Gays In the Military?

Parallax · 05-28-2010, 09:36 AM

Well. We're waiting!

mikemike · 05-28-2010, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by clmonk

Sorry Mike, but my personal sex life is just that! However, a quick perusal of the Internet leads me to believe that oral sex in Tennessee is not illegal. I worked closely with JAG in my final tour in Germany and there were several instances of rape that included forced sodomy--a situation that really is different from what we were talking about, but nonetheless relevant in that the "crime" included sodomy. But there was one case among consenting adults where a officer was interrupted in the process of his "performance" with one of the American school teachers. She was sent home and he was tried, convicted, and discharged.

Rape and sexual harassment are and still will be regardless of whether DODT is eliminated.

My understanding of DODT is that it is illegal to be in the military and be openly gay. So even if someone was an excellent soldier, was in a committed gay relationship, and had no interest in having a relationship with any of his or her fellow soldiers, they would be discharged if someone came across a picture of them holding hands with their partner or if they listed their sexual orientation on facebook.

That is the injustice issue I see here.

The military is also very much a society, much more than most workplaces. There would also be issues about say visitation rights in the VA or notifications. If a gay man were to be KIA or MIA, would his partner get a letter/visit/support? For formal ceremonies do gays get to bring their SO and interact with them in the same way that a wife and husband or boyfriend and girlfriend could?

JeffJS · 05-28-2010, 10:06 AM

My *opinion* on this subject is clearly stated in a previous thread here on the forum. I simply Do Not Care who somebody chooses to lie with, hold hands with, kiss, etc. It has Zero effect on me.

I think everyone willing to serve, and take a bullet or (hopefully) force someone else to, on my (as a US Citizen) behalf, is entitled to the same rights, treatment, and respect as everyone else who serves in our military. I also think they should be held to the same standards of performance, man or woman, regardless of lifestyle. I won't call it a preference because I cannot for the life of me understand why Anyone would Want to be Gay, by choice.

DADT is THE biggest middle of the road punch in the teeth to people willing and wanting to enter the military that I've ever seen. All I ever see in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead animals.

MRRiley · 05-28-2010, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by clmonk

Sorry Mike, but my personal sex life is just that! However, a quick perusal of the Internet leads me to believe that oral sex in Tennessee is not illegal. I worked closely with JAG in my final tour in Germany and there were several instances of rape that included forced sodomy--a situation that really is different from what we were talking about, but nonetheless relevant in that the "crime" included sodomy. But there was one case among consenting adults where a officer was interrupted in the process of his "performance" with one of the American school teachers. She was sent home and he was tried, convicted, and discharged.

That was a rhetorical question clmonk.... I figured as a retired military guy/gal you could have read that inference. In the first case you cite, the primary offence was most likely rape with the sodomy charge added in as an enhancer to increase the possible punishment. The second case is interesting. Are you implying that the sole charge was "sodomy" and that is what he was convicted of? If so... WOW! Would they not have been prosecuted if they had been having "regular" sex? I have a strange feeling that there was much more to that case than just "sodomy."

So back to the oral sex question...

Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

It WAS illegal up to 1996 in TN...

Last edited by MRRiley; 05-28-2010 at 10:42 AM.

clmonk · 05-28-2010, 10:48 AM

Mike wrote: That was a rhetorical question clmonk.... I figured as a retired military guy/gal you could have read that inference. In the first case you cite, the primary offence was most likely rape with the sodomy charge added in as an enhancer to increase the possible punishment. The second case is interesting. Are you implying that the sole charge was "sodomy" and that is what he was convicted of? If so... WOW! Would they not have been prosecuted if they had been having "regular" sex?

Whether primary or otherwise, he was charged with sodomy and convicted of sodomy. The officer in question was also charged and convicted of sodomy. He was also charged with Article 134 Conduct Unbecoming, but that charge was dropped, probably due to issues related to its constitutionality. He pled guilty to the sodomy charge and was booted out as a result.

