so I guess they’ll change the UCMJ..
I believe, but could be mistaken, that the UCMJ must be changed by legislation. Not sure whether the DADT repeal addressed that.
I can just see our gay soldiers rushing forward to surrender to the Pashtuns: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MA11Df03.html
Sodomy is still a violation of the UCMJ. Gays can be open about their sexual orientation, but they must remain celibate.
It's complicated, but because of a series of court cases - both Supreme Court and CAAF cases - they won't have to. Essentially, Art. 125 was in large part ruled unconstitutional with these cases. It's not quite a dead letter, but it's close.
So long as the homos (and heterosexuals, for that matter) aren't banging subordinates, or engage in coerced or forced sodomy, then they can't be charged with violating Art. 125.
Exactly. Open homosexual relationships would have more and unequal rights in regard to behavior. It will be interesting how it will go with open showers for both sexes. What? What do I mean? Well, if my son or daughter has to shower with an open, avowed, homosexual/that may leer and make them uncomfortable, then opposite sexes must have that same right. Right? I mean, the uneasiness of comingling sexes is the primary reason for separating the genders for toiletry matters, right?