The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-09-2005, 10:50 AM
Surreal Surreal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Is It Illegal For Military Personnel To Give Or Receive Oral Sex?

Is it true that it is illegal for someone enlisted in the U.S. military to engage in oral sex?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted solely for doing this? What is the punishment for this particular 'crime'??

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-09-2005, 11:22 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,470
Article 126 of the UCMJ does (or did, I don't know how the Supreme Court decision) prohibit sodomy, or as the article says:

Quote:
(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 be punished as a court-martial may direct.
I don't know if oral sex is considered "unnatural carnal copulation" or if any one has ever been court-martialed for heterosexual oral sex, though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-09-2005, 11:27 AM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
The Supreme Court decision would not have affected the UCMJ, as that is a separate body of law. That would have to be treated differently.

Also to nitpick, it's Article 125.

I believe in practice, sodomy cases are prosecuted only in conjunction with rape cases or as part of a discharge proceeding for homosexuality.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-09-2005, 11:44 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
The state of Virginia charged a heterosexual couple with sodomy of the oral sex variety a coupe of years ago. (Sorry no cite.)

Why the heck would a Supreme Court ruling not apply to the UCMJ just as it would to all other bodies of American law?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-09-2005, 11:55 AM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
The Supreme Court decision would not have affected the UCMJ, as that is a separate body of law. That would have to be treated differently.
The Constitution covers military law. Each state's laws are "separate bodies of law" too but a decision striking down an unconstitutional law in one state strikes down the same law in any other state that has it on the books. The reason Article 125 may still stand despite Lawrence is not because it's a "separate body of law" but because of the deference courts traditionally show to the military to run its own business. The military has responded to Lawrence by attempting to move consensual sodomy from Article 125 of the UCMJ to Article 134. Note in my link that at least two military courts have ruled that in light of Lawrence the military is restricted in its ability to prosecute consensual sodomy.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-09-2005, 12:06 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,566
Yes, it would seem that the penal disposition against consensual "sodomy" in the UCMJ as a "crime", per sef would fall under Lawrence, if the military itself is seeking to move it into the area of practices harmful to good discipline.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-09-2005, 12:23 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
I'm not a lawyer, and cannot speak of the fine constitutional points here. But it is a fact that the UCMJ embodies principles that, were they imposed on the population at large, would be considered blatantly unconstitutional.

They are necessary, though, to ensure proper military order and discipline.

I saw guys restricted to the ship when I was in, reduced in paygrade, half their pay taken away for two months, sometimes given bread and water rations for up to three days. They were given extra duty for the restriction period. And all of this was without benefit of court martial - these were non-judicial punishments that could be imposed by the commanding officer for an infraction.

This cannot be done to people outside of the military, simply put.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-09-2005, 12:23 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
Each state's laws are "separate bodies of law" too but a decision striking down an unconstitutional law in one state strikes down the same law in any other state that has it on the books.
Just in case clarification is required, please amend this sentence to read
Quote:
Each state's laws are "separate bodies of law" too but a Supreme Court decision striking down an unconstitutional law in one state strikes down the same law in any other state that has it on the books.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-09-2005, 12:29 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
I'm not a lawyer, and cannot speak of the fine constitutional points here. But it is a fact that the UCMJ embodies principles that, were they imposed on the population at large, would be considered blatantly unconstitutional.
And this is permitted not because the UCMJ is a "separate body of law" but because the courts traditionally give deference to the military.

Here is an excellent discussion of the origin of the judicial deference doctrine which coincidentally was inspired by Lawrence and DADT.

No one is arguing with you that the military is empowered to do things to its members that would not stand in a civilian setting. What you have wrong is the reason the military is so empowered.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-09-2005, 12:51 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
Agreed. But I don't see how this amounts to much of a difference on the ground.

When I was in the Navy, we enlisted sailors agreed that, if nothing else, "they" could always get you on an Article 134, since that article, the General Article, was so broadly written that anything could be prosecuted under it.

Quote:
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
IOW, if sodomy causes problems, we can prosecute it, even if the sodomy article is overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-09-2005, 01:13 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
On the other hand, if the sodomy isn't causing a problem with military order and discipline or the military culture, it's pretty clear it will be ignored, even if there is an enforceable sodomy article in the UCMJ.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-09-2005, 01:17 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
When I was in the Navy, we enlisted sailors agreed ...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wondered whether this counts as an appeal to authority.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-09-2005, 01:26 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,566
Quote:
IOW, if sodomy causes problems, we can prosecute it, even if the sodomy article is overturned.
Which is a completely sensible thing.

