration would have to defend the statute all the way to the Supreme Court?” Many liberals feel betrayed by a president who they see as having chosen to enforce and defend a discriminatory law.
But Obama has some defenders on the legal left. Burt of Yale law school, who personally supports letting gays serve openly, says that Obama’s interpretations of his administration’s obligations have been correct. “If there is an act of Congress, it seems reasonable to me to say that it binds the president and he must faithfully execute it,” Burt says. “It is within the president’s discretion to say that the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans is so clear that there’s no point in appealing,” Burt concedes. “But that’s not the case here: there have been conflicts among district courts and courts of appeal that have looked at this statute.” Most of those rulings preceded Lawrence v. Texas. Lawrence strengthens the argument that DADT is unconstitutional, but courts have shown a lot deference on questions of military necessity.
Perhaps Obama’s choices that seem to contradict his beliefs on the issue are motivated by politics—a desire to shift responsibility to Congress or the military—rather than legal principle. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to many disappointed gay-rights supporters. “My only plausible explanation is the president made a political accommodation with the military and Congress that ‘I’m not going to step in the middle of this,’ ” Mazur says. But as pressure builds from his impatient supporters, Mazur adds, “He’s finding it easier said than done for a president to say, ‘Even though I’m commander in chief, I’m going to stay out of it.’ The pressure is becoming greater for him to justify how he can stay out of it.”