Posted on 12/19/2010 10:46:22 AM PST by Salman
overturn DADT?...
http://bigpeace.com/stzu/2010/12/19/94-organization-coalition-vows-to-overturn-senate-repeal-of-dadt/
A court decision regarding civilian law may or may not have an impact on the rules governing the military.
The military regulations concerning fraternization and sexual conduct are supposedly not affected by the DADT issue. Little good that will do with homosexuals ~ I don't think they can control themselves all that well, and as many have noted, about 99% of all the homosexuals released from service have precipitated their release themselves. Under DADT you get a General Discharge for telling the command you're homosexual. Without DADT, it will make no difference what you tell somebody. You'll have to DO STUFF, and that doesn't give you a General Discharge.
For the homosexuals there's going to be no way out!~
I would imagine that today, before Obama signs the law, you will have virtually all the homosexuals in the military ‘fessin’ up so they can get out now with something other than a bad conduct discharge.
We need to support these groups. I nuked Obama-loving cable/sat TV over a year ago and the money saved is used to support groups like this. Our sin are being killed by the islamic over in Afghan and Iraq to amuse his puppet master in Saudi Arabia.
I just want to know where those cowards here on FR who were bashing LTC Lakin are after the repeal of DADT. Show your faces cowards!
“99% of all the homosexuals released from service have precipitated their release themselves.”
I had a couple of cousins in the 60’s tell me they got out of the draft by saying they were homosexuals. They were the children of beatniks (an early kind of hippie) and they were shiftless no-good people from the bone outwards. They married later and both produced a raft of liberal do-nothings.
I hadn’t thought of this outing yourself angle to get out of the service. I’d like to know how many of them really were homosexuals versus people who just decided not to honor their commitment.
Yes, that is right, these guys are going to have to do something like grabbing someone’s butt to get out in the future.
Reading the two cases that have come before CAAF addressing this very issue, the short answer is that it may have. In US v. Marcum, CAAF essentially (and this is a VERY simplified explanation) said that in some instances, Art. 125 might be constitutional under Texas, and in other cases it might not. Specifically, Art. 125 could be (and is) used to prosecute Sodomy with minor children, or forceable sodomy between two adults, or sodomy between a superior and subordinate, even if it was consensual. Because the Marcum case was between subordinate/superior, CAAF upheld the findings (conviction) under Article 125.
But, given a case between two consenting service members that did not have a chain-of-command conflict, it's unlikely that Art. 125 could be enforced, precisely because of Lawrence v TX. I think the tea leaves are pretty clear as it relates to homosexuals, but because it hasn't been fully litigated, it's still unsettled law.
However, given the recent district court ruling regarding the application of DADT, and this decision by Congress, I suspect that Art. 125 isn't long for this world.
"2) Would not the existing military laws about fraternization and/or adultery be extended to open homosexuals? "
Yes.
...CAAF upheld the findings (conviction) on Article 125, even when applying Lawrence v Texas.
Yes, that's true. I have said on other threads that - despite the characterization by the media of a gay-witch hunt in the military - gays REALLY have to want to be discharged to actually get discharged. Are there some exceptions? Sure, but they are just that, exceptions, and rare ones at that.
"Under DADT you get a General Discharge for telling the command you're homosexual"
Most do receive General under Honorable conditions. To get something worse (again, generally), there have to be some aggravating factors at play.
Why doesn’t repealing DADT not revert back the to the previous standing rules? I would think this would be worse for gay service members.
Will the Congressional legalization of sodomy on base eliminate Article 134 64. Article 134- Assault-with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter,rape, robbery,sodomy,arson,burglary,or housebreaking? IV-94-96 and 69 Article 134-cohabitation,wrongful IV-98.Is this evil act during the lame duck an attempt by the sodomite in the White House to make every State as Sodom (Washington D.C.? There are some states where wrongful cohabitation remains a criminal offense if not enforced very often
The technical language of H.R. 2965 (the legislation repealing DADT) gives the Executive some time to actually undo it. Obama will eventually (and perhaps even on the day he signs the legislation), issue an Executive Order giving guidance to the military.
You didn’t answer his question.
What forty years ago was a Monty Python sketch is now 0bama’s reality.
Only in your mind, son. It doesn't "revert back" because the statute gives a grace period to the old legislation until such a time as the Executive issues another order.
Don't take my word for it. Google the bill I referenced and read it yourself.
When they re-institute the draft, Corporal Klinger will have to find a new excuse.
We have some Freepers who understand all the legal ins and outs. Several of them have addressed the issue in earlier threads. Just look up DADT and start looking for what they said. Once you pick a thread and search for "USC" (for United States Code). IF there's something there you'll know quickly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.