I saw that today and I was like "OH SHIT"


I wonder how it'll go.

I dont think it will be an issue, Canada has an open army and we dont have any issues, just amend the sexual harassment policy and you'll be god to go. hell my Fireteam partner overseas was a raging homo and no one cared.

That's sort of the problem. Rather than replace DADT with something better, they're abolishing it.

im not fully up to date on all the issues. but it seems like DADT is a totally different monster all together. In the CF its fine to be gay you just have to abide by the same rules that straight troops do. IE you cant go up to a girl and slap her on the ass if you think she is hot, same goes for a gay guy, he cant jsut walk up to his buddy and slap him on the ass.

its actual a really simple way of doing things.

but as i said im not really up to date on the issues so this is my outsider view.

Well, in the U.S., there are laws against sodomy, regardless of gender and orientation, and since all gay sex falls under sodomy, repealing DADT makes it lawful for officers to ask who is and is not gay.

hmmm alright well thats an issue i was not aware of. maybe they should follow Canada again and drop all the gay hating. i know that ant gonna happen the nation is divided on that topic, but i am happy for the forces to be taking that step at least.

Kohaku, the way the army is looking at implementing the repeal of DADT is based off the methods that CF and IDF used when repealing their laws.

all Sexual Harassment policies are being updated, Uniformed Military Code of Justice (UMCJ) is being modified to remove sodomy (Article 125), and Sensitivity training is being evaluated for enlistees and officers who are found to be openly against the change.

Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers will still not be allowed to ask someone their sexual orientation or preference, so technically the "Don't Ask" part is staying as a mean of privacy and respect.

ah well very good then. someone finally did something that makes sense. dont worry an open army isn't a big deal at all.

hell now you guys just need to give women in the armed forces the same job options as the men and youll be good to go!

it's going to be a non-issue for sure, i'm waiting to see the "integration" process is going go extremely smoothly. actually cadet command has already been offering the sensitivity training for cadets before they make in mandatory next year.

one of the few things us cadets learn about first in the military is new interpersonal procedures

just to fire back at this, you seem to be a little bit out of the loop a bit on those laws. there are no Anti-Sodomy laws in the US since 2003 when Lawrence v Texas went before the supreme court and it was deemed Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional

That didn't go as far as military service. UCMJ Article 125 is alive and well, and still was so when I was enlisted in '05. Pretty sure they haven't changed that.

Article 125 is A. Rarely enforced and B. is set to be removed during the repeal of DADT

It's enforced enough that it's a problem, and now that they can ask, any CO can start a Court Marshal for any soldier who says yes or lies.

I was unable to find it before, and I'm still totally unable to find any evidence of UCMJ Art. 125 being redefined after this bill goes into effect, but I was able to find a number of officers saying that it should be, and news articles saying that if it isn't, there's going to be problems. Could you please provide a source on that?

if you have Cadet or Officer access to AKO yes i can

That, I do not.

then i don't believe the interpersonal training material is available to you yet... and since it's still marked "Unconfirmed" for us it is why it's probably not out to enlistees yet. give it another month or two and a final version will be published.

I'm out entirely, actually.

then you'll have to wait till AP or someone gets the trickle down of it

Wrong, the supreme court has declared sodomy laws as unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

State laws, yes. See here.

The way you said it implied the US as a whole. UCMJ is different from civilian laws. Also, when is the last time you heard that a sodomy law was enforced? The only way someone in the military would be punished under this law would be while on a ship of war at sea.

Given that we were talking about DADT and the military, I had just assumed most people would catch on that that's what I'm talking about.

As for how often, I don't know off the top of my head, but I seem to recall a DADT-repeal advocate claiming thousands per year, though I don't know if I'd believe that. Maybe thousands since Clinton.

you did say: "Well, in the U.S., there are laws against sodomy, regardless of gender and orientation, and since all gay sex falls under sodomy, repealing DADT makes it lawful for officers to ask who is and is not gay."

you said "IN THE US" those laws against gay sex have been abolished for some time now, and I certainly do not appreciate you talking about or judging people's sexuality. I, for one, am dating a man...does that make me a heathen monster? NO! people are more accepting today they have ever been and I suggest you get with the program!!!

Holy crap, I never said I agree with it, so don't bite my head off.

I said in the U.S., because it is in the U.S. that all the military things that've been discussed to that point were relevant, not in Canada. Like I said, my fault for assuming people would be able to figure out that, since everything was relevant to military service, that I only meant in regards to military service in the U.S., or in the U.S. military.

It was the way you worded the argument.

In all actuality it is not a repeal of DADT, an outright repeal would be like the law never went into effect. People would be flat out asked their sexuality and would be jailed if outed. Also, a chapter 15 is not a conviction under the sodomy law. DADT prevents service members from receiving punishment (other than a general discharge) for sex between consenting adults. There are other aspects that a service member can be given an Other Than Honorable Discharge. http://dont.stanford.edu/regulation.....gulation38.pdf

That's from 1982, little over 10 years before DADT. As it stands now, with DADT, no, admission to homosexuality is not in violation of Article 125, but sodomy still is. Without DADT, the sodomy rules would still apply, breaking them may still result in a court marshal as per Article 125.

