• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Gay News

I'm with you Jay, that it's about time, as President Clinton wanted gay rights in the military from the beginning of his presidency, and it's taken us all this time. I'm actually quite surprised that John Mc Cain is so opposed to it. I had considered him one of the "decent" Republicans who cared about the common man, but he has apparently taken a few steps to the right, to try to stay in favor with the current group running his party.

President Obama has been criticized by the extreme left for his compromise on the tax bill, but that was also a prerequisite, for the repeal of "Don't ask. Don't tell). I will be very pleased if the President can get this bill passed today.
 
I'm with you Jay, that it's about time, as President Clinton wanted gay rights in the military from the beginning of his presidency, and it's taken us all this time. I'm actually quite surprised that John Mc Cain is so opposed to it. I had considered him one of the "decent" Republicans who cared about the common man, but he has apparently taken a few steps to the right, to try to stay in favor with the current group running his party.

President Obama has been criticized by the extreme left for his compromise on the tax bill, but that was also a prerequisite, for the repeal of "Don't ask. Don't tell). I will be very pleased if the President can get this bill passed today.

I see your point. I also understand John McCain's point of view. He was a POW so I think that when you live in close quarters like that things happen and I think that some of the older generation were still raised to believe that being GLBT was a perversion of choice or mental health illness. I also believe that many GI's in POW camps like in prison get some of their first guy on guy experimentation whether through curiosity or torture.

Anyway things are heading in the right direction. There is still a lot of work to do there with the military. The President could remove the ban any time he wanted to by executive order as commander and chief. However with out the support of congress the UCMJ will continue to define homosexual acts as deviant behavior not to be tolerated. So, Now I have to see if the UCMJ is rewritten too. This could be interesting.

Thanks for sharing Mike.:cool:
 
It was mentioned on the UK news yesterday and I hope he gets it through. 250 against 174 was still quite a close call and shows that there is still quite a lot of ill feeling on the issue.
 
Yeah, DADT is repealed in time for the holiday...

By VERENA DOBNIK
NEW YORK - Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military is a step toward equality, advocates say, but a fight for other social changes such as gay marriage still lies ahead.

The Senate voted Saturday to end the 17-year ban on openly gay troops, overturning the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"It's one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen," said Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., who served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under the policy. He said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is abolished.

"Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain," he added.

Supporters declared the vote a civil rights milestone.

Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center - a think tank on the issue - said the vote "ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings."

For thousands of years, he said, one of the key markers for first-class citizenship in any nation is the right to serve in the military, and Saturday's vote "is a historic step toward that."

Repeal means that for the first time in U.S. history, gays will be openly accepted by the military and can acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being discharged. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law. Before that, they had been explicitly barred from military service since World War I.

The change won't take immediate effect, however. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.

Some supporters of the repeal traveled to Washington to witness the vote, including Sue Fulton, a former Army captain and company commander who is spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of 92 gay and lesbian West Point graduates who are out and no longer serving.

Driving home to North Plainfield, N.J., the 51-year-old Fortune 500 executive said she thinks the repeal will have an effect on the civil rights of gays in America.

"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.

Conservative organizations said the vote didn't reflect the sentiments of rank-and-file military members and should not have taken place so close to the end of the current session of Congress.

"The issue that really disturbs me more than anything else is that legislation that's controversial tends to be done in lame-duck sessions when a number of the elected representatives are no longer accountable to the people," said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

In New York, home to one of the nation's largest gay communities and a gay pride parade whose grand marshal this year was an openly gay, discharged serviceman, 28-year-old Cassandra Melnikow glanced at a news ticker in Times Square announcing the repeal and said: "Excellent! It's about time."

"I don't see what difference (sexual orientation) makes in the fighting military," said Melnikow, a public health researcher. "What's the big deal?"

I am loving it... Talk about a Christmas wish.:thumbup:
 
It was mentioned on the UK news yesterday and I hope he gets it through. 250 against 174 was still quite a close call and shows that there is still quite a lot of ill feeling on the issue.

Yeah, that does make it kind of scarry but I think that this milestone is still an achievement. I think we would be waiting a long time if we ever wanted it to be unanimous. LOL:001_unsure:
 
Different view for POWs

I see your point. I also understand John McCain's point of view. He was a POW so I think that when you live in close quarters like that things happen and I think that some of the older generation were still raised to believe that being GLBT was a perversion of choice or mental health illness. I also believe that many GI's in POW camps like in prison get some of their first guy on guy experimentation whether through curiosity or torture.

