Wow this still going on?
Hmm well to add something of worth, I'll throw some info into the mix. Myself served a little over eight years and ETS'd as a SSG. DADT is a very ~VERY~ misunderstood policy. It's purpose was to allow homosexual's to serve in the service. See service members of all branch's are required to follow this separate legal code known as the UCMJ. Under the UCMJ many rights that citizens enjoy simply don't exist, namely 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rights although others can be bent / reduced at the needs of the service. Also there is no "right to serve" anywhere in the US Constitution, the sole document that authorizes the military's existence. Serving is a privilege and can be denied for any reason the service branch's determine. This is at the discretion of the branch chiefs and the President, Presidents tend to defer to the branch chiefs on these issues. So now that we've established that no one has a right to serve, homosexual or heterosexual, man or women, we'll go into the details about how this works. This isn't an opinion piece nor does it deal with what ~should~ happen, merely was is.
Many decades ago the branch chiefs (at that time) determined that being homosexual was bad for the good order and discipline of the force, and thus a policy was made that made it illegal to be homosexual in the US Military. A commander could ask point blank to a soldier "what is your sexuality" and that soldier is required by law to answer truthfully. If the soldier answered truthfully that they were homosexual, they could then be charged with Article 92 (disobeying a lawful order) and / or 134 (general article) of the UCMJ. This could mean prison time. Lying and later getting caught would result in the same 92/134 plus a few others. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm
(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed else wherefor that particular offense.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.
(B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Article 134 is the general "catch all" article, if you did something wrong you can probably be charged with Art 134.
The proof required for conviction of an offense under Article 134 depends upon the nature of the misconduct charged. If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law. If the conduct is punished as a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then the following proof is required:
(1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and
(2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Pretty vague huh? Failing to obey the general order of "don't be homosexual" would easily fall into both of those articles, you could be facing 3 months to 2 years of prison time. And here is one that just about every single service member I know has violated.
Art 125 Sodomy, http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite *** 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.”
(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.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or **** the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or **** 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.
Yeah basically the only thing legal is missionary position.
134-9 Wrongful Cohabitation http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/1349.htm
134-30 Indecent Acts with Another http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-30.htm
(1) That the accused committed a certain wrongful act with a certain person;
(2) That the act was indecent; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Explanation."Indecent" signifies that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations.
Lesser included offenses. Article 80-attempts
Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
So as anyone can see, anything even remotely "homosexual" and most "heterosexual" activity is illegal if your a service member. Now that being said CSM's don't go around peeping inside windows to see what your doing in the bedroom. Even of the DOMA was repealed tomorrow, the only way two homosexuals could be a couple is if they were chaste homosexuals.
During Clinton's time there was a push to allow homosexuals into the military, the branch chiefs said it had to be carefully don't and that great harm could come to the force if it was suddenly pushed. The idea of a policy that the command would never ask a soldiers sexual preference, and the soldier would never divulge said preference was formed. Under this policy homosexual soldiers could enlist and serve honorable, without being exposed to the risk of incarceration or a dishonorable / bad conduct discharge. What was put in place is known as SAM (Statements, Acts, Marriage). Violating SAM would entail the soldier being discharged under a general discharge, the same used for medical and other non-negative reasons. SAM is as follows,
Statements. A soldier must state in the presence of an officer or NCO with a witness, that they are homosexual. This statement must then be wrote down on a DA-2823 (sworn statement, legally binding) and submitted as evidence to the soldiers commander. The soldier can avoid all this by simply not signing the 2823 (you can not be ordered to sworn statement) and saying they have no idea what the other two are talking about. Slightly grey but the soldier shouldn't of made the statement to begin with.
Acts. A soldier must have engaged in homosexual acts and this engagement must be witnessed. The witness must sign the above mentioned 2823 and it must be submitted to the soldiers commander as evidence. Here-say is not acceptable. Honestly for this one to take effect you need photo's / video's of a pornographic nature. The solder shouldn't be releasing video's of him / her having *** period.