But what people worry about with the Executive Order referenced in Otto's linked article is whether it creates room for selective enforcement, or for commanders to decree a-priori that it does "cause a problem".

ascenray, it's not so much appeal to authority as recognition that the people under UCMJ willingly entered an agreement that includes having their ordinary rights restricted (not eliminated).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-09-2005, 01:41 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
Agreed. But I don't see how this amounts to much of a difference on the ground.
One is factually correct; the other is not.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-09-2005, 01:49 PM
David Simmons David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
IOW, if sodomy causes problems, we can prosecute it, even if the sodomy article is overturned.
I think your statement is probably the case. And this is the sort of thing, i.e. "prejudicial to good order and discipline," about which courts are deferential to the military command's judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-09-2005, 02:07 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 27,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious
ascenray, it's not so much appeal to authority as recognition that the people under UCMJ willingly entered an agreement that includes having their ordinary rights restricted (not eliminated).
D'oh! I see I misunderstood the original statement. I thought Mr. Moto was telling us about the consensus opinion of his colleagues.

Mr. Moto, I see now that you were referring to the text quoted from Article 134. Perhaps if you had said "The Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which all enlisted people are subject, states ... ," then my confusion would have been minimized.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-09-2005, 02:11 PM
rfgdxm rfgdxm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing
I don't know if oral sex is considered "unnatural carnal copulation" or if any one has ever been court-martialed for heterosexual oral sex, though.
Considering how common consensual oral sex is amongst heterosexuals, wouldn't you think the military would have made a clarifying ruling on this? IOW, say in plain language whether or not it is allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-09-2005, 03:20 PM
Billdo Billdo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Delectable City of Gotham
Posts: 4,753
Prior to Lawrencev. Texas, military courts did uphold convictions for consentual, non-commercial, heterosexual oral sex between adults under the general UCMJ provision prohibiting sodomy.

Since Lawrence, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the country's highest military court (appealable only to the U.S. Supreme Court) has addressed this issue in two cases decided last year, U.S. v. Marcum and U.S. v. Stirewalt.

The Court determined that military courts should consider whether the general UCMJ prohibition of sodomy was unconstitutional under Lawrence on a case-by-case basis (rather than asking if the prohibition was unconstitutional on its face). They examined whether the facts and circumstances of each particular accused act of consentual oral sodomy to find whether it was within the liberty interest identified in Lawrence, as properly tailored to the interests of the military in good order and discipline and national security.

The Court articulated a three part test:

Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. v. Marcum
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? 539 U.S. at 578. Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?
In Marcum, the accused had been convicted of "non-forcible sodomy" with a member of his supervisory chain of command. The court found that because the conduct was within the chain of command, there was an element of "coersion" that took it outside the liberty interest identified in Lawrence, and thus the conviction was constitutional under the second step of the test.

In Stirewalt, the "non-forcible sodomy" was between an officer and the accused enlisted person assigned to the same Coast Guard cutter. This conduct was in violation of Coast Guard regulations prohibiting romantic relationships between members of the crews of cutters (or small shore units). The court found that the conviction was proper under Lawrence, as adjusted for necessary factors in the military environment, despite the fact that the subordinate was the accused, on the grounds that the regulations were necessary to protect discipline in small units.

At this point, there has been no clear ruling about how the military courts would address a case of consentual sodomy between adults not involving members of the same chain of command, small unit or other militarily significant matter. It is likely, however, that Lawrence would prohibit convictions of "unrelated" service members for consentual oral sodomy.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-09-2005, 03:52 PM
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 26,297
It would seem that the cases cited by Billdo the real offense was a sexual relationship, not sodomy per se. Wouldn't such cases also have been prosecuted if penile-vaginal intercourse had taken place instead, given the circumstances?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-09-2005, 05:12 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 32,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
On the other hand, if the sodomy isn't causing a problem with military order and discipline or the military culture, it's pretty clear it will be ignored, even if there is an enforceable sodomy article in the UCMJ.
So laws are not enforced if the powers that be don't feel they need to be, but can be enforced even if they do not exist if the powers that be want to enforce them.

