I remember reading in William Manchester’s Goodbye Darkness that in WWII engaging in homosexual acts would get you thrown in the brig for 80 years or something like that. And that they had regular announcements among the troops about such punishments, as a deterrent.
I wonder what happened in the Civil War. Horsewhipped or branded, I imagine.
[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz]
The official stance is SAM will get you kicked out.
S: Statements along the lines of “I am a homosexual.” “I will engage in homosexual acts”
A: Acts. If you have been reliably observed engaging in homosexual acts.
M: Marriage if you attempt to marry a person of the same sex as you.
FTR, if you received any incentives for enlistment, such as a cash bonus or loan repayment, you will forfeit that incentive if you are discharged with anything other than an honorable discharge.
[/QUOTE]
Does being discharged for any of the three reasons you list above get you a dishonorable discharge?
If not, it will probably get you an administrative discharge at best, and that’s a lot of fun either. (Although you don’t have to report it to non-federal-government prospective employers, like (I think) you do with a dishonorable.)
Just came in to say that I thought the thread title had been answered by the screen name of the OP.
I think you’ll find the Army’s Command Policy a good read.
AR 600-20 ch 4-19
"The DCS, G–1 is responsible for the U.S. Army Homosexual Conduct Policy.
a. General.
(1) This policy implements Section 654, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 654). The Department of Defense has stated that the suitability of persons to serve in the Army is based on their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline.
(2) Definitions are as follows:
(a) Bisexual. A person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in both homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(b) Homosexual. A person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts as further described in paragraph (3), below.
© Sexual orientation. An abstract sexual preference for persons of a particular sex, as distinct from a propensity or intent to engage in sexual acts.
(3) Homosexual conduct. “Homosexual conduct” is a homosexual act, a statement by a Soldier that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, the solicitation of another to engage in homosexual act or acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage.
(a) A “homosexual act” means any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires and any bodily contact (for example, hand-holding, slow dancing, or kissing) that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in such bodily contact.
(b) A “statement by a person that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that effect” means language or behavior that a reasonable person would believe intends to convey the statement that a person engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. This may include statements such as “I am a homosexual,” “I am gay,” “I am a lesbian,” “I have a homosexual orientation,” and the like.
© A “homosexual marriage or attempted marriage” is when a person has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced by the external anatomy of the person involved).
b. Accession policy. A person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct in a manner described in paragraph a(3).
Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction into the Army will not be asked or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Applicants also will not be required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct unless independent evidence is received indicating that the applicant engaged in such conduct or
unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that effect.
Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Army, except as provided in AR 601–210. Applicants will be informed of the laws and regulations governing sexual conduct in the armed services, including homosexual conduct as defined in a(3). AR 601–210 governs the Army accession policy.
c. Separation policy. Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army under the terms set forth in paragraph a(3). AR 600–8–24, AR 635–200, AR 135–175, and AR 135–178 govern Army separation policies.
d. Guidelines for command-directed fact-finding inquiries into homosexual conduct.
(1) Responsibilities.
(a) Only a Soldier’s commander is authorized to initiate fact-finding inquiries involving homosexual conduct. A commander may initiate a fact-finding inquiry only when he or she has received credible information that there is a basis for discharge. Commanders are accountable for ensuring that inquiries are conducted properly and that no abuse of authority occurs.
(b) A fact-finding inquiry may be conducted by the commander personally or by a person he or she appoints. It may consist of an examination of the information reported or a more extensive investigation as necessary.
© The inquiry should gather all credible information that directly relates to the grounds for possible separation. Inquiries will be limited to the actual circumstances directly relevant to the specific allegations.
(d) If a commander has credible evidence of possible criminal conduct, he or she will follow the procedures outlined in AR 27-10 and AR 195–2.
(e) These guidelines do not apply to activities of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and other DOD law enforcement organizations that are governed by AR 195–2.
(2) Basis for conducting inquiries.
