|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Gay/Lesbian Issues in the Military The End of UCMJ Article 125, Sodomy?|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
When DADT is repealed, this is another necessary step for the military to take to allow gay, lesbian and bisexual service men and women to serve honestly and honorably.
And for those who don't know it, 80% of the U.S. population engage in oral or anal sex, not just homosexuals. If that same percentage applies to the military (and there is no reason to believe it does not), then the vast majority of the military and retired military personnel (all of whom are subject to the UCMJ) violate Article 125. It's about damn time this silly Article be eliminated, given that forcible sodomy, nonconsensual sodomy and sodomy with underage men and women is already covered by UCMJ Article 120. From the Military Law Journal, 22 Oct 2009, and Law.com: "A military law commission is calling for the end of the U.S. armed services' decades-old sodomy prohibition, finding that the ban invites arbitrary enforcement and may be unconstitutional. In a report released Oct. 20, the Commission on Military Justice -- a panel of former judges, law professors and military experts -- called the ban on consensual sodomy unnecessary and recommended repealing it. The commission was created in January by the National Institute of Military Justice and the American Bar Association to assess military justice in the United States. It concluded that new military laws -- which took effect in 2007 -- provide an "adequate basis to prosecute any criminal sexual misconduct." Moreover, it noted, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke on the issue in 2003, holding in Lawrence v. Texas that the right to privacy protects the right of adults to engage in private, consensual sexual activity. "Given that background and given that Congress has passed new laws, we just felt like [the sodomy ban] should be repealed," said Walter Cox III, chairman of the commission. He added, "I definitely think it's outdated." Cox, of counsel to the Charleston office of Columbia, S.C.-based Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, is all too familiar with the military prohibition. He is a former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, who oversaw several cases in which the ban was cited, most often in rape allegations involving male and female service members. "Some of its applications we do think would be unconstitutional, such as a husband and wife having consensual oral sex, a boyfriend and a girlfriend, or a boyfriend and a boyfriend," Cox said. He said the commission isn't "cheering any particular side on….We just want the military justice system to be modern, fair and totally acceptable by the civilian and military community alike." An earlier military law commission, also chaired by Cox, also recommended repealing the ban back in 2001. Professor Scott Silliman, executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School, who served on the commission, made similar points. The former Air Force judge advocate noted that consensual sodomy remains a crime in the military because Congress has not changed the law. "All things, as far as I'm concerned, suggest that this is something that Congress ought to look very strongly at," Silliman said. "This is a subject for congressional hearings. Just like they intend to look at the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." Other commission members included William Wilkins, former chief judge of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; retired Rear Adm. Donald Guter, former judge advocate general of the Navy; and Mary Cheh, a member of the District of Columbia Council and professor at George Washington University Law School." [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434858066&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=Law.com%20Newswire%20Update&cn=LAWCOM_NewswireUpdate_20091022&kw=Blue-Ribbon%20Commission%20Urges%20Repeal%20of%20Military's%20Ban%20on%20Sodomy} |
||
|
|
Member |
The sodomy elimination story line has now been picked up by Stars and Stripes, as shown on the Military.com front page:
Panel Urges end to UCMJ’s Sodomy ban October 27, 2009 Stars and Stripes| by Lisa M. Novak A panel of legal scholars has suggested that Congress remove sodomy as a crime punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a recommendation that could boost efforts to end a ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military. The Commission on Military Justice recommended that Article 125, which deals with sodomy, be repealed, arguing that “most acts of consensual sodomy committed by consenting military personnel are not prosecuted, creating a perception that prosecution of this sexual behavior is arbitrary.” In its report — dated October 2009 — the commission suggested several changes be made to the UCMJ, including a requirement that law enforcement officials videotape interrogations. The panel’s discussion of Article 125 has gotten the attention of “don’t ask, don’t tell” opponents. “Public opinion about private, consensual sexual conduct has shifted dramatically since the military sodomy ban was written into law almost a hundred years ago,” according to Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara, research institute focusing on gays and the military. “To say that gays should be banned from the military for this outdated reason makes no sense,” Frank was quoted as saying in a center news release. It’s the second time the commission recommended repealing the law, the first time was in 2001. Sodomy is defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial as “unnatural copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex.” Under the UCMJ, sodomy — which includes oral sex — is considered a criminal act, even among consenting adults and married couples. “The vast majority of heterosexuals engage in sodomy as defined in Article 125 and the Manual for Courts-Martial,” said Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The organization strongly opposes both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the sodomy law. “In fact, it appears that the majority of people prosecuted under Article 125 are straight,” Nix said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. He described the law as “a legal anachronism” and said it was selectively enforced. A repeal of the sodomy law is long overdue, according to Walter T. Cox, who heads the military justice panel. Cox is a former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. “In my judgment, it causes people to disrespect the law when you have a law in place that people don’t agree with and don’t obey,” Cox said in a telephone interview. Pointing to the fact that several changes recently have been made to Article 120 of the UCMJ in regard to prosecution of rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct, the panel argues, “there is no need for a separate provision making sodomy a military crime.” “You’re not giving anything away by repealing [Article 125],” Cox said. In its report, the commission also mentioned a 2003 Supreme Court ruling — Lawrence vs. Texas — that found a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, the commission argues, “the provision of Article 125 that punishes consensual sodomy is in doubt.” The report is sponsored by the National Institute for Military Justice and the American Bar Association. Any changes to the UCMJ have to be approved by Congress and signed into law by executive order. Cox said he’s unsure if Article 125 will be repealed. “The Department of Defense traditionally does not like change. Their mantra is ‘if it’s not broke don’t fix it,’ ” he said. |
|||
|
|
- |
Perhaps what is necessary is....a redefinition of 'sodomy'? I believe that the biblical definition refers to anal intercourse among males, NO?
