60 day count down starts

[sailor]

hey, first thread in this sub-forum.

http://www.army.mil/article/62177/_Don___t_Ask__Don_t_Tell__repeal_certified_by_President_Obama/

Based on recommendations from military leaders, President Barack Obama has certified to Congress that the U.S. armed forces are prepared for repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
 
There is a 60-day waiting period before the repeal goes into effect, so the law will officially come off the books Sept. 20. After that date, gay servicemembers can be open about their sexual orientation.
 

[monsnoleedra]

hey, first thread in this sub-forum.

http://www.army.mil/article/62177/_Don___t_Ask__Don_t_Tell__repeal_certified_by_President_Obama/

 
And just what did it change?  It didn't change the UCMJ.  It didn't change the classification of accepted sexual position which is still missionary per regulations.  It didn't change anything about oral or anal sex as defined in the UCMJ.  All the same articles and codes are still in place and will probably be used just like they were all the time.

Sorry I saw DADT come in and all the hoopla that was supposed to go with that.  Didn't change anything from the old pattern except it was no longer an immediate discharge.  Didnt change the fact that many that were processed out went out under other charges with their sexual orientation only being a last resort against thier discipline issues.

Probably will not change a thing in regards to people being processed out for any number of reasons but claiming it was sexual discrimination.  Not to say there were not some that were out and out sexual discrimination but there where a lot that claimed it but that was not the reason they were brough to court martial or given admin discharges.

[victoreia]

And just what did it change?  It didn't change the UCMJ.  It didn't change the classification of accepted sexual position which is still missionary per regulations.  It didn't change anything about oral or anal sex as defined in the UCMJ.  All the same articles and codes are still in place and will probably be used just like they were all the time.

 
Wait, they actually have regs on how soldiers can have sex in the UCMJ?!?!?

How twisted is that? :eek:

[monsnoleedra]

Wait, they actually have regs on how soldiers can have sex in the UCMJ?!?!?  How twisted is that? :eek:

Its sad but it's the truth.  I had a young sailor one night go through many of the various "sex" articles and mentioned it then showed us the article.  It rates right up there with the infidelity articles and how that is also used.

Granted most times they are not used or enforced but I have seen them used on occasion.  Recall an Air Force female officer who had the infidelity article used against her.  A couple of Naval personal who had the oral sex article used against them.

[monsnoleedra]

Wait, they actually have regs on how soldiers can have sex in the UCMJ?!?!?  How twisted is that? :eek:

Article 125 - Sodomy:  (This one frequently gets caught up in the Missionary Position disclaimer)

“(a) 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 by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(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.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus 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.


Article 134— Adultery (this is the other side they use to catch people on at times)

1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; 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.

(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.

(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:


(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;

(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;

(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;

(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;

(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;

Then there are the general orders that are catch all's like Article 134.  Yet none of these were changed by the executive order just signed.

Check out this link http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm_2.htm

[sailor]

Article 125 - Sodomy:  (This one frequently gets caught up in the Missionary Position disclaimer)

[/url]

 
Yep, nothing about missionary position. Perfectly legal to have sex standing up in the shower or hot tub.  Amazing what people learn when they actually read the rules rather than assume.

[sailor]

Article 134— Adultery (this is the other side they use to catch people on at times)

 
Don't have sex with your boss' spouse. Don't have sex with your employee's spouse.  Don't have sex with your co-worker's spouse.

[monsnoleedra]

Yep, nothing about missionary position. Perfectly legal to have sex standing up in the shower or hot tub.  Amazing what people learn when they actually read the rules rather than assume.

Oh I admit nothing directly stating "Missionary Position" though many see or saw it as being implied.  I suppose of all the barracks lawyers and thier advice, that particular article was more discussed and defined than any other article I ever had to investigate as a CPO (Chief Petty Officer) PIO (Primary Investigating Officer).

Though the variations and sub-articles associated to Article 134 and its sexual usages ran a close second.

[monsnoleedra]

Don't have sex with your boss' spouse. Don't have sex with your employee's spouse.  Don't have sex with your co-worker's spouse.

That one gets really ugly and can be used in a number of ways.  Especially in regards to the rank and privledge facet, saw it used once on a junior female officer and an enlisted person.  Not because of the sexual nature but because of the officer - enlisted prejudical to good order disclaimer.  The sexual facet was just gravy to make the charges stick better.

[sailor]

And just what did it change?  It didn't change the UCMJ.  It didn't change the classification of accepted sexual position which is still missionary per regulations.  It didn't change anything about oral or anal sex as defined in the UCMJ.  All the same articles and codes are still in place and will probably be used just like they were all the time.

 
Well, the 2012 Defense Authorization Act removed article 125.  Sodomy and bestiality are now legal in the military.  This assumes that Obama doesn't veto the bill and send it back for re-write.

[Asch]

Well, the 2012 Defense Authorization Act removed article 125.  Sodomy and bestiality are now legal in the military.  This assumes that Obama doesn't veto the bill and send it back for re-write.

Interesting, IME the articles were usually only enforced when it impacted the workplace or were added as an aspect of sexual assault charges.