Bill passes, 65-31.
About damn time!
OK, time for a dumb question.
Being neither gay nor in the military, I haven’t followed DADT other than to hold the position that gays should be allowed to serve.
Question: Does the repeal mean that gays can now be discharged even if they are not asked and/or do not tell? Or does it mean that gays can serve in the military?
I believe all it does is repeal DADT. So it will be up to the President what the military’s actual policy is regarding gays in the military. As a practical matter, Obama will presumably allow openly gay members, and once thats in place, it will be pretty unlikely that even a very conservative future Prez would try and roll it back.
Utulie’n Aure!
And in today’s “profiles in courage”, Senators Burr and Ensign bravely voted against bringing the bill to a vote, but then voted for the bill itself. The senate is insane.
Just for a moment, they must have realized history was watching.
So is “sodomy” (ie all same-sex sexual activity regardless of consent) still illegal under the UCMJ, or does this bill repeal those sections as well?
Just DADT. I think the sodomy prohibition is a dead-letter anyways, though, since the SCOTUS found such laws are unconstitutional. So our naval traditions are safe.
Members of the military lose a lot of the Constitutional protections that regular citizens enjoy. For example, conversations with military medical doctors are not privileged.
The sodomy article of the UCMJ has not been repealed, and it’s not clear if the courts would apply Lawrence v. Texas to the UCMJ or not–the courts have traditionally been very deferential to the executive branch in general and the military hierarchy in particular about this sort of thing (matters of military discipline within the armed forces).
One thing, though–Article 125 of the UCMJ quite clearly applies to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct:
The Manual for Courts-Martial (NOTE: fairly enormous PDF file) expounds upon the text of the UCMJ and makes it clear that the article prohibits pretty much any act of not only anal sex but also oral sex as well (or at least fellatio–I’m not 100% sure if cunnilingus “counts” or not, just based on the text of the MCM here):
Article 125 applies to everyone subject to the UCMJ, and there are no exemptions in the text of the law for, for example, married persons (not even “married persons engaging in foreplay before continuing on to have penile-vaginal intercourse for the express purpose of having a child, who will then grow up to be a strong, patriotic, 100% American and join the military like his Daddy did”). Per the MCM, the maximum penalty for plain-vanilla sodomy (with no other agravating factors, like the act being committed by force and without consent, or with a child under the age of 12 years old) is “Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years”.
I rather imagine that if the military actually tried to apply Article 125 as written, we really would be left with an “Army of One” (who would spend his entire career trying to guard a really enormous stockade full of convicted military felons).
Active duty Capt chiming in to say “FINALLY”.
I’m amazed this got done, and am very happy about it. As wide a margin as this passed with, I’m convinced that had it not been passed now, it would not have in the next session, so I am extra thrilled.
Just out of curiosity, which service?
cartwheels through this thread too
This Congress couldn’t do anything else in its last session . . . so it did the one worthwhile thing it could do without spending money.
Keep us posted on how it’s going over.
Curiosities…
Why wasn’t DADT referred to as Clinton’s DADT the same way as the Bush Tax Cuts?
Can the transgendered serve now?
When will we see our first gay military wedding?
FWIW…since it’s obvious that I don’t hold this event with the same sense of (whatever) as most. I would like to state that I have no problem with gays serving in the military.
Clinton never ran on DADT as a campaign plank. Clinton initially wanted and proposed a complete end of the ban on homosexuals in the military, which would allow for homosexuals to serve openly. After the joint chiefs balked and the conservative elements in both parties raised numerous objections, DADT was introduced as a compromise. The Bush tax cuts were not a compromise.
The end of DADT will only prevent homosexuals from being kicked out of the military for their sexual orientation. It will not affect any policies or practices regarding transgendered people.
OTOH, those tax cuts were something that many voters and politicians favored while DADT was a policy that Clinton’s admin devised (I think). Seems like DADT was something that should be more associated with a particular president than the tax cuts that happened to go thru during the Bush admin.