Anyway things are heading in the right direction. There is still a lot of work to do there with the military. The President could remove the ban any time he wanted to by executive order as commander and chief. However with out the support of congress the UCMJ will continue to define homosexual acts as deviant behavior not to be tolerated. So, Now I have to see if the UCMJ is rewritten too. This could be interesting.

Thanks for sharing Mike.:cool:

Dear Jayman1,

In all my readings on prisons(state and federal) vs. POW camps, I have always had the following distinction made between the two. State and Federal prisons, if they didn't in fact openly encourage homosexual activity, at least they turned a blind eye and passively allowed it to exist. This happened by having prisoners classified based on their seniority and prior involvement in actions requiring discipline. Those least violent were in this first category but prisons had a kind of merit system where this was a reward you had to earn first. Therefore "Newbies" were routinely placed initially in with the worst prisoners having the fewest rights and privileges. In the south where prisons were essentially farming operations where revenue from the sale of produce was the only form of financial support for the prison itself. Prison Wardens in State Prison Farms were not expected to have any specific education in criminology but, rather a background in farm management was the preferred background. Rehabilitation was totally ignored and providing medical attention to prisoners was minimal.



It was not uncommon that the "Cell" was frequently a large dorm room housing 250 to 400 inmates per room with beds stacked everywhere in rows at less than an arm's length apart side-to-side and the foot and head almost touching. I have personally seen this in Arkansas Prisons in the early 1970's. and only 1 guard to watch 250 or more guys or so at night. Often prison guard duties included watching more than one large cell per night and as they left one location to watch another one, rapes, stabbings, and suicides were common occurrences. Wardens with their complete lack of proper training, traditionally viewed this homosexual activity as keeping down other incidents of violence, namely riots, as a small price to pay. Meaning the uninitiated inmate, especially a young one, was usually gang raped by 50 or more guys the first night and it continued until new meat showed up. Often, newbies had to be hospitalized after their first night because of the savagery they endured the night before. Knowing full well that once they returned from the hospital, they would have repeated onslaughts from the general prison population ultimately leading to their being essentially bartered for the "Poison wife/bitch" to the highest bidders or the guy with the most muscle/intimidation factor who always got whatever he wanted. This situation for the newbie was preferable and more safe than not being linked to someone for their own protection.

The only inmate lower than a "newbie" and subjected to more violence was a "child molester" who got even worse treatment and were possibly murdered. This all routinely took place in a "God fearing Christian Nation"! Because of federal intervention, state prisons have had to clean up their act and overcrowding has been limited compared to the 1970's.

All my prior readings on the POW experience, it was totally unlike conventional civilian prisons in that typical sexual encounters either did not happen or happened only rarely. One has consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and both "Physiological" and "Safety" needs must be satisfied first before getting into the next category on the hierarchical scale of "Love/Belonging" which includes friendship, family, and sexual intimacy. Also, found in Viktor Frankl's book on "Man's Search for Meaning", it dealt specifically with concentration camp prisoners and the fact that sexual intimacy among prisoners were not even a consideration due to the severe circumstances threating their existence on a day-to-day basis. the greater the threat to your existence, the greater the likelihood that there will be no prisoner-to-prisoner relationships formed. Compound this even with the gays that were required to wear a "Pink triangle" readily identified and probably further ostracized them in the concentration camp.

Respectfully submitted,

Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 

Attachments

  • 300px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs_svg.jpg
    300px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs_svg.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 26
Dear Jayman1,

In all my readings on prisons(state and federal) vs. POW camps, I have always had the following distinction made between the two. State and Federal prisons, if they didn't in fact openly encourage homosexual activity, at least they turned a blind eye and passively allowed it to exist. This happened by having prisoners classified based on their seniority and prior involvement in actions requiring discipline. Those least violent were in this first category but prisons had a kind of merit system where this was a reward you had to earn first. Therefore "Newbies" were routinely placed initially in with the worst prisoners having the fewest rights and privileges. In the south where prisons were essentially farming operations where revenue from the sale of produce was the only form of financial support for the prison itself. Prison Wardens in State Prison Farms were not expected to have any specific education in criminology but, rather a background in farm management was the preferred background. Rehabilitation was totally ignored and providing medical attention to prisoners was minimal.



