DADT fall out

**213th** · 12-26-10, 07:02 PM

So a thought came to me today, and I would like to hear others input on it. As we all know, Don't ask don't tell is no longer in affect. However, not once have I heard mention on Article 125 (UCMJ). For those that do not know, the military has its own legal system. Whether or not someone is prosecuted in a civlian court, they can still be tried in a military court under the military's own set of laws which is known as the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Article 125 specifically prohibits types of intercourse that would be liikely in a homosexual relationship (and not uncommon in straight relationships either). The text is

“(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.”

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.

So, while you can now be openly homosexual and serve, you still can not practice, legally speaking. Why do you think there has been no mention of this in the news or by the congresspeople?

**BigDawg** · 12-26-10, 08:40 PM

I would say it hasnt been mentioned because most dont know about it.

The part of the law that I question is;

"unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex"

What is the military's definition of carnal copulation?? If they court martial a "gay" person then they also need to court martial "straight" people, it mentions both.

**MacLean** · 12-26-10, 09:20 PM

The military has enough to worry about without making sex of any type a CID problem.

When every last gang member is making little rocks out of big rocks, and when every last security leak has been chased down, then we can have that conversation.

The military is no place to encourage puritans. Our job is to kill people and break their shit, not be saints.

The fact that someone has issues with "what type" of sex someone is having should be dedicated to the scrap heap of history.

The rule for sex in the service is simple: Don't take what isn't yours to take, and keep your sex life out of the chain of command.

**213th** · 12-26-10, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by BigDawg

I would say it hasnt been mentioned because most dont know about it.

The part of the law that I question is;

"unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex"

What is the military's definition of carnal copulation?? If they court martial a "gay" person then they also need to court martial "straight" people, it mentions both.

They do. While I was in they attempted to court martial two airmen under 125. I don't recall the disposition, it was at another base but made the Air Force newspaper. So, if they are prosecuting straight people I don't see why they would not prosecute homosexual people as well.

The definition of unnatural carnal copulation from the UCMJ

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.

**213th** · 12-26-10, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by MacLean

The military has enough to worry about without making sex of any type a CID problem.

When every last gang member is making little rocks out of big rocks, and when every last security leak has been chased down, then we can have that conversation.

The military is no place to encourage puritans. Our job is to kill people and break their shit, not be saints.

The fact that someone has issues with "what type" of sex someone is having should be dedicated to the scrap heap of history.

The rule for sex in the service is simple: Don't take what isn't yours to take, and keep your sex life out of the chain of command.

I agree, but when I was in there was one incident that I do recall where they prosecuted under 125. It wasn't just barracks talk, an article was run in the Air Force Times. The problem was that they didn't keep there sex life seperate from the chain of command and so what they did got out. But it just goes to show that if JAG had evidence they would prosecute.

Thats why I was suprised to not hear mention of Article 125 in all the DADT articles. It may be an archaic law, but they still prosecute under and that makes repealing DADT pretty much a moot point. Any non-straight person who is open about it is basically admitting to a violation of the article.

**MacLean** · 12-27-10, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by 213th

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.

99.9% of the United States Armed Forces were discharged today, following an investigation into... (snip)

(snip)... investigators admitted finding jury members was difficult amongst the .01% of the military population that was not being discharged....

**213th** · 12-27-10, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by MacLean

99.9% of the United States Armed Forces were discharged today, following an investigation into... (snip)

(snip)... investigators admitted finding jury members was difficult amongst the .01% of the military population that was not being discharged....

I get your point, but the fact is that they do prosecute under this article. Obviously not everyone, but it does happen.

**BigDawg** · 12-27-10, 10:54 AM

This is one of those laws that as long as its kept behind closed doors and doesn't become a problem elsewhere there shouldn't be a problem. In the example you gave it became a problem somewhere else so they pursued it. If its not in the park, or something else there wont be a problem. Otherwise yes they would have to punish EVERYONE including married couples!