Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IF DADT is abolished, without a change to the UCMJ and the DOD regulations simultaneously, every gay person who openly admits being gay, will be dismissed.
People are so focused on DADT they are oblivious to the fact there are articles both in the UCMJ and the DOD policy that need to be immediately altered. Without those changes, the one single change, will have a deleterious effect.
IF DADT is abolished, without a change to the UCMJ and the DOD regulations simultaneously, every gay person who openly admits being gay, will be dismissed.
People are so focused on DADT they are oblivious to the fact there are articles both in the UCMJ and the DOD policy that need to be immediately altered. Without those changes, the one single change, will have a deleterious effect.
I think that's pretty well understood. There is a congressionally passed law on the books stating that homosexuals cannot serve in the US military - period: US Code Title 10, Chapter 37, § 654. That's why Obama simply can't direct that open homosexuals be allowed to serve - it takes congress to overturn the law. Clinton's executive order (DADT) simply said "well, we're not going to actively look for homosexuals".
I'm not sure why this effort is being called a repeal of DADT. If you look at the bill, it's actually a repeal of the law banning homosexuals from serving. Here's the relevant text of the bill currently going through congress:
"(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-
(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking section 654; and
(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d)."
The bill does not address Clinton's executive order (DADT) except that by repealing US Code Title 10, Chapter 37, § 654 it is rendered moot.
Last edited by hammertime33; 12-16-2010 at 10:55 AM..
IF DADT is abolished, without a change to the UCMJ and the DOD regulations simultaneously, every gay person who openly admits being gay, will be dismissed.
People are so focused on DADT they are oblivious to the fact there are articles both in the UCMJ and the DOD policy that need to be immediately altered. Without those changes, the one single change, will have a deleterious effect.
Yes, we know. For whatever reason "DADT" has become accepted shorthand for "Title 10 AND DADT". Without Title 10, there is no need for a DADT policy.
Thats like saying that they should get rid of the women because the men are harrassing them. Nobody cares if someone is gay. BUT, we just don't want to hear all about it. Again... if a gay soldier was seriously dedicated to the mission then this would not be an issue. The military has more important things to worry about than homosexuals. It is just not that important
It sounds like you have it backwards. I would think if the men were harrassing women in the military the women aren't the ones doing anything wrong. The man openly harrassing the woman (or women) should be the one to go. Punish the ones that are being intolerant not the other way around.
Thats like saying that they should get rid of the women because the men are harrassing them. Nobody cares if someone is gay. BUT, we just don't want to hear all about it. Again... if a gay soldier was seriously dedicated to the mission then this would not be an issue. The military has more important things to worry about than homosexuals. It is just not that important
No, it's not...it's like getting rid of the guy harassing the woman. Which is what they should do to the dudes harassing the gays.
The people who would threaten their unit cohesiveness because of some irrelevant bull**** like whether or not someone is gay are the ones who should go.
The people who would threaten their unit cohesiveness because they are sexually harassing the women in their unit are the ones who should go.
The people who can act like grown-ups and do their job like professionals...they can stay. And that includes guys and chicks who are gay - you can't be doing inappropriate sh*t, either.
Lawrence v Texas essentially gutted Article 125 of the UCMJ. Here are two military legal case discussions on the issue if you're interested in reading about it.
United States v. Meno
In this case the military overturned a conviction of sodomy against a military member who had initially been convicted of sodomy for licking the anus of a women and for putting his finger in her vagina. The United States Army Court of Military Appeals overturned his conviction based on Lawrence v Texas.
United States v. Bullock
In this case the military overturned a conviction of sodomy against a military member who had be convicted of sodomy for putting his penis in a women's mouth. The United States Army Court of Military Appeals overturned his conviction based on Lawrence v Texas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
forgetting something
