Posted on 10/06/2011 5:50:34 PM PDT by neverdem
It's an executive order. Congress never passed it. But that said, as the policy of not letting them serve at all, and so was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The only thing that IS a law is the UCMJ's section on sodomy.
§ 925. Art. 125. Sodomy
(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 be punished as a court-martial may direct.
So certain non-penetrative forms of homosexual behavior are not violations, and some forms of heterosexual behavior are. Not sure if getting/giving a Lewinsky is a violation The UCMJ doesn't explicitly discriminate against homosexuality, as you can see from (a) above.
Of course gay and lesbian groups are pressing for the repeal of Art 125.
correct if i am wrong please but my understanding is that this overturn of don’t ask is in violation of the marine code and therefore the new homosexual law can be overturned by a simple executive order.
I don’t understand how the marine code is still in place but the homo’s think they can now run around on their little tippy toes shouting look at me I’m a homo
But as I said, the "Don't Ask and Let 'Em Tell" thing is not a law, just an executive order, to be implemented by changes in Army, Navy, AF, and Marine regulations. The same was true of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which was Clinton's sop to his far left supporters.
But the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which makes sodomy a crime, IS a law, and can't be changed by the stroke of a Presidential pen. Congress, and only Congress, can change it.. Well the Supreme Court could overturn that section, but that seems unlikely, at least unless Obama gets to appoint another justice.
But the UCMJ doesn't criminalize homosexuality, as such. The same acts by heterosexuals would be equally in violation. That might be a way for the Gay Lobby to get it overturned, since I doubt very much it's been enforced against married heterosexuals, or even unmarried ones, in a good long time. So there would be an equal protection argument.
thank you very much for that info and addressing my question
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.