MRRiley · 05-28-2010, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by clmonk

Whether primary or otherwise, he was charged with sodomy and convicted of sodomy. The officer in question was also charged and convicted of sodomy. He was also charged with Article 134 Conduct Unbecoming, but that charge was dropped, probably due to issues related to its constitutionality. He pled guilty to the sodomy charge and was booted out as a result.

I'll take your word for it though I am still amazed.

cardinal43 · 05-28-2010, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

So back to the oral sex question...

Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

Say it ain't so!

clmonk · 05-28-2010, 11:33 AM

Shhhhh!!! Don't anyone tell Barney Frank!!!!

MRRiley · 05-28-2010, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

Forgot to mention that it's also illegal for military members regardless of where they are since oral sex (even between spouses) is included under the definition of sodomy in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Wonder when the last time was that a General told his wife "Sorry hun... you can't do that. I'd have to arrest myself and turn myself in for a Courts Martial."

clmonk · 05-28-2010, 11:58 AM

Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ. What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior? Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this? It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation. Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit?

Ratmagiclady · 05-28-2010, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by clmonk

Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ.

Like?
Removing special anti-gay things? Treating all soldiers with the same UCMJ?

Quote:

What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior?

They can not participate in any.

I believe the UCMJ covers that for straight people, too.

Quote:

Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this?

Maybe they don't belong with guns and bombs and missiles if they can't be professional about it.

Remember, other countries have gone through all this. The 'horror stories' ...Didn't happen. h

Quote:

It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation.

It's not 'a behavior,' (generally sex is not done on duty by anyone, right?) .... It's people. And people's lives, monk.

Also, the military personnel in question don't have such a big problem as you imagine.

That's what some are afraid of. Losing the homophobia card every election.

Quote:

Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit?

Justice and a country worth fighting for?

Nesster · 05-28-2010, 12:33 PM

Just a question: if you don't ask and he doesn't tell, how do you know you haven't already shared such a tent? As it is, theoretically anywhere from 3 to 9 % might identify as gay, and adding in those who don't identify but have practiced... how could anyone stand such tension and suspicion?! Yes, like-minded soldiers should be leaving in droves already.

Rupert · 05-28-2010, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by clmonk

Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ. What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior? Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this? It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation. Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit?

I am not an avid supporter of Gays, I think I can supply a close reference just above my reply as confirmation, but I am an avid supporter of Civil Rights as dictated by Common Sense.
With the "tent thingy" are you like many I know that wrongfully assume that Gays are Ravenous Perverts that are looking for every opportunity to engage in homosexual activity? This is just not the case in real life, and certainly not in the Military. It might be common in the Halls of Congress, with either straights or gays, but not in the Military I know, and I grew up pretty damn well informed. Homophobia is a disease that eats at a persons soul, and should not be allowed to steal our common sense and good judgment....as it has been for too long in this debate over Gays in the Military.
Best Regards!

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 02:43 PM ----------

Originally posted by Parallax

Well. We're waiting!

Finally! Adam did add my suggestion for a "Donation Hot Link" and now I have the Popcorn I requested........can Cold Beer be far behind?
Best Regards!

clmonk · 05-28-2010, 12:44 PM

Thanks RML but when you say...Also, the military personnel in question don't have such a big problem as you imagine.

Is this coming from your personal experience? As I mentioned I am a 22 year veteran and I speak from personal experience. Whether you realize it or not a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/guardsman is on Active Duty it means exactly that they are "on duty". And yes, they WOULD have to remove a lot of "anti-gay things". "Things" like sodomy and adultery.

But all that is irrelevant. Here is the crux of the issue: there are activities that are now illegal. Until these activities are made legal, anyone committing these acts is breaking the law and needs to be held accountable for doing so.

Ratmagiclady · 05-28-2010, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by clmonk

Thanks RML but when you say...Also, the military personnel in question don't have such a big problem as you imagine.

