can a gay man serve honorably in the US military?

[crashhelmet]

It does not ban drinking. Stop being obtuse. No, it says it's illegal to do things like being drunk and disorderly. Things like that do disrupt the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces. The UCMJ is NOT the end-all when it comes to military order. The US Code and other rules and regulations affect our performance of duties.

Hah, I found it on the first page: http://www.fratching.com/showpost.ph...89&postcount=6

Obtuse? I did not say you couldn't drink. I said you couldn't get drunk. There's a difference. Now to quote from your own post....

Sec. 574, Sec 654,
(b)
`(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--

`(C) 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;

This says 2 things....
1) Homosexual acts are only illegal if forced, coerced, or intimidated. Which, hell, any sex is illegal if obtained by those means.
2) As long as the serviceman or woman proves their worth, they're safe under (d) as well. This is yet another catch-all the Military uses.

What doesn't ban drinking? Article 134? Who said it did?

Article 134 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

Drunkenness.

(a) Aboard ship or under such circumstances as to bring discredit upon the military service. Confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months.
(b) Other cases. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.

So I was wrong about the discharges. That's with Drunk and Disorderly on base/ship. Here's what else Article 134 covers:
Abusing public animal
Adultery
Assault (indecent)
Assault with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking
Bigamy
Bribery and graft
Burning with intent to defraud
Check, worthless, making and uttering--by dishonorably failing to maintain funds
Cohabitation, wrongful
Correctional custody (Trying to escape)
Debt, dishonorably failing to pay
Disloyal statements
Disorderly conduct, drunkenness
Drinking liquor with prisoner
Drunk prisoner
Drunkenness - incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug
False or unauthorized pass offenses
False pretenses, obtaining services under
False swearing
Firearm, discharging--through negligence
Firearm, discharging--willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life
Fleeing scene of accident
Fraternization
Gambling with subordinate
Homicide, negligent
Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official
Indecent acts or liberties with a child
Indecent exposure
Indecent language

"Indecent" language is that which is grossly offensive to modesty, decency, or propriety, or shocks the moral sense, because of its vulgar, filthy, or disgusting nature, or its tendency to incite lustful thought. Language is indecent if it tends reasonably to corrupt morals or incite libidinous thoughts. The language must violate community standards.

Well crap.. there go our Sailors and Marines again. How do we keep them protecting us if they're in the Brig all the time?

To continue...

Indecent acts with another
Jumping from vessel into the water
Kidnapping
Mail: taking, opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing
Mails: depositing or causing to be deposited obscene matters in
Misprision of serious offense
Obstructing justice
Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding
Pandering and prostitution
Parole, Violation of
Perjury: subornation of
Public record: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying
Quarantine: medical, breaking
Reckless Endangerment
Requesting commission of an offense
Restriction, breaking
Seizure: destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent
Self-injury without intent to avoid service
Sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by
Soliciting another to commit an offense
Stolen property: knowingly receiving, buying, concealing
Straggling
Testify: wrongful refusal
Threat or hoax: bomb
Threat, communicating
Unlawful entry
Weapon: concealed, carrying
Wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button

The punishments for all of these depend on the degrees of which they occur. God help you if you use foul language in front of a child.

Hobbs, if you're still reading this, yes I'm being somewhat facetious with this. However, you're establishing your own context, or what others have you told you the context is, for these instead of educating yourself on what they say.

CH

[Hobbs]

I pretty much ignored your whole list. Those that I did read I noticed are covered in OTHER areas of the UCMJ.

And yes, you CAN be disciplined for using foul language. My friend said an f-bomb in front of our commandant and got a letter of counsel for it.

The USMC ans USN aren't the only ones who swear; I think you're being more than facetious...bordering on straight-on ridiculous in what you're saying.Come up with a coherent argument instead of listing things that don't even apply. I really wonder who taught you military law.

If you're going to quote the UCMJ, please quote it right:

Art. 134:

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.

Art. 134 covers offenses that, as it even says in the first sentence, aren't specifically covered within the punitive articles. This ling: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0_47_40_X.html shows that you're cute little list is nothing more than listing out the Punitive Articles of the UCMJ, not listing acts covered by the General Article. You've completely misunderstood the UCMJ and what it means.

[smileyeagle1021]

Exactly what is your problem with my profession? Gates has already mentioned that banning gay servicemembers is detrimental; so have many Chiefs of Staff. I've even been personally briefed on our responsibility as officers to make sure discrimination will be stomped out once DADT is repealed.

What you view as a problem is what many would view as a realistic pessimism. DADT was put in place because a homophobic military didn't want to acknowledge that gay people would have a desire to serve. Now I don't know whether or not the homophobic element of the military is the majority or a very vocal minority, but God damn they are making a lot of noise and make quite a lot of people wonder whether or not the military really is ready to get over their homophobic (and btw racist and sexist) past. I will give credit where it is do, the military has done an incredibly good job of adapting when they finally do adapt, but as I said, I don't know if this is a change they are ready to make or not.

And as was mentioned with the rules on drunkenness, does the term "shore week" mean anything to you?

edit to add-
I have utmost respect for those who are willing to are willing to risk their lives to protect the lives and freedoms of others, that does not mean that I have to respect the institute that they are members of.

[Hobbs]

For every person in the military who is bigoted, there are about 2 (depends on location) who feel differently. Most of the noise, imho, is coming from the civilian establishment and not the active or reserve components of the Armed Forces. For instance, the military thought it was very stupid to fire Arabic translators b/c they were outted.

[crashhelmet]

The USMC ans USN aren't the only ones who swear; I think you're being more than facetious...bordering on straight-on ridiculous in what you're saying.Come up with a coherent argument instead of listing things that don't even apply. I really wonder who taught you military law.