(a) A commander will initiate an inquiry only if he or she has credible information that there is a basis for discharge. Credible information exists when the information, considering its source and the surrounding circumstances, supports a reasonable belief that a Soldier has engaged in homosexual conduct. It requires a determination based on articulable facts, not just a belief or suspicion.
(b) A basis for discharge exists if—
[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
I think you’ll find the Army’s Command Policy a good read.
[/QUOTE]
Above and beyond this wonderful post defining the ultimate murkiness that is DADT, don’t forget that in the UCMJ sodomy is a crime. So the three-way MMF mentioned before, assuming both the guys were going at it simultaneously, would be sodomy for at least one of them under the UCMJ and punishable by dishonorable discharge. Assuming they didn’t switch ends, in which case both would be commiting a crime.
I won’t say finally geting legal blow jobs was the only reason I left the military, but it definitely was one of them. 
UCMJ Article 15
[QUOTE=http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm]
Article 125—Sodomy
Text.
“(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.”
Elements.
(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.
Explanation.
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Depends. What fucking country are you talking about.
[/QUOTE]
Depends. When will you find the question mark key. When will you apply a nanosecond of your brain’s computing time and figure out that anyone asking about a plan called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is probably from THE FUCKING COUNTRY WITH A POLICY IN PLACE BY THAT NAME.
[/QUOTE]
Moderator Note:
Both of you fucking knock it off, mkay? **Hostile Dialect **, doubly so. That was needlessly insulting and, well, hostile.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Above and beyond this wonderful post defining the ultimate murkiness that is DADT, don’t forget that in the UCMJ sodomy is a crime. So the three-way MMF mentioned before, assuming both the guys were going at it simultaneously, would be sodomy for at least one of them under the UCMJ and punishable by dishonorable discharge. Assuming they didn’t switch ends, in which case both would be commiting a crime.
I won’t say finally geting legal blow jobs was the only reason I left the military, but it definitely was one of them.
UCMJ Article 15
[/QUOTE]
So a male getting a blowjob from a female is sodomy? And therefore subject to a dishonorable discharge?
[QUOTE=Rucksinator]
So a male getting a blowjob from a female is sodomy? And therefore subject to a dishonorable discharge?
[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, any insertive non-PIV sex is considered sodomy, regardless of the genders involved.
I have to wonder if the Lawrence v Texas decision wipes out that section of the UCMJ or not…
As for the type of discharge…I’ll leave that to the experts.
Oh, and insert joke here about blowjobs definitely leading to SOME kind of discharge. Just for kicks, mind.
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Depends. What fucking country are you talking about.
(Yeah, it’s my pet peeve.)
[/QUOTE]
I hear ya.
I’m also annoyed when I hear “Montreal, Quebec, Canada” or (blech) “Montreal, Canada” on American broadcasts. They’d never say “Albany, New York, USA” or “Albany, USA”, unless they were trying to be funny.
Damnit, my province is bigger than Alaska. Show some respect!
**a storm of cocksucking the likes of which you could never imagine **
…aw fuck, I imagined it.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
**a storm of cocksucking the likes of which you could never imagine **
…aw fuck, I imagined it.
[/QUOTE]
From context, the statement can only be interpreted to mean that Otto couldn’t imagine it.
Imagine it? Hell, I’ve watched a video depicting a fictional instance of precisely that kind of storm of cocksucking…
[QUOTE=Rucksinator]
So a male getting a blowjob from a female is sodomy? And therefore subject to a dishonorable discharge?
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Pretty wacky, eh?
[QUOTE=JayRx1981]
As I understand it, any insertive non-PIV sex is considered sodomy, regardless of the genders involved.
I have to wonder if the Lawrence v Texas decision wipes out that section of the UCMJ or not…
As for the type of discharge…I’ll leave that to the experts.
Oh, and insert joke here about blowjobs definitely leading to SOME kind of discharge. Just for kicks, mind.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, military courts have interpreted the Lawrence v. Texas decision to prohibit UCMJ sodomy convictions under certain circumstances. Essentially, one cannot be convicted for consentual, male-female, oral or anal sex without any factors which would make it problematic in the military context.