|
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999  |
Does it? Do you have a reference? And so what if it does. It still has no bearing on the situation. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yes, even though it is totally irrelevant to the military definition of sodomy, where in the Bible does it define sodomy as anal sex between men? That would be a most interesting citation.
Are you thinking of the Leviticus passage that says something like "he who lies with men as with women is an abomination"? That doesn't say anal sex, does it? In fact, taken literally, which so many of those who like to quote the Bible do, that passage in Leviticus would seem to only address bisexuals, since a strictly gay guy or lesbian would only lie with men or women, respectively, but not with both, as the passage seemingly literally prohibits. LOL. This message has been edited. Last edited by: dupontgaf, |
|||
|
|
- |
The 'bearing' would be to legitimize oral sex while still viewing anal intercourse as unnatural. |
|||
|
|
10 DAYS SUSPENSION NEMESIS |
There is no "biblical" definition of sodomy. I challenge you to find one.
You won't. It does not exist. Sodomy is not a biblical term. |
|||
|
|
Member |
So, 21194237, if you were in charge, would you authorize oral sex for gays and lesbians, too?
|
|||
|
|
- |
The term 'sodomy' evolved from the biblical city of....Sodom. Enough said. |
|||
|
|
- |
If I were in charge, I'd modify DADT in a number of ways, one of which would be by not discharging people for engaging in oral sex. |
|||
|
|
10 DAYS SUSPENSION NEMESIS |
No. Not said. The sexual acts covered under the 19th century term "sodomy" are not mentioned in the Bible at all, let alone by that name. |
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999 |
So “sodomy” means arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, haughtyand uncharitable? And doing “detestable things.” Do you mean like eating pork & shellfish? Who’d a thunk! Ezekiel 16:48-50 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 “ ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. |
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999 |
So consensual oral sex is ok, but other kinds of sex between consenting adults are not? What about spit vs. swallow? Would you discharge people for doing one, but not the other? What if General Jonathan “Jack” D. Ripper fancies the occasional bit of buggery, but thinks the “Ick Factor” for oral sex is right off the scale? Can he then discharge his troops based on his preferences? |
|||
|
|
- |
|
|||
|
|
- |
As you appear to be a biblical scholar, perhaps you'd be kind enough to examine Romans 1, 24-32 and tell us what ya think? |
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999 |
What of it? I don’t see “sodomy” even mentioned, let alone defined. And, as mentioned several days ago, what the Bible does or doesn’t say on the matter is beside the point anyway. Not the Bible, the Koran, nor any other religious text carries any force of law in this country. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
If it means anything, it means that "they" were already members of the Church at Rome (and at Corinth as well.) So, are they "saved" or not? Thus what can we conclude? It appears there were homosexuals in the early Church (apparently Romans could be evidence of it.) So? Of course, the problem with Paul is we have no idea how "they" responded to Paul..... so, as far as I can tell from the one sided communications published in the New Testament, Paul is just a busy body pushing his version of Jewish laws on the Gentile Roman Christians. We do know he was not necessarily received very well at Corinth and maybe not at Rome? So, who cares what Paul nags them about? Now, as to Sodomite. Ezekiel appears to capture it well. Hospitality was the mark of faithful people (remember Abraham and the “entertaining angles unawares”) and certainly in middle eastern culture of those “pre-Law” days, hospitality was important. And, still today hospitality is the mark of faithfulness, even for Christians. So, a Sodomite was no doubt someone ‘inhospitable’ and greedy. It can't be a "gay" reference back to something that happen at Sodom since that incident happen about 440 years before Moses wrote any laws that might apply. No Law, no sin. Isn't that biblical? Or do we drag Moses’ law back into Pre-Jewish ancestors? |
|||
|
Member |
Please, Joe... You're giving them ammunition. Granted, they're just blanks but still...  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yes, I know... but it aggravates me so that people make these sweeping claims of what the Bible is saying when in fact of logic, that is not what it means. With the so-called Sodomite issue I feel making it a homosexual connotation easily helps one avoid the weightier issue of what Ezek is saying: "...arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things..." (the "detestable things" could not have been breaking religious Laws as those won't appear for 400 or more years!) So, let them fire away. It's the noise they make that they are after, they are just trying to stamped the cattle. |
|||
|
|
- |
Reckon I missed your assessment of Romans 1, 24-32. Kinda strange that you quote scripture when ya think it's useful, but avoid it like the plague when it ain't....or, maybe it ain't strange at all, huh? |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Gay/Lesbian Issues in the Military The End of UCMJ Article 125, Sodomy?