Is this coming from your personal experience? As I mentioned I am a 22 year veteran and I speak from personal experience.

My personal experience is of following this issue a lot, and seeing actual research on it. In that, maybe it's easiier to take a step back to see that your fears are unfounded unless perhaps you stir them up in others.

Quote:

Whether you realize it or not a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/guardsman is on Active Duty it means exactly that they are "on duty". And yes, they WOULD have to remove a lot of "anti-gay things". "Things" like sodomy and adultery.

Frankly, the word 'sodomy' doesn't even belong in any law, if you asked me, it's the name of a city, and as has been pointed out, it's not even limited to gay people.

Actually more straight men participate in 'sodomy' than gay ones, as I understand. They just generally prefer to do it with *women.*

Again, not on active duty.

As for who someone partners with, there should be no difference.

Adultery most *certainly* doesn't apply to a class of people you won't even allow to be legally married, so you can't legally call them adulterous, can you?

Generally that's the province of straight people, adultery.

But marriage is marriage. Married gay people should of course be held to the same standards as straights under the UCMJ.

You're the one complicating things.

Quote:

But all that is irrelevant. Here is the crux of the issue: there are activities that are now illegal.

What activities? Being a gay servicemember?

Quote:

Until these activities are made legal, anyone committing these acts is breaking the law and needs to be held accountable for doing so.

Well, sounds like no one's getting anything creative tonight....

Seriously, though. You're confusing DADT rules and selective enforcement with your legalist absolutism. Straight people do 'sodomy' and 'adultery' all the time. You just want to blame gay servicemembers who have to hide for boneheaded and unjust reasons things that aren't really the military's business to judge to begin with.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Misc Military paraphernalia	Ash	Post Your Photos!	56	01-24-2010 02:34 PM
Military Macaw	sawtooth235	Post Your Photos!	2	06-04-2009 06:04 AM
A morning with the military	vespa	Post Your Photos!	4	03-23-2009 05:28 PM
wedding shoot with military groom	vievetrick	Photographic Technique	15	09-04-2008 05:32 PM
Military Lovers	LaRee	Post Your Photos!	8	07-18-2007 09:48 PM

05-28-2010, 09:36 AM	#16
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Well. We're waiting!

05-28-2010, 09:42 AM	#17
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	Originally posted by clmonk Sorry Mike, but my personal sex life is just that! However, a quick perusal of the Internet leads me to believe that oral sex in Tennessee is not illegal. I worked closely with JAG in my final tour in Germany and there were several instances of rape that included forced sodomy--a situation that really is different from what we were talking about, but nonetheless relevant in that the "crime" included sodomy. But there was one case among consenting adults where a officer was interrupted in the process of his "performance" with one of the American school teachers. She was sent home and he was tried, convicted, and discharged. Rape and sexual harassment are and still will be regardless of whether DODT is eliminated. My understanding of DODT is that it is illegal to be in the military and be openly gay. So even if someone was an excellent soldier, was in a committed gay relationship, and had no interest in having a relationship with any of his or her fellow soldiers, they would be discharged if someone came across a picture of them holding hands with their partner or if they listed their sexual orientation on facebook. That is the injustice issue I see here. The military is also very much a society, much more than most workplaces. There would also be issues about say visitation rights in the VA or notifications. If a gay man were to be KIA or MIA, would his partner get a letter/visit/support? For formal ceremonies do gays get to bring their SO and interact with them in the same way that a wife and husband or boyfriend and girlfriend could?

05-28-2010, 10:06 AM	#18
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	My opinion on this subject is clearly stated in a previous thread here on the forum. I simply Do Not Care who somebody chooses to lie with, hold hands with, kiss, etc. It has Zero effect on me. I think everyone willing to serve, and take a bullet or (hopefully) force someone else to, on my (as a US Citizen) behalf, is entitled to the same rights, treatment, and respect as everyone else who serves in our military. I also think they should be held to the same standards of performance, man or woman, regardless of lifestyle. I won't call it a preference because I cannot for the life of me understand why Anyone would Want to be Gay, by choice. DADT is THE biggest middle of the road punch in the teeth to people willing and wanting to enter the military that I've ever seen. All I ever see in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead animals.