It was not uncommon that the "Cell" was frequently a large dorm room housing 250 to 400 inmates per room with beds stacked everywhere in rows at less than an arm's length apart side-to-side and the foot and head almost touching. I have personally seen this in Arkansas Prisons in the early 1970's. and only 1 guard to watch 250 or more guys or so at night. Often prison guard duties included watching more than one large cell per night and as they left one location to watch another one, rapes, stabbings, and suicides were common occurrences. Wardens with their complete lack of proper training, traditionally viewed this homosexual activity as keeping down other incidents of violence, namely riots, as a small price to pay. Meaning the uninitiated inmate, especially a young one, was usually gang raped by 50 or more guys the first night and it continued until new meat showed up. Often, newbies had to be hospitalized after their first night because of the savagery they endured the night before. Knowing full well that once they returned from the hospital, they would have repeated onslaughts from the general prison population ultimately leading to their being essentially bartered for the "Poison wife/bitch" to the highest bidders or the guy with the most muscle/intimidation factor who always got whatever he wanted. This situation for the newbie was preferable and more safe than not being linked to someone for their own protection.

The only inmate lower than a "newbie" and subjected to more violence was a "child molester" who got even worse treatment and were possibly murdered. This all routinely took place in a "God fearing Christian Nation"! Because of federal intervention, state prisons have had to clean up their act and overcrowding has been limited compared to the 1970's.

All my prior readings on the POW experience, it was totally unlike conventional civilian prisons in that typical sexual encounters either did not happen or happened only rarely. One has consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and both "Physiological" and "Safety" needs must be satisfied first before getting into the next category on the hierarchical scale of "Love/Belonging" which includes friendship, family, and sexual intimacy. Also, found in Viktor Frankl's book on "Man's Search for Meaning", it dealt specifically with concentration camp prisoners and the fact that sexual intimacy among prisoners were not even a consideration due to the severe circumstances threating their existence on a day-to-day basis. the greater the threat to your existence, the greater the likelihood that there will be no prisoner-to-prisoner relationships formed. Compound this even with the gays that were required to wear a "Pink triangle" readily identified and probably further ostracized them in the concentration camp.

Respectfully submitted,

Cumrag27, aka Stimpy

I have read and heard similar accounts Cumrag. I agree with all of that for the most part. I love your connection with "Maslow's Hierarchy of Need." I think we are on the same page but viewing POW camps and treatment of POW's differently in general. Stripping prisoners naked, making them stand cocks to ass in lines to stay warm, sodomizing POW's, and abuse from the guards in general was done to demoralize, intimidate, and demonstrate their authority over the POW's. Kind of like what American Soldiers did in Iraq. Gay sex acts do occurr at times regardless whether prisoners are a willing participant or not. (I was a rifle squad leader and platoon leader assigned to a SOCMEU (special operations capable Marine expeditionary unit) my last year in the service. Suffice to say we stretched the Geneva convention every which way we could. (Let's just say that my experiences with the military have led me to be the humanitarian I am today. PM me and I will tell you more one on one Cumrag. The forum is not the place to discuss those atrocities.)

Soldiers have always been aware of GLBT soldiers that they have served with. When I served in the military there were a fair share of superiors and subordinates that suspected I may be gay or bisexual. Amazingly, many of the soldiers I served with had no issues of showering with me or houching with me. A few that suspected used to even run around showing off their packages in the shower just to see if I would check them out. Strange behavior from straight men. LOL Yet, I always knew things would be different if ever taken prisoner. Like you said when in a POW situation, everyone tends to be on their best behavior because of the risk of bodily harm not only from your captors but your fellow POW's.

When combining treatment as a POW with McCain's up bringing that led him to see homosexuality as deviant behavior contributes significantly to McCain's paradigm was all I was speculating. :001_smile:

Bless your heart and thank you for letting me expound on my thoughts. I am just glad that the DADT law is being repealed. That makes me very happy.
 
Yeah, that does make it kind of scarry but I think that this milestone is still an achievement. I think we would be waiting a long time if we ever wanted it to be unanimous. LOL:001_unsure:

Sunday's news showed the Senate passing the bill so this is great. There was one senator that you mentioned earlier who was expressing doubts and quoted generals saying the same. I think this was just scaremongering. It has been 10 years or so since gays and lesbians have been allowed in the uk forces and as far as I know there is no hassle, mind you this is because it would be an offence to make any homophobic remark. But I'm sure if there was a homophobic issue in the UK armed forces then it would have come to light by now.

So if you follow the uk's yellow brick road then you should be ok xx
 
Sunday's news showed the Senate passing the bill so this is great. There was one senator that you mentioned earlier who was expressing doubts and quoted generals saying the same. I think this was just scaremongering. It has been 10 years or so since gays and lesbians have been allowed in the uk forces and as far as I know there is no hassle, mind you this is because it would be an offence to make any homophobic remark. But I'm sure if there was a homophobic issue in the UK armed forces then it would have come to light by now.