You are in effect saying that the UCMJ is essentially meaningless, and that the U.S. armed services punishes people for whatever they want.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-09-2005, 05:21 PM
Billdo Billdo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Delectable City of Gotham
Posts: 4,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri
It would seem that the cases cited by Billdo the real offense was a sexual relationship, not sodomy per se. Wouldn't such cases also have been prosecuted if penile-vaginal intercourse had taken place instead, given the circumstances?
Actually, in both cases the initial charges included allegations of both forcible and non-forcible sodomy, in addition to other charges.

In Marcum, the allegations as to the non-forcible sodomy conviction were that after a night of drinking the complaintant had crashed at the apartment of the accused, the NCO in charge of his unit. The complaintant testified that he awoke and found that the accused was performing oral sex on him. (Incidentially, both the accused and the complaintant were men in this case, though the court did not explicitly include that as a factor in its legal reasoning.) As to that incident, the court martial found that the accused had not engaged in forcible sodomy, but only in non-forcible sodomy because of other evidence regarding the pair's personal relationship. (Apparently the accused was also convicted of forcible sodomy for another incident in the same case.)

In Stirewalt, the accused was originally convicted "a number of offenses involving his female shipmates," those being "four specifications of maltreatment by sexual harassment, one specification of rape, one specification of forcible sodomy, three specifications of assault consummated by a battery, four specifications of adultery and four specifications of indecent assault." The military judge threw out some of the charges, and the remainder were thrown out on appeal, where a new trial was ordered. Before the retrial, the accused pleaded guilty to non-forcible sodomy.

In these cases, it seems that non-forcible sodomy was a lesser included offense to a forcible sodomy charge (and incidentally, both initial convictions were pre-Lawrence, with the constitutionality of the non-forcible sodomy conviction only being raised on appeal). I don't know how much, if at all, the military would prosecute true non-forcible sodomy, with no other confounding factors.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-09-2005, 06:46 PM
CynicalGabe CynicalGabe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi
The state of Virginia charged a heterosexual couple with sodomy of the oral sex variety a coupe of years ago. (Sorry no cite.)

Why the heck would a Supreme Court ruling not apply to the UCMJ just as it would to all other bodies of American law?

I'm glad a state such as Virginia has no real crimes to spend taxpayers' money prosecuting.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-09-2005, 10:49 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
You are in effect saying that the UCMJ is essentially meaningless, and that the U.S. armed services punishes people for whatever they want.
No. The UCMJ is not meaningless, and it's not done on a whim. Not surprisingly, there are other guidelines that must be followed.

Prosecution under the UCMJ is done under procedures set forth by the Manual for Courts Martial.. And it states that lesser offenses may be prosecuted at the same time as a sodomy charge if that offense was committed.

Now, the interesting thing is that a few of those charges include assault with intent to commit sodomy, indecent acts with a child under 16, indecent assault, or indecent acts with another - all of which are offenses that fall under Article 134, the General Article.

So the General Article is really only general within the UCMJ. In practice, it is broken down into discrete charges that are all handled a little bit differently.

It is useful for the UCMJ to be a smaller, more compact document. The MCM is 800 pages long, the important articles of the UCMJ are routinely posted in poster form for servicemembers to familiarize themselves with. In much the same way, most people are familiar with broad constitutional principles while not needing to know about the vast amount of case law available.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-10-2005, 12:21 PM
Balthisar Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nanjing, China
Posts: 8,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
I saw guys restricted to the ship when I was in, reduced in paygrade, half their pay taken away for two months, sometimes given bread and water rations for up to three days. They were given extra duty for the restriction period. And all of this was without benefit of court martial - these were non-judicial punishments that could be imposed by the commanding officer for an infraction.

