Posted on 01/28/2011 12:08:45 PM PST by markomalley
I can just see our gay soldiers rushing forward to surrender to the Pashtuns: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MA11Df03.html
HOW perverted. A nation that my ancestors would not recognize. A rude collection of post modern paganists.
So where do we go from here...? Is this the last gap of the freek show from the 60s or has the nation become so invested in materialism and self satisfying ego trips that we are witnessing the end of an era...another experiment that has ended up badly?
Sodomy is still a violation of the UCMJ. Gays can be open about their sexual orientation, but they must remain celibate.
“Pentagon leaders preparing for a new culture of gays serving openly in the military are serving notice that discrimination will not be tolerated.”
Marxist change agents, whom have infiltrated America’s military command structure, and are now implimenting their plan to destroy the armed forces of the United States, have declared that resistance is futile... You will be assimilated into our atheist collective.
Response: Like Hell... We will resist, we will fight, we will have the inevitable victory over you godless sons of bitches... so help us God!
No good will come of this.
Most people concerned about this issue forget one thing...
When it comes to the skilled gift of strategy, who has more of it?... the Obama administration? or our military?
One only need to observe the reaction of the 3 generals at the SOTU address when Obama brought this up to know that this ain’t goin down without a fight... and sometimes a hasty retreat effectively disguises a devastating ambush.
If I were a gay in the military right now, I would think twice about “coming out of the closet”.
Footnote: When an open Civil War starts, and I predict it will, the New Confederate Army will have no queers in the ranks...
F'ing A!
So are new recruits in Basic going to be allowed to shower alone from now on...
or must they shower in one big room all together with a dozen other people with the same gender persific parts...
For instance during Nam I was a new recruit and had to shower with several other humans who had female parts..
What their “sexual orientation” may have been I was fairly sure...
I would have preferred to shower in private so I was embarassed but not in any danger...
However now how would I fare ???
Will enlisted personal be allowed to request a solitary private shower with a lock on the door ???
Or will that be considered a crime ???
What would the Spartans do?
I’m sure the corrupt biased media will be all over this news and be reporting it t o please the public.
oh wait no they won’t as they know most do not want a bunch of perverts in the military.
Oh maybe I needed to explain that the women were in barracks that had been built during originally for men...
With that one big shower room several shower heads around the walls and in the ceiling thingy...
UGH! My son just started USMC Basic Training @ Parris Island this past Monday!
UGH! My son just started USMC Basic Training @ Parris Island this past Monday!
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.
Yes, the UCMJ is actually part of the US Code, (USC 10). And yes, to amend the UCMJ, legislation must be passed by Congress and then signed by the president (or passed by overriding a presidential veto). DADT repeal did not amend or reverse Art. 125.
However, as I explained just above, the UCMJ - like any other law - can be modified, or struck entirely by the judiciary exercising judicial review. To some degree, this has already been done to Art. 125.
Even before DADT's repeal, homosexuals who were "caught" violating Art. 125 could only be prosecuted under certain conditions defined in a case called US v. Marcum, which was heard and decided by CAAF. Marcum sprung from the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas.
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.