Marriage. This is the cleanest of them all. The soldier engages in or attempts to engage in a same-*** marriage. A marriage license showing the soldier is married to someone of the same gender is sufficient. No getting out of this one, if you married someone of the same *** then your homosexual and all the above rules kick in.
The big point behind SAM / DADT is that the soldier isn't forced to reveal their sexual preference. The military (at that time) felt it was in the best interests of the force that homosexual's not serve openly. The concepts of good order and discipline, attrition and retention really rules here. This was a method to allow homosexuals to serve without weakening the US military.
The recent changes on Capitol Hill have outlined a path to remove DADT and replace it with the ability to serve openly. The current branch chiefs feel the force is ready to accept openly serving homosexuals provided it's done slowly and the soldiers are trained. EVERYTHING in the US Military is about training, you get "training" on how to make your bed and cleaning your rifle, to PCMS's your assigned vehicle and filling out paperwork. Your given frequent Equal Opportunity training, Consideration Of Others Training, Suicide Prevention Training, First Aid Training, NBC Training, they even have special school's they send you to when your ready for or make promotion, the NCOES and the various Officer School systems. Nothing happens in the US Military without a training package first. All the service members here know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't change a light bulb without first being "trained" on how to change a light bulb, and if you fail to change that light bulb then its your leaders fault for not training you to standard (I'm being a bit extreme but its really like that). Everyone is assumed to be an idiot unless you prove otherwise, and even then your demonstrated intelligence is considered a temporary thing.
The DOMA itself presents a legal hurdle, one that the branch chiefs can not remove. It prohibits federal funding or sponsorship of homosexual marriages. This funding includes BHA / OHA / COLA / FSP and various support services like on base housing and commissary / PX privileges. This isn't a Military decision, the Military can not legally recognize the spouses of same *** couples.
See the US Military isn't a social experiment, it is a real organization that deals with the art of accomplishing missions and if the necessity dictates, to kill people. Combat engagements are not a place for social niceties nor political correctness. You don't make sweeping changes because someone feel's it's politically "right" to do so. Soldiers live and die by the actions and trust of those they serve with, and any conflict within a team, squad or platoon can get someone killed. You or the person next to you can die if some misunderstanding forms or there is a rift within the team. Small unit leaders (CPL / SGT / SSG and maybe a LT somewhere) must be sensitive to these rifts and can not allow them to form. When I first joined myself and my platoon members received some un-official training (the Military call's it mentoring) from our drill's. The words stuck in my head and I used them on my soldiers, they go
I don't see white, black, red, yellow, brown, or blue
I only see green
This was used to emphasis that soldiers are a single group and that skin color no longer matters, that everyone is "green". And for the most part this works, we only have a few racists and their quickly caught and given the boot. Being labeled "racist" in the US Military is career suicide. This is also used for sexism, although the CA guys still struggling with women, but that's a different discussion (their concerned about physical standards not sexism BS). This same emphasis has been put on homosexuals. I have served with several homosexuals during my time and all of them were outstanding soldiers. The first one that comes to mine was a female Latino 31U (25U now). She could party harder then most of us and drink all of us under the table. Out at the clubs in downtown Daegu we'd see her hitting up her "girlfriends", no one cared because she did her job well and didn't take **** from anyone. She later got promoted to SGT and then PCS'd to another duty assignment.
So as you can see the force now has zero problems with openly homosexuals, what we do have a problem with is **** like LT Choi using the Military to make political statements. Someone wearing the uniform should never, ever, EVER make a public political statement, 1st amendment rights don't apply to soldiers.
Sorry for the WoT, I tried to make it as informative as possible without delving into the moral or PC arguments. Non service members rarely get a real look at how the service's work and how complex issues like this can be. Instead their fed stupid BS by the entertainment establishment and go around thinking soldiers are not intelligent. Or that soldiers just like to blow things up, or they all run around shooting everything. Especially when your talking people who aren't even Americans, much less members of their own nations Armed Forces, trying to speak like they know what's best for the US Military.
-Signal For Life ! Edited, Jul 5th 2011 1:36pm by saevellakshmi