This cannot be done to people outside of the military, simply put.
Well, in a way it can. It's kind of like a plea bargain. What you describe is non-judicial punishment under authority of Article 15 -- simply called "an Article 15" or in the Navy (Marines, too?) a "Captain's Mast." You have the right to court martial. If you do something to merit an Article 15, you can refuse punishment under Article 15, i.e., excerise your Constitutional right to a trial. But... you're probably going to get off a lot worse than half pay, bread and water, and reduction in rank. Even with a history of Article 15's, you'll still receive an Honorable discharge if you leave because of normal expiration of your term of service.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-10-2005, 05:02 PM
Scruloose Scruloose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar
Well, in a way it can. It's kind of like a plea bargain. What you describe is non-judicial punishment under authority of Article 15 -- simply called "an Article 15" or in the Navy (Marines, too?) a "Captain's Mast." You have the right to court martial.
Not sure of the other services, but in the Coast Guard this is not completely true. Members assigned to afloat units can not refuse NJP. Only members assigned to shore units have this option. If the CG does this, my guess is that the Navy does as well, but that's just a guess as they usually have similiar policies.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-10-2005, 06:21 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,560
Quote:
Members assigned to afloat units can not refuse NJP. Only members assigned to shore units have this option.
At a guess, could this be because a Court Martial requires some minimum number of officers, and that on the small vessels operated by the Coast Guard, this minimum number of officers would not typically be available? If this is the case, then there would be no problem on, say, a Navy aircraft carrier with doing a court martial instead of NJP.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-10-2005, 06:48 PM
Scruloose Scruloose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
I did a little checking now that my curiosity is up. From US Code:

Title 10, Sub A, Part II, Chpt 47, ß 815: Art. 15. Commanding officerís non-judicial punishment

Quote:
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, and under such additional regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, limitations may be placed on the powers granted by this article with respect to the kind and amount of punishment authorized, the categories of commanding officers and warrant officers exercising command authorized to exercise those powers, the applicability of this article to an accused who demands trial by court-martial, and the kinds of courts-martial to which the case may be referred upon such a demand. However, except in the case of a member attached to or embarked in a vessel, punishment may not be imposed upon any member of the armed forces under this article if the member has, before the imposition of such punishment, demanded trial by court-martial in lieu of such punishment. -snip-
So, I guess it doesn't matter what service you're in.

Larger ships may have the people, but probably lack the time, training and resources to effectively convene a proper court martial. For the serious offenses, they'll just drop the offender off at the nearest brig and let "Harm" and "Mac" handle it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-10-2005, 07:27 PM
MsRobyn MsRobyn is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between the Moon and NYC
Posts: 12,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scruloose
Not sure of the other services, but in the Coast Guard this is not completely true. Members assigned to afloat units can not refuse NJP. Only members assigned to shore units have this option. If the CG does this, my guess is that the Navy does as well, but that's just a guess as they usually have similiar policies.
No. Navy personnel have an absolute right to court martial, no matter where they're stationed. They'll either bring JAGs to the ship, or the accused will be transferred to a shore command for prosecution. I've seen both happen, and yes, I am aware that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote".

One anecdote I will share involved two people in my unit. They were both brought to captain's mast for oral sex. IIRC, it wasn't the oral sex per se that was the charge, though; it was the fact that said encounter happened in a relatively public area of the ship, and thus, constituted a violation of good order and discipline. I think they each got 14 days restriction but no loss of rank or pay because the offense was so minor.

Robin
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-10-2005, 07:59 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
Agreed. But I don't see how this amounts to much of a difference on the ground.
On the ground? Geez, get a room.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-10-2005, 08:02 PM
Scruloose Scruloose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRobyn
No. Navy personnel have an absolute right to court martial, no matter where they're stationed.
This does not appear to be the case as I read it. The Article 15 cite I quoted above is from the UCMJ, and is not service specific. While vessel Commanding Officers may allow a member to refuse NJP and put them ashore, the point remains, as I see it, that service members attached to or embarked in vessels have no right to court martial in lieu of NJP.

To further that, I found this at a Navy JAG website:
Quote:
Article 15, UCMJ, And Regulations.

NJP is permitted by Article 15, UCMJ (Section 815 of Title 10, United States Code) and is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by service regulations. Prior to imposition of NJP, a service member must first be notified by the commander of the nature of the misconduct of which he or she is accused, of the evidence supporting the accusation, and of the commanderís intent to impose NJP. The member may then be allowed to consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to consent to a NJP proceeding, or to refuse NJP and demand instead a trial by court-martial. The major difference among the services with regard to NJP is that service members attached to or embarked in a vessel may not refuse imposition of NJP.
From here:http://www.jag.navy.mil/html/NLSOGla...punishment.htm

UCMJ: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us..._II_30_47.html
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-10-2005, 09:53 PM
Padeye Padeye is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ, US
Posts: 7,672
Is there a universal definition of sodomy? Arizona's sodomy law which was taken off the books by the legislature defined it as non-procreative sex which covers an awful lot of territory. All kidding aside "unnatural act" is an incredibly vague term that probably wouldn't withstand a judicial review in the civilain world.