05-28-2010, 10:37 AM	#19
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by clmonk Sorry Mike, but my personal sex life is just that! However, a quick perusal of the Internet leads me to believe that oral sex in Tennessee is not illegal. I worked closely with JAG in my final tour in Germany and there were several instances of rape that included forced sodomy--a situation that really is different from what we were talking about, but nonetheless relevant in that the "crime" included sodomy. But there was one case among consenting adults where a officer was interrupted in the process of his "performance" with one of the American school teachers. She was sent home and he was tried, convicted, and discharged. That was a rhetorical question clmonk.... I figured as a retired military guy/gal you could have read that inference. In the first case you cite, the primary offence was most likely rape with the sodomy charge added in as an enhancer to increase the possible punishment. The second case is interesting. Are you implying that the sole charge was "sodomy" and that is what he was convicted of? If so... WOW! Would they not have been prosecuted if they had been having "regular" sex? I have a strange feeling that there was much more to that case than just "sodomy." So back to the oral sex question... Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C. It WAS illegal up to 1996 in TN... Last edited by MRRiley; 05-28-2010 at 10:42 AM.

05-28-2010, 10:48 AM	#20
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Mike wrote: That was a rhetorical question clmonk.... I figured as a retired military guy/gal you could have read that inference. In the first case you cite, the primary offence was most likely rape with the sodomy charge added in as an enhancer to increase the possible punishment. The second case is interesting. Are you implying that the sole charge was "sodomy" and that is what he was convicted of? If so... WOW! Would they not have been prosecuted if they had been having "regular" sex? Whether primary or otherwise, he was charged with sodomy and convicted of sodomy. The officer in question was also charged and convicted of sodomy. He was also charged with Article 134 Conduct Unbecoming, but that charge was dropped, probably due to issues related to its constitutionality. He pled guilty to the sodomy charge and was booted out as a result.

05-28-2010, 10:59 AM	#21
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by clmonk Whether primary or otherwise, he was charged with sodomy and convicted of sodomy. The officer in question was also charged and convicted of sodomy. He was also charged with Article 134 Conduct Unbecoming, but that charge was dropped, probably due to issues related to its constitutionality. He pled guilty to the sodomy charge and was booted out as a result. I'll take your word for it though I am still amazed.

05-28-2010, 11:24 AM	#22
cardinal43 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,412	Originally posted by MRRiley So back to the oral sex question... Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, *Virginia* and Washington D.C. Say it ain't so!

05-28-2010, 11:33 AM	#23
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Shhhhh!!! Don't anyone tell Barney Frank!!!!

05-28-2010, 11:38 AM	#24
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by MRRiley Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C. Forgot to mention that it's also illegal for military members regardless of where they are since oral sex (even between spouses) is included under the definition of sodomy in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Wonder when the last time was that a General told his wife "Sorry hun... you can't do that. I'd have to arrest myself and turn myself in for a Courts Martial."

05-28-2010, 11:58 AM	#25
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ. What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior? Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this? It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation. Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit?

05-28-2010, 12:29 PM	#26
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by clmonk Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ. Like? Removing special anti-gay things? Treating all soldiers with the same UCMJ? Quote: What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior? They can not participate in any. I believe the UCMJ covers that for straight people, too. Quote: Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this? Maybe they don't belong with guns and bombs and missiles if they can't be professional about it. Remember, other countries have gone through all this. The 'horror stories' ...Didn't happen. h Quote: It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation. It's not 'a behavior,' (generally sex is not done on duty by anyone, right?) .... It's people. And people's lives, monk. Also, the military personnel in question don't have such a big problem as you imagine. That's what some are afraid of. Losing the homophobia card every election. Quote: Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit? Justice and a country worth fighting for?

