Yep.
Bolding mine.
From here.
If those are examples, it’s more like comedy tin.
[quote=Article 125
(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.[/quote]
It’s the word “unnatural” that has become problematic. And since it does apply to heterosexuals as well, why bring up the subject of “sodomy” at all?
I’m not sure what you’re point is. They’ll change the UCMJ to lift the ban on gays but they’ll leave sodomy on the books so they can keep discharging gays? That would be PR fun. I wonder who the sodomy police will be?
I don’t know, but anyone who volunteers to check the soldiers for evidence of sodomy is going to be a prime candidate for his own investigation…
Doesn’t the Navy have those? I see them walking around with SP on their helmets.
Oral’s okay, then? Here’s to the All-Lesbian U.S. Military!
You should check out the Iranian female police. There’s something a little odd to my Western sensibilities about seeing a bunch of women kicking ass in burqas, but hey, whatever works for them.
Bwah, ha, ha! Damn, I wish I knew an SP; that’s funny.
Even as a gay guy, I think a burqa-wearing kick-death squad is hot.
I know it was a joke, but to maintain clarity, here’s the explanation of sodomy according to the link I posted earlier:
Straight oral or anal, any gay or lesbian sex at all, and bestiality are all prohibited under this article of the UCMJ. I’m not sure why spike404 brought it up, but I thought I’d clarify. Maybe his point is that technically it’s been illegal to be gay in the military (or at least practice homosexuality) all along, regardless of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”.
To be clear, I disagree with this law. Even though I’m sure it is only something they add to rape charges to lengthen the sentence, rather than being used to persecute gays and non-vanilla heteros. Either way, it will have to be repealed along with DADT.
Do hands count as openings of the body? (Noses? Virgin ears?) I assume the last clause should, however, stay intact.
Actually, during the medical entrance exam there’s a point where you have to bend over and spread 'em so someone can get a good look at your bung hole. I don’t know what they’re looking for. The woman who was doing ours was all, “spread 'em! SPREAD 'EM! I SAID SPREAD 'EM WIDER!”
Creepy woman.
I hope this doesn’t become an extra duty NCOs get assigned, like urinalysis cock watching every three or four months.
“…I’m not sure why spike404 brought it up,…”
For the simple reason that a lot of posters are not aware of the UCMJ. “feel good” decisions do not always agree with reality. Heck–a lot of posters have never heard of the UCMJ.
And some of us may be aware that the UCMJ is a set of laws that can be changed and are often creatively enforced. Sodomy is crime, but I would bet that less than 5% of military has not committed it at one point. Heck, more than half of the ones I knew bragged about. Either the article will change or the enforcement will become the same for both heteros and homos.
Jonathan
So?
I was only answering the question in-re to the question as to why I brought up the UCMJ.
Some, if not most, posters are ignorant of its existence. Unless they were in the military.
Why?
I guess I don’t see why it matters. Sodomy was illegal in most states at one point. Even in California less than 20 years ago. Just like the Article in the UCMJ it was used as a way to prosecute some homosexuals and as an additional charge in some sex crimes. It is not really enforceable on its own.
The people in the military will not change instantaneously when this happens. They are still human beings and it will take time for attitudes to change just because they no longer have the backing of authority. Some homosexuals will come out and be accepted, some will come out and be harassed. Some will not come out because they are afraid of being harassed and some will not come out because they don’t want to deal with it. Some may not come out because they are afraid their family might find out. All just like the civilian world. The only difference is that their is more emphasis placed on belonging and higher level of macho posturing than most places.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Attitudes may not change immediately, but *behavior *can if it has to. Racial integration in the military happened immediately and with minimal incidents because of the power of orders, no matter what anybody in it thought about it, and as a result the military became arguably the least colorblind major institution in the nation at a very early stage.
Would anything be really different in this next step of the civil rights movement?
I think the difference is that blacks were not and could not be in the closet. If the military comes down hard on all harassment (as they should), then the major problems should end relatively soon. That does not mean that thing will be great for all gays in the military, just a whole lot better. And avoiding the attitudes may be worth it to not come out at work for some. If racial integration is any guide to how it will work, the military should adapt to gays faster than the civilian world once it is forced to. But there will still be an adaption period.
Jonathan
Strassia,
Have you ever been under the UCMJ?