It's about damn time!

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"Given that background and given that Congress has passed new laws, we just felt like [the sodomy ban] should be repealed," said Walter Cox III, chairman of the commission. He added, "I definitely think it's outdated."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}

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dupontgaf,

And for those who don't know it, 80% of the U.S. population engage in oral or anal sex, according to the largest survey of sexual practices ever conducted (ref: Centers for Disease Control). 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 time this antiquated Article be eliminated, given that forcible sodomy, nonconsensual sodomy and sodomy with underage men and women is already covered by UCMJ Article 120.

Only 80%?

Maybe the rest didn't understand the definitions or didn't know how to fill out the form.

I find oral sex to be exotic.

I find the idea of anal sex repulsive!

The idea of sticking a clean well lubricated throbbing rigid peenis in a sht hole is disgusting!

What if the receiver of the peenis wants to re-engage oraly!

Oh, oh........ this adds new dimension to the phrase "getting the green wee-nee".

If Jackflats (aka Leekujawa) was still in he'd be a very happy man right now.

Why should it matter to the US Government (ie military as well) what kind of sex consenting adults engage in? What kind of weird twisted interst is it of anhyone else what people who agree to it are up to?

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:
Why should it matter to the US Government (ie military as well) what kind of sex consenting adults engage in? What kind of weird twisted interst is it of anhyone else what people who agree to it are up to?

It matters a great deal, they like to read those types of reports...slowly...and alone!

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:
Why should it matter to the US Government (ie military as well) what kind of sex consenting adults engage in? What kind of weird twisted interst is it of anhyone else what people who agree to it are up to?

It matters a great deal, they like to read those types of reports...slowly...and alone!

Probably with the right hand free?

What's so odd about UCMJ Article 125 (sodomy) is that it criminalizes the majority of active duty members and retirees. Yet, unbelievably, there is still resistance to getting rid of it. Under the Bush Administration, DoD vigorously opposed it's elimination. Now, though, given that Congress amended UCMJ Article 120 to include the real criminal behavior associated with sodomy (i.e., rape, forcible sodomy or pedophilia), it will be interesting to see if any members of Congress still want to retain this archaic provision.

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:
Why should it matter to the US Government (ie military as well) what kind of sex consenting adults engage in? What kind of weird twisted interst is it of anhyone else what people who agree to it are up to?

Well, clinically speaking, it's an act that the human body was not designed to do (IE this is an exit only). By doing "it" you could damage your partner and cause them to be unfit for duty.

Kinda like getting a tatoo that prevents you from working while it heals.

It's a streach but that's my take on it.

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:
I find oral sex to be exotic.

I find the idea of anal sex repulsive!

The idea of sticking a clean well lubricated throbbing rigid peenis in a sht hole is disgusting!

What if the receiver of the peenis wants to re-engage oraly!

Ok - you owe me a new keyboard!!! I just spit tea all over it!! ha! ha! ha!

quote:

Well, clinically speaking, it's an act that the human body was not designed to do (IE this is an exit only). By doing "it" you could damage your partner and cause them to be unfit for duty.

Shuman14, the UCMJ definition of sodomy is NOT just anal sex. It is oral sex as well, which is the primary reason that the vast majority of military members are in violation of this part of the UCMJ. So why keep it?

quote:

Originally posted by dupontgaf:

quote:

Well, clinically speaking, it's an act that the human body was not designed to do (IE this is an exit only). By doing "it" you could damage your partner and cause them to be unfit for duty.

Shuman14, the UCMJ definition of sodomy is NOT just anal sex. It is oral sex as well, which is the primary reason that the vast majority of military members are in violation of this part of the UCMJ. So why keep it?

I know that, but you can damage the oral cavity too. (or at least I can.)

It's hard to imagine how male on female oral sex can damage the oral cavity -- but that is considered sodomy, too, according to the UCMJ. And if female on male oral sex could lead to damage, we'd be seeing a lot more of it than we are. You'd be hard-pressend to find evidence that such is even remotely prevalent. Ditto male on male oral sex.

STD transmission is quite possible through oral sex as well as through anal sex, but that's hardly justification for an article 125 prohibition, since STDs are most frequently transmitted through heterosexual vaginal intercourse, which is the only type of penetrative sex NOT prohibited by Article 125, sodomy.

This has always been a necessary first step for getting rid of DADT. Once Article 125 is gone, on exactly what basis can you legally bar *****s from service, or discharge them once in?

About damned time, as far as I am concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by dupontgaf:
It's hard to imagine how male on female oral sex can damage the oral cavity -- but that is considered sodomy, too, according to the UCMJ. And if female on male oral sex could lead to damage, we'd be seeing a lot more of it than we are. You'd be hard-pressend to find evidence that such is even remotely prevalent. Ditto male on male oral sex.

STD transmission is quite possible through oral sex as well as through anal sex, but that's hardly justification for an article 125 prohibition, since STDs are most frequently transmitted through heterosexual vaginal intercourse, which is the only type of penetrative sex NOT prohibited by Article 125, sodomy.

Unless you are "Big John" Holmes, who's gonna get their teeth knocked out?!...
If someone is endowed like that, they need to be a fifty star general!...
LOL Respectfully, SUNLINER81

125 is and always has been VERY selectivley enforced, I have never heard of a guy getting charged under 125 for getting a BJ from a willing female but that meets the defintion.

So if every guy in the military is/has been guilty of not following this in the past and wants to keep being guilty of it as often as possible in the present and the future and it has nothing to do with "being gay" then why would ayone want to keep this?

Wow!

AWildEagle26
Semper Fidelis

Not only is oral sex and anal sex considered "Sodomy" in the Manual for Court Martial (even when both participants are married to each other), a married couple having sex in any other position other than "missionary" (man of top) is also considered "Sodomy".

I confess - I broke the Sodomy rule many times with my wife during both my active duty Army service and my Army Reserve service.