To: Innovative
I noticed that the talking heads said that this vote "could pave the way" to homosexuls serving openly in the armed forces. I thought this vote made it done deal. Also, if this is just a repeal of DADT, then does that mean that the armed forces revert to the pre-DADT policy? What was the language of the repeal?
41 posted on
12/18/2010 4:46:42 PM PST by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
To: Army Air Corps
At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
Repeal of the law as noted above does not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.
Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
(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.
The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
US Constitution
Section. 8.
Clause 14: [ The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the hoopla concerning the 1993 law is just that. Commanders, including the Commander-in-Chief, are obligated by their sacred oaths to enforce the rules and regulations made and promulgated by Congress for the US military.
What remains to be seen is whether the current Commander-in-Chief will adhere to his oath and require subordinate officers to do the same.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson