DADT and same sex marriage

[Bear_Nenno]

I guess I don’t usually make the distinction because violation of a regulation is a criminal offense under Article 93 of the UCMJ. Violate a regulation is committing a crime, just like violating a law. But thanks for the clarification.

@kanicbird

My limited understanding is don’t talk about one’s homosxuality and you won’t be asked about it. Stating ‘I got married’ on this date does not reveal homosexuality.

Thank you, it is homosexuality which is banned, it has nothing to do with if the homosexual is a member of a SSM or not, and there is no additional conflict by allowing/legalizing SSM.

No, it does matter if they are in a SSM.
A person is allowed to be homosexual in the Army. But he/she is prohibited from statements, acts, or marriages which are homosexual.

Wait, how is that possible since the regulations were made before SSM was even a term, marriage between 2 homosexuals just didn’t exist (well ignoring the spiritual aspect of marriage).

Was it illegal everywhere in the world? One does not need to be married in the United States for the marriage to count. I was not married in the United States.

But I believe this may be part of the reason we were taught about “attempted marriage”. It always sounded funny to me when they told us that an attempted marriage was a violation of DADT. WTF is an attempted marriage?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Here’s the law, for the record:

10 USC Sec. 654:

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
© such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Note the exceptions (a)-(e). It’s okay to be gay one time, just so long as you promise not to do it again. Boys will be boys, and all that.

[Bear_Nenno]

From the full text here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/dontasklaw.html

"A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE ARMED FORCES UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IF. . . THE MEMBER HAS MARRIED OR ATTEMPTED TO MARRY A PERSON KNOWN TO BE OF THE SAME BIOLOGICAL SEX. "

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Psst… those are the first and last sentences in the part I quoted.

[Bear_Nenno]

Damn, beaten to it. I knew “attempted marriage” was in there…

[Bear_Nenno]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Psst… those are the first and last sentences in the part I quoted.

Well yea, but yours wasn’t there yet, and I didn’t preview

[Bear_Nenno]

@Bear_Nenno

I guess I don’t usually make the distinction because violation of a regulation is a criminal offense under Article 93 of the UCMJ.

Correction: Article 92! :smack:

[kanicbird]

@Bear_Nenno

From the full text here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/dontasklaw.html

"A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE ARMED FORCES UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IF. . . THE MEMBER HAS MARRIED OR ATTEMPTED TO MARRY A PERSON KNOWN TO BE OF THE SAME BIOLOGICAL SEX. "

I thank you for this part, but still on a nitpick:

You didn’t quote "one or more of the following findings " after the “if”. They have to find out about it, but are not allowed to ask, nor are you allowed to tell. Yes you have to tell them you got married, but you don’t have the reveal the gender.

[Captain_Amazing]

@kanicbird

Wait, how is that possible since the regulations were made before SSM was even a term, marriage between 2 homosexuals just didn’t exist (well ignoring the spiritual aspect of marriage). My understanding it is not the act of marriage, but homosexuality which is the problem with the Navy/military.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was passed in 1993, which was just when the gay marriage issue was starting. That was the same year, only about 6 months before, that the Hawaii State Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional to allow opposite sex marriages but forbid same sex marriages. So that was certainly on legislators’ minds.

[alphaboi867]

@Bear_Nenno

…THE MEMBER HAS MARRIED OR ATTEMPTED TO MARRY A PERSON KNOWN TO BE OF THE SAME BIOLOGICAL SEX. "

How strictly does the military define “biological sex”? Would it be a violation if a male servicemember married a post-op tranwoman? The Selective Service does not recognize transexuality at all. MtF transexuals must still register and are liable for call up (though they’d be classified as unfit at MEPS) and FtM transexuals are not allowed to register.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@kanicbird

I thank you for this part, but still on a nitpick:

You didn’t quote "one or more of the following findings " after the “if”. They have to find out about it, but are not allowed to ask, nor are you allowed to tell. Yes you have to tell them you got married, but you don’t have the reveal the gender.

If you are a serviceman and you get married, your partner will be losing out on some pretty significant benefits if you don’t tell anyone. At some point they’re going to notice that Sally has an awful deep voice.

And a penis.

[kanicbird]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If you are a serviceman and you get married, your partner will be losing out on some pretty significant benefits if you don’t tell anyone. At some point they’re going to notice that Sally has an awful deep voice.

And a penis.

Again it is a nitpick that SSM & DADT doesn’t force a violation of integrity. The issue is between homosexuality and DADT, not SSM and DADT.

Also when is a genitalia check ever been required to receive such benefits?

[gonzomax]

@Voyager

The issue of someone in a legal gay marriage trying to enlist (though rare) is fascinating. Just think of the situation if we had a draft. People would be swarming to Massachusetts, and Phil Ochs would have to add another verse to Draft Dodger Rag.

I’m not sure there will be any impact, but this is an excellent illustration that you get all sorts of inconsistencies when moral issues are in transition. Just like when the military is integrated, people will find that serving with others will not kill them, and perhaps it will loosen up some people who tend to be more conservative than the nation as a whole.

Phil committed suicide a long time ago. But very few on this board would know who he was.

[alphaboi867]

@kanicbird

…Also when is a genitalia check ever been required to receive such benefits?

Never to my knowledge, but at some point one would need to show up in person and show some sort of ID. So unless a servicemember’s same-sex spouse is a very convincing crossdresser with access to some kind of government photo ID that doesn’t list sex the jig is up.

[boytyperanma]

@kanicbird

Also when is a genitalia check ever been required to receive such benefits?

Never to my knowledge but a birth certificate is. Have you ever scene a birth certificate that doesn’t list gender?

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Chessic_Sense

And asking anyone if they are gay.

No, not really. The military doesn’t enforce the “Don’t Ask” part. At least, nobody has been kicked out for this. But gay & lesbian soldiers continue to be kicked out at the rate of about 2 per day.