05-28-2010, 12:33 PM	#27
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Just a question: if you don't ask and he doesn't tell, how do you know you haven't already shared such a tent? As it is, theoretically anywhere from 3 to 9 % might identify as gay, and adding in those who don't identify but have practiced... how could anyone stand such tension and suspicion?! Yes, like-minded soldiers should be leaving in droves already.

05-28-2010, 12:41 PM	#28
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123 Original Poster	Originally posted by clmonk Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ. What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior? Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this? It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation. Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit? I am not an avid supporter of Gays, I think I can supply a close reference just above my reply as confirmation, but I am an avid supporter of Civil Rights as dictated by Common Sense. With the "tent thingy" are you like many I know that wrongfully assume that Gays are Ravenous Perverts that are looking for every opportunity to engage in homosexual activity? This is just not the case in real life, and certainly not in the Military. It might be common in the Halls of Congress, with either straights or gays, but not in the Military I know, and I grew up pretty damn well informed. Homophobia is a disease that eats at a persons soul, and should not be allowed to steal our common sense and good judgment....as it has been for too long in this debate over Gays in the Military. Best Regards! ---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 02:43 PM ---------- Originally posted by Parallax Well. We're waiting! Finally! Adam did add my suggestion for a "Donation Hot Link" and now I have the Popcorn I requested........can Cold Beer be far behind? Best Regards!

05-28-2010, 12:44 PM	#29
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Thanks RML but when you say...Also, the military personnel in question don't have such a big problem as you imagine. Is this coming from your personal experience? As I mentioned I am a 22 year veteran and I speak from personal experience. Whether you realize it or not a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/guardsman is on Active Duty it means exactly that they are "on duty". And yes, they WOULD have to remove a lot of "anti-gay things". "Things" like sodomy and adultery. But all that is irrelevant. Here is the crux of the issue: there are activities that are now illegal. Until these activities are made legal, anyone committing these acts is breaking the law and needs to be held accountable for doing so.

05-28-2010, 12:57 PM	#30
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by clmonk Thanks RML but when you say...Also, the military personnel in question don't have such a big problem as you imagine. Is this coming from your personal experience? As I mentioned I am a 22 year veteran and I speak from personal experience. My personal experience is of following this issue a lot, and seeing actual research on it. In that, maybe it's easiier to take a step back to see that your fears are unfounded unless perhaps you stir them up in others. Quote: Whether you realize it or not a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/guardsman is on Active Duty it means exactly that they are "on duty". And yes, they WOULD have to remove a lot of "anti-gay things". "Things" like sodomy and adultery. Frankly, the word 'sodomy' doesn't even belong in any law, if you asked me, it's the name of a city, and as has been pointed out, it's not even limited to gay people. Actually more straight men participate in 'sodomy' than gay ones, as I understand. They just generally prefer to do it with women. Again, not on active duty. As for who someone partners with, there should be no difference. Adultery most certainly doesn't apply to a class of people you won't even allow to be legally married, so you can't legally call them adulterous, can you? Generally that's the province of straight people, adultery. But marriage is marriage. Married gay people should of course be held to the same standards as straights under the UCMJ. You're the one complicating things. Quote: But all that is irrelevant. Here is the crux of the issue: there are activities that are now illegal. What activities? Being a gay servicemember? Quote: Until these activities are made legal, anyone committing these acts is breaking the law and needs to be held accountable for doing so. Well, sounds like no one's getting anything creative tonight.... Seriously, though. You're confusing DADT rules and selective enforcement with your legalist absolutism. Straight people do 'sodomy' and 'adultery' all the time. You just want to blame gay servicemembers who have to hide for boneheaded and unjust reasons things that aren't really the military's business to judge to begin with.