So if you follow the uk's yellow brick road then you should be ok xx

Sounds like a plan to me.:thumbup: Now, where did I put this darn ruby slippers. LOL
 
Gov't drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

Gov't drops defense of anti-gay marriage law
By PETE YOST, AP
Wed Feb 23, 5:44 PM EST


In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus" the Constitution is designed to guard against.

The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.

The move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel.

Gay groups, which had long pressured the administration to take a step like this, were pleased. Ron Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the policy change "a tremendous step toward recognizing our common humanity and ending an egregious injustice against thousands of loving, committed couples who simply want the protections, rights and responsibilities afforded other married couples. We thank the Obama administration."

Obama's move may position him politically at the forefront of rising public support for gay marriage. Polling results can vary rather significantly depending on what words are used to describe gay marriage, but there is a gradual trend in public opinion toward more acceptance of gay marriage.

An Associated Press-National Constitution Center Poll conducted last August found 52 percent of Americans saying the federal government should give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, while 46 percent said it should not. In polling by ABC News and the Washington Post, support for the legalization of gay marriage has climbed from 37 percent in 2003 to 47 percent in February 2010.

Holder's statement said, "Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed" the Defense of Marriage Act. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still "grappling" with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair."

Holder wrote to Boehner that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.

At a December news conference, in response to a reporters' question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is "constantly evolving." He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline — at this point, as he put it.

"This is something that we're going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward," he said.

On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.

The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the Defense of Marriage Act.

One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Who's our Preesident now??? LOL :biggrin::wink::waw:
 
I'm thrilled about this news. Thank God. It still surprises me that it's taking this long, though. One step at a time...
 
For our gay military men who have defended their country as bravely as anybody else!

This is dedicated to those military"Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty! Free at last!" Quoted from Martin Luther King, Jr. "I Have a Dream" speech delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

Enough said!


Stimpy
 
Our Queen Mother Marky Mark should be pleased to see the fruits of her labor advocating for GLBT rights. I am not quite sure what that does yet for GLBT members serving in our armed forces Cumrag. However; I don't think it will be too long before soldiers can start giving and receiving BJ's and other various gifts, as Tyra would say, from their buddies. LOL At least the Gay Marriage issue is coming to the forefront and the President has finally recognized the that it is more of an issue to suppress one segment of the population's individual rights and freedoms. :thumbup:
 
Sadly, the fight does not end here. However, todays decision does lend itself to our campaign, in that it will now be very difficult to uphold a state law that will directly oppose a federal position. I heard today that the Fed. Gov. has already begun the process of eliminating DADT. That said, it cannot be long before the Fed. Gov. will authorize equal benefits for married gays and lesbians. I don't need to point out the confusion which could ensue if a married gay couple is transferred from a military facility in a state that approves of gay marriage, to a state like, oh, California?

The race is not over, but with this ruling, we can see the finish line.
 
Take care of business in the bedroom before getting dressed.

Dearest Jayman,

I can only see it now having to go to the "Human Resources Department" (or the military equivalent) asking for and filling out the mandatory Pre-BJ authorization form and getting your superior officer's approval. I would think most superior officers can only be the recepient of "X number of BJs themself on a daily basis before they have exceeded their natural interest and/or testicular semen production limitations in normal office hours.

This could become most taxing on their "nads", cause their voice to raise to squeaky pre-pubescent levels, and ultimately limiting the number of military dependents they could produce with their spouse. Perhaps they would be well advised to first thing, every day "take care of business in the bedroom before getting dressed" and reporting to their office. LOL


Stimpy
 
Jay, I do not see the Obama's administration's policy on gay issues, as "flip flopping". I understand as gay men, this is an incredibly important issue to us, but Obama has an incredible amount of issues to deal with that must be dealt with swiftly, from health care reform, to the economy, to the two wars that the United States is currently fighting in. And these are only the tip of his agenda.

As a gay man, who certainly wants full rights, I can be patient, and see these other issues as being more important to deal with first. And there are political reasons too. I firmly believe that Obama is in favor of full and equal rights to all Americans, but with the vocal right wing talk radio hosts and columnists, and twittering chatterboxes like Sarah Palin out there, he has to be very careful what he says. The right wing activists, are the one's that I am afraid of, as a gay man, (among other reasons). Now is not the time to be adding more ammunition to their divisive rants and raves.