However, military courts have held that one may be convicted of sodomy if it is in violation of one the laws or regulations regarding prohibited sexual or romantic relationships, such as adultery, officer-enlisted fraternization, relationships between commanders/subordinates, and regulations that prohibit romantic relationships between service members in the same or closely related units (usually specific regulations for each service or command). Similarly, sodomy convictions may be upheld if they involve force, coercion, underage participants, prostitution, and the like.
I don’t have time to get citations now, but I can provide them if they would be helpful.
[QUOTE=JayRx1981]
Interesting…guess I should hold off on committing to the Navy till HilObama and Congress reverse DADT…just to be on the safe side.
[/QUOTE]
I was reading in the *Navy TImes * about a high-ranking officer who was begging to repeal DADT. Not so gays would be allowed, but so that they would be banned more completely! So be aware of which agenda is applicable in the debates about repealing DADT.
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
there’d be a storm of cocksucking the likes of which you could never imagine
[/QUOTE]
So would that storm be called a homoicaine?
Or a blowzird?
A sodiclone?
A typhfun?
And would the Navy choir be singing Blow the man down?
[QUOTE=Billdo]
I don’t have time to get citations now, but I can provide them if they would be helpful.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, please.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Yes, please.
[/QUOTE]
Shortly after the US Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence, the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (the highest military appeals court) decided two cases, US v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (2004), and US v Stierwalt , 60 M.J. 297 (2004), which set out the framework for applying Lawrence in the military context.
In Marcum, the court set out a three-part test to determine when particular conduct would be protected by the “liberty interest” set out in Lawrence as follows:
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 [i.e. did the accused conduct involve private, consensual sexual activity between adults]? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence [For instance, did the conduct involve minors, public conduct or prostitution, persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused]? 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, a Air Force Technical Sergeant in charge of a training group socialized with a Senior Airman under his supervision. Among other incidents, one evening the SrA fell asleep, and awoke to find the (male) TSgt kissing his penis. Amid conflicting evidence regarding consent, the TSgt was convicted of Non-Forcible Sodomy. After Lawrence came down while the case was on appeal, the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces examined the conduct under the three part test above, and found under the third question, that the TSgt had violated an Air Force instruction prohibiting sexual relationships between supervisors and subordinates in the same chain of command. As such, the conviction was upheld. The court did not address the homosexual aspect of the conduct, finding conviction supportable on the supervisor/subordinate ground.
In Stirewalt, a Coast Guard Petty Officer had been accused of a variety of charges, including Rape and Forcible Sodomy, but after an initial appeal reversed his first conviction, pleaded guilty to Non-Forcible Sodomy as in an incident with a (female) Lieutenant (JG) who served aboard the same Coast Guard Cutter as the accused. The court applied a similar analysis to Marcum, and found that accused had violated a Coast Guard regulation against romantic relationships between crewmembers of the same Cutter as well as the prohibition of officer/enlisted fraternization, and upheld the conviction.
Later cases by the lower appeals courts for each of the services have upheld sodomy convictions in situations including: sodomy with the wife of a sailor who was standing duty at the time, open and notorious sodomy in the barracks in Japan by a married male sailor stationed with Japanese civilians, 30-year recruiter having oral and vaginal sex with a high school senior prospective recruit in violation of regulations, oral sodomy with wife of airman deployed to Middle East, sneaking 16-year old (of legal age under military law) into barracks without pass and giving her alcohol, sex in public space aboard navy ship, repeated sodomy while on duty on patrol as military policeman, and sex involving incest. On the other hand, military courts have reversed sodomy convictions where there were not any of these types of additional factors, including (all .pdf files): simple oral sex with civilian in private barracks room, sex acts between two privates in locked barracks room before she told him to stop, guilty plea of consensual sodomy with soldiers of equivalent rank and no duty connection.