I never gave article 125 much thought when I was in the military as no one was ever charged for going into town for some fun. The running joke was that a true friend was one who went to town, got two BJs and gave you one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-10-2005, 10:17 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRobyn
They were both brought to captain's mast for oral sex.
Bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-10-2005, 11:01 PM
rfgdxm rfgdxm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar
Well, in a way it can. It's kind of like a plea bargain. What you describe is non-judicial punishment under authority of Article 15 -- simply called "an Article 15" or in the Navy (Marines, too?) a "Captain's Mast." You have the right to court martial. If you do something to merit an Article 15, you can refuse punishment under Article 15, i.e., excerise your Constitutional right to a trial. But... you're probably going to get off a lot worse than half pay, bread and water, and reduction in rank. Even with a history of Article 15's, you'll still receive an Honorable discharge if you leave because of normal expiration of your term of service.
My understanding from someone fairly knowlegdeable in the military is a NJP is a sort of plea bargain. Under ordinary circumstances (the others possibly mentioned here would exceptions), the military can offer a NJP, or force a court-martial. Unless you are innocent and know you can win a court-martial, the NJP will be preferable. Lots bad can happen if you lose a court-martial. Like military prison, and a Dishonorable Discharge. With a DD, you lose not only military benefits, but also will have a BIG black mark against you seeking civilian employment. Far better to take the NJP, and then if disgusted with the military just resign. Resignation tends to be easy in the military except in cases of war or imminent hostility. The military would much rather replace you with an eager new recruit than keep you around as a malcontent with a history of bad behavior. If the military accepts your resignation, then you'll get something better than a DD. Only a DD is associated with dishonor. The other discharges are either neutral, and in the case of an Honorable Discharge, a badge of honor.

And to the extent that the military may be able to force a NJP, if they do it is probably a blessing. This guarantees that you won't get a DD, and almost certainly means you will have the unilateral option of getting an OK discharge or a HD if you push the issue. (Although the latter could possibibly not be an option in the event of hostilities.)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-10-2005, 11:13 PM
rfgdxm rfgdxm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padeye
Is there a universal definition of sodomy? Arizona's sodomy law which was taken off the books by the legislature defined it as non-procreative sex which covers an awful lot of territory. All kidding aside "unnatural act" is an incredibly vague term that probably wouldn't withstand a judicial review in the civilain world.

I never gave article 125 much thought when I was in the military as no one was ever charged for going into town for some fun. The running joke was that a true friend was one who went to town, got two BJs and gave you one of them.
There is no universal definition of sodomy. A point I brought up earlier. I can't imagine if I were in the military and demanded a court-martial if my girlfriend voluntarily gave me oral sex I'd be convicted. Have you ever known people in the military? If in the barracks I told of how my girlfriend gave me a blow job I'd probably get a slap on the back from fellow soldiers. Anything less and they'd probably look at me wondering if I was straight? Any sort of sexual action with chicks isn't something to be ashamed of in the military.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-11-2005, 08:55 AM
Billdo Billdo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Delectable City of Gotham
Posts: 4,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padeye
Is there a universal definition of sodomy? Arizona's sodomy law which was taken off the books by the legislature defined it as non-procreative sex which covers an awful lot of territory. All kidding aside "unnatural act" is an incredibly vague term that probably wouldn't withstand a judicial review in the civilain world.

I never gave article 125 much thought when I was in the military as no one was ever charged for going into town for some fun. The running joke was that a true friend was one who went to town, got two BJs and gave you one of them.
UCMJ Art. 125 defines Sodomy as "unnatural carnal copulation" with a person or an animal. The Manual for Courts Martial (link to 867 page PDF from Mr. Moto) explains:

Quote:
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that personís mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that personís 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.
Although there is no "unversal" definition of sodomy in a linguistic sense, the legal definition of sodomy at common law included taking another person's sexual organ into one's mouth or anus or placing one's sexual organ in another's mouth or anus.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-11-2005, 10:57 AM
plnnr plnnr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Illegal or not, some of the best head I ever got was from a Navy SEAL.

So there.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.