I believe that Obama is trying to take a mid ground approach to gay rights, at this time. And I'm sure he is trying to get his administration in line, to give comments on the issue that he is in agreement with. I do believe that he will deal with this issue, as he promised in his campaign. Keep in mind that he has been president for seven months, and he does have four years. I am willing to be patient, and I still believe that our president is a true friend of gay Americans, as was Bill Clinton. It is just a very sensitive hot button issue to many Christian conservatives, and a President must weigh his words very carefully, (as we saw the mistake he made with the professor and the cop).

In time, I do expect him to fulfill the hope that many gay people had in him during the campaign.

Respectfully,

Mike
I don't think that I've ever quoted myself before in responding to a post. But in the year and a half since I originally wrote this, I'm happy to see Obama did do what I had expected, as I believe that he is a good decent man, and he cares about all Americans, not only about rich Caucasian heterosexual, (or so they proclaim) Republicans. There are no easy answers to the problems facing this country, but I feel good about the man currently in charge. :thumbup1:
 
Dearest Jayman,

I can only see it now having to go to the "Human Resources Department" (or the military equivalent) asking for and filling out the mandatory Pre-BJ authorization form and getting your superior officer's approval. I would think most superior officers can only be the recepient of "X number of BJs themself on a daily basis before they have exceeded their natural interest and/or testicular semen production limitations in normal office hours.

This could become most taxing on their "nads", cause their voice to raise to squeaky pre-pubescent levels, and ultimately limiting the number of military dependents they could produce with their spouse. Perhaps they would be well advised to first thing, every day "take care of business in the bedroom before getting dressed" and reporting to their office. LOL


Stimpy


That is too funny... LOL I wish it were that easy LOL...:closedeyes: Congress has the ultimate job of rewriting the UCMJ to make it legal to engage in homosexual activity. Currently it is deemed sodomy/sexually deviant behavior and it is a punishable offense. Although, allowing GLBT individuals to serve openly is a step in the right direction. The whole DADT issue stemmed from the fact that congress refused to rewrite the UCMJ under the Clinton administration. The idea was that there was nothing wrong with serving your country as a GLBT warrior/soldier (insert your own word) However, to engage in the homosexual activity is now and has always been a punishable offense under the UCMJ. Congress is responsible for revamping the UCMJ. This may come down to a court ruling that the UCMJ is unconstitutional in some way with regard to its definition of sexually deviant behavior. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The President is on our side, and it seems like the courts are too. So, that just leaves one team player to get on the band wagon. I often thought that it might be easier to make people equal regardless of sexual orientation first. Again, that is the job of our Congress.
 
I don't think that I've ever quoted myself before in responding to a post. But in the year and a half since I originally wrote this, I'm happy to see Obama did do what I had expected, as I believe that he is a good decent man, and he cares about all Americans, not only about rich Caucasian heterosexual, (or so they proclaim) Republicans. There are no easy answers to the problems facing this country, but I feel good about the man currently in charge. :thumbup1:

I agreed with you then and I agree with you now.:wink:
 
There are no simple answers!

That is too funny... LOL I wish it were that easy LOL...:closedeyes: Congress has the ultimate job of rewriting the UCMJ to make it legal to engage in homosexual activity. Currently it is deemed sodomy/sexually deviant behavior and it is a punishable offense. Although, allowing GLBT individuals to serve openly is a step in the right direction. The whole DADT issue stemmed from the fact that congress refused to rewrite the UCMJ under the Clinton administration. The idea was that there was nothing wrong with serving your country as a GLBT warrior/soldier (insert your own word) However, to engage in the homosexual activity is now and has always been a punishable offense under the UCMJ. Congress is responsible for revamping the UCMJ. This may come down to a court ruling that the UCMJ is unconstitutional in some way with regard to its definition of sexually deviant behavior. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The President is on our side, and it seems like the courts are too. So, that just leaves one team player to get on the band wagon. I often thought that it might be easier to make people equal regardless of sexual orientation first. Again, that is the job of our Congress.

Dearest Jayman,

There you go. In another posting I just stated that things are complex by nature and simplistic answers doesn 't get the job done. Having never served in the military, I was ignorant of the intricacies of the UCMJ. Thank you for educating me on this process. Once again, it is almost back to square one. Congress has to get it's act together to finish the job and stop the BS.

I stand corrected. Respectfully,


Stimpy
 
The UCMJ is the Military Law that applies to all persons serving in the US military

This law in particular is what I am referring to.:thumbup:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 125. SODOMY
Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex 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 be punished as a court-martial may direct.
 
Top