I would be able to find the most up to date regulations if I was on my own computer. I am quite restricted on time and whatnot on a public computer.

But I seriously doubt that the Sodomy law would be enforced.

armytimes had an article on that....they are repealing the sodomy issue. said it was old anyway.

No segregated barracks, gays can be in combat arms.

You wouldn't happen to have a link to that by any chance, would you? I'm unable to find it.

army times, bro. It was in the newspaper.

I don't get that. Thought you might have some clue as to where it'd be on their online news site.

Sodomy (definition) : anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;

looks most of the U.S. is ready for jail then...

You've taken my post out of context. The UCMJ prohibits sodomy, including anal and oral sex, among service members. Doing so can result in punishments, up to and including a dishonorable discharge.

Think of all the married couples out there who give/receive oral sex, never mind the heterosexual anal sex that I know happens. You know as well as anyone else in the military that a lot of the regs are not very strictly enforced, or enforced at all for that matter. The fact that I am currently in the Army and gearing up for Afghanistan makes this subject my concern. What I am confused about is why you are so worried about something that really has no bearing on your life right now. I understand that you've done your time, but it's our time now. Leave these matters to us, please.

No disrespect,
-Dizzy (EOD)

hmmm, for who wrote this i don't think any of us view the army as a dating service or a social experiment.

i'm just rather happy that i don't have to live the next two years in barracks being nervous everyday of losing my scholarship and being kicked out of college if someone finds out I'm interested in guys and not girls.

more or less this sounds like a post based on someone who wanted the policy to stay in place, hell people didn't like it in 1970 when they let women into the point but you we got over it and guess what they are officers now!

I feel you. it always sucked that I had to go to the next town to date.

but date a soldier? fuck that.
if I have my way, it will be YEARS before anyone in my unit knows I am a fag.

No reason to let anyone know purposely, if it happens it happens.

my next major concern is over what they are going to do about same-sex marriages and on-base/off-base housing allowance for same-sex couples. since I've already been told once I'm through college to expect to live on base for a while as a LT

Stop making assumptions.

Well put.

The "many" are in the minority according to the study. It doesn't matter though, most that said they would leave the military if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly were full of hot air anyways. :Þ

I am still not sure of your actual stance though. It seems that you feel that homosexual soldiers are suddenly going to be "loud and proud." This was also covered by the study. It will be very rare that such things will happen.

I kind like and dont like the DADT being thrown out:

like: people are more accepting now and there will be no sexual restrictions in the military.

dislike: if they reinstate the draft, Im screwed. I am still registered with Selective Service and I DO NOT want to go back to Afghanistan...

Ironic, Im transferring over to the US army just to get BACK to Afghanistan

if the draft were to be restarted you wouldn't be going to Afghanistan slade, you'd be gearing up to go to Korea

I dont have tv so I dont know...WHY KOREA?!?!?!

North Korea trying to swing their dick around

great...instead of sweating my ass off...I'll be freezing my nuts off...lovely...

I don't care, let's just get back to the war at hand

-Korkan

Finally. Someone who got the point of my post.

Look, I have battle buddies who are like that, now they can be open. But Uncle Sam doesn't need to know who I'm having sex with behind closed doors, it should just matter that I show up for formation, and kick some ass when they need me to.
Congrats, but let's focus on the mission. Remember: I will *always* place the mission first!

-Korkan

Cheers!

Why is this even an issue? Do you have to tell straight soldiers not to fuck each other in the supply rooms? No, so why should you feel the need to say that in regard to gay soldiers?

Personally we have more important things to be worrying about now, yes its a relief, now move on and get back to the things that are more important. Well said btw Red!

Come on red you should know that they still have to do that anyways!

too many buddies of mine went through basic at Ft. Jackson XD

Odd. My unit didn't have problems with it when I went through OSUT at leonard wood.

From what i heard the program at Ft. Jackson has it's fair share of problems with sexual issues

Thats because they aren't training MPs there

good point XD

Ah good Lord, Fort Jackson...memories and nightmares :P

-Korkan

Yes. Especially you.

Nice boots, wanna fuck?

Hell no... I don't know where you've been... or DO I?

gasp- does that mean you know about... drum?

I know everything. Your computer has been bugged for years.

I personally don't care what a person likes, just as long as they serve their country and protect the freedom that our fore fathers fought for.

I remember having a discussion with my buddys on this issue back in GTMO.
We were all kind of tipsy and we all came to the conclusion of "We don't give a **** as long as you do your job."

hooah

LMAO, agreed!

regardless of orientation, it's not where you can just spout off about it

it's more to keep you in when they find out you are gay or lesbian, otherwise, keep your mouth shut and keep it professional

Cool. It's repealed. Now lets implement it.

I see now that this page is far too opinionated for my taste... (unwatch)

Bye now.