DADT Reversal by Congress

[Major Lord]

If Congress reverses the military "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, will they have to void, nullify, or ignore Article 125 (Sodomy) and/or Article 134 ( Adultery) of the UCMJ?

Major Lord

[cap235629]

they would have to strike them from the UCMJ and that takes a specific act, cannot be as part of another law. Hence the problem.

[MIKE]

Relevance?

[RLM10_2_06]

In terms of what they HAVE to do...absolutely nothing; two different rules, and reversing DADT simply puts things how they were before Clinton did it; gays = not allowed. I believe there'd be a flurry of gunfire over this if DADT was repealed and both articles remained unchanged.

Article 125 is pretty straightforward (and interesting if you read it). I think, however, that it would be used to hunt down and attack gays in the military; it could be easily stretched to cover any kind of homosexual relationship, so I think it'd be just a tool abused to get gays out of the military, despite the fact that I have a feeling that many heterosexual military couples violate that article on a regular basis as well.

Article 134 seems like it could be another tool, in places where gay marriage is not recognized (or maybe even in places where it is; could a man get married to another man in the state of New York, but then arrested once on Fort Drum for violating Article 125 for having sex with his husband?). Again, simply an easy excuse to attack gays and get them gone.

What I see is this; the communities, activist groups, and others who are trying to attack the DADT policy went about this the COMPLETELY wrong way; they should've tried to get these articles revised first, because if DADT went out of effect right this second, gays wouldn't be allowed in the military; they'd be court-martialed and punished for being gay, like they used to be!

[Short Field]

You mean they are not being court-martialed and punished now for being gay?  The whole deal about DADT is that if it became known a person was gay, then they had defacto violated DADT and were subject to separation.

Relevance to CAP?  None.

[dwb]

Calling it a "reversal" or a "repeal" is a bit of a misnomer.  The intent is to allow homosexuals to serve openly.

In other words, it's not reversing DADT and bringing us back to pre-1993, it's replacing DADT with a different policy altogether.

[Eclipse]

Relevance to CAP?  None.

+1

[Майор Хаткевич]

(a) Any person subject tothis chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with afemale not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty ofrape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as acourt-martial may direct. (b) Any person subject tothis chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape,commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wifewho has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty ofcarnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial maydirect.
While we're at it, that should be changed as well.

Beyond that, zero relevance to CAP