I was throwing stereotype with those jokes. I had even considered a few about Articles 125 and 134 being the reason we had to close Subic Bay, but decided against them in the nature of good taste.

I never claimed to be a JAG lawyer nor have I claimed to be an expert in the various laws. I'm simply showing that I've actually read them and read what was actually printed in them.

You've completely misunderstood the UCMJ and what it means.

So tell me the Hobbs. Where EXACTLY does it say EXACTLY that homosexuals are NOT allowed in the Military? Help me understand.

CH

[Hobbs]

So tell me the Hobbs. Where EXACTLY does it say EXACTLY that homosexuals are NOT allowed in the Military? Help me understand.

CH

US Code: Title 10, 654 Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces

(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;
(C) 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.


There you go. Any other questions?

[crashhelmet]

US Code: Title 10, 654 Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces

(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;
(C) 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.


There you go. Any other questions?

Any other questions? Sure. Do you know what the word "Unless" means?

CH

[Hobbs]

Yes I do. Did you read the whole part, or just that word? Here's the whole quote for you.

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.

Highlighted for your benefit.

Therefore, if accused (ie. "outed") a gay/lesbian servicemember must prove that they do not. Otherwise, as the first sentence states, "A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces."

Really, is the wording that problematic?

[jackfaire]

There you go. Any other questions?

Like the person asked where does it say homosexuals can't be in the military. That at no point says that they can't it states they can't engage in homosexual behavior while in the service. Doesn't say a person can't be gay and in the service.

[Hobbs]

Like the person asked where does it say homosexuals can't be in the military. That at no point says that they can't it states they can't engage in homosexual behavior while in the service. Doesn't say a person can't be gay and in the service.

Do I seriously need to spell it out for y'all? This law is written in English.

"A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces...That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual..."

[HYHYBT]

DADT was put in place because a homophobic military didn't want to acknowledge that gay people would have a desire to serve.

I'd thought it was the other way around: not that they thought gays didn't want to serve, but that they ("homophobic military") didn't want to serve with THEM.

[Skunkle]

Hobba, Smiley has been living in UTAH, where the average person (I would guess) assumes that gay people have red horns, a tail and glowing eyes and "666" on their hand that they can hide at will. If there's anyone who has a right to be pessimistic to a fault, it's a gay man from Utah or the deep south.

Smiley, your pessimism is understood. At the same time, does pessimism to a fault really make you feel better? Does it do any good? While I fully understand why you're this way, it doesn't mean you have to stick your pessimistic sign in the ground and stand stubbornly behind it. I'm not in the military, nor do I personally know any servicemen, but if they're getting briefings on how to watch for and stamp out such crap, that's something we should take note of. Normally we think of them avoiding discussing it at all costs - if they're making a point to discuss it with everyone, that says we might want to rethink our opinions. Mine WAS pessimistic too, y'know.

Yes, there will be servicemen who're uncomfortable about serving next to a gay guy. But there are most definitely still a handful who don't want to serve next to a black guy. Dudes, look, you're here to serve the country, and you're doing an important and honorable job. Leave your hang-ups by the door. And give the out gay guy a chance to prove he's not going to start screaming when he breaks a nail, or pounce you in your sleep... Chances are, those gay guys can kick ass just as hard as you. And chances are, unless you're gay, hitting on you is a waste of time. I know I don't hit on guys unless they're gay, and I/we don't hit on everything that moves. Wanna think of us as slutty? How many of you straight soldiers who're single (and not yet ready to settle down) wanna go out to the bar and find some pussy, preferably LOTS AND LOTS of it? And later brag to your buddies about how many girls you banged? There are slutty straight guys, too, and quite a few. Eew.

[jackfaire]

Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.
Robert A. Heinlein

[Hobbs]

Hobba, Smiley has been living in UTAH, where the average person (I would guess) assumes that gay people have red horns, a tail and glowing eyes and "666" on their hand that they can hide at will. If there's anyone who has a right to be pessimistic to a fault, it's a gay man from Utah or the deep south.

He's from Utah? Wow! Now it makes sense.

My posts weren't even about that. They were answering the primary question (which is also the title of the post). Then I answered questions about the DADT policy, which is clearly posted in my past posts.

The umbrage I was having was with people not bothering to read the words I posted. I even bolded the sections saying the how's and whetherfore's as to why openly gay men and women can't serve.

[infinitemonkies]

First of all, I find it interesting that no one has brought up that in ancient Greece, gay soldiers were considered preferable; it was believed that a man would fight harder alongside a lover. (Also for those who have seen Troy but are otherwise not familiar with the Iliad, the kid Achilles was training wasn't his cousin, but his lover.)

I think any rational man would want as many gay men around as possible; If you're straight, it means less competition for women, and if you're gay, it means more opportunity. If everybody is getting laid more, who's got time to be uncomfortable?


The follow is a quote from West Wing. I realize this is a work of fiction, but the point is completely valid. For those unfamiliar with the series, Admiral Fitzwallace is a large black man.

Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
Major Tate: No sir, I don't.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago - blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. The unit is now better for it.


Continuing this line of thought: Can anyone honestly say they have no problem with blacks in general, but feel that an african american cannot serve honorably in the military?

Does racism still exist within the ranks? Of course it does.
Does sexism still exist within the ranks? Of course it does.
Do the prejudices of some means that blacks, or women, or god forbid, a lesbian black woman, cannot serve honorably? Of course not.

I think it was George Carlin who asked "What is it [heterosexual] soldiers are so afraid of? That they'll be treated by gays the same way they treat women?