Skip to comments.Defense Bill Will Not Include Provision Legalizing Sodomy, Bestiality in Military
Posted on 12/15/2011 6:47:19 AM PST by Zakeet
A House-Senate conference committee has put the military prohibition on sodomy and bestiality back into the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act.
A spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee told CNSNews.com Wednesday that the Obama administration had made its pitch on repealing Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice related to sodomy -- but the members of the conference committee were not persuaded that the change was needed.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
No problem ... cause I'll just fix things with another Executive Order!
Wow.. some rare good news.
The Democrats will be tossing little hissy fits all day long over the loss of their bestiality privileges.
How can you be a queer in the military if sodomy is outlawed? Or, for that matter, if you have to pass a drug test?
Yes and no. Currently, “sodomy” is illegal between married couples in the military, so husband-wife oral sex is a court-martial offense that can lead to dishonorable discharge.
The K9 Corp is breathing a sigh of relief...
As per Rush, the Beltway boys in this Regime and this Congress are clueless, due to their arrogance and quest for power, to realize just how incensed We The People are. November 2012 can’t get here quick enough so we can clean the feces out of both Parties. Everyone I talk to wants “all” of them voted out in disgrace. Corrupt, amoral Career politicians need not apply.
So Dems and a few RINOs repealed DADT and now a soldier's homosexuality is legally out in the open in the military.(I assume this means the communication of those desires. ) But ‘sex’ between two of the same-sex =sodomy is still against the military justice code? Go figure.....
More ironic, the SCOTUS ruled that homo-sexual sodomy was a US constitutional right that cannot be outlawed by states repealing all those state laws, Thank Justice O Conner for that.
I encourage you to check up on the meaning of sodomy. The queers like to claim that the Bible refers to oral with a woman as sodomy, but that simply isn’t true. It specifically means anal sex between two men. If the military has expanded the meaning, they’ve done so after believing homosexual propaganda. It would be great for them, the gays, if they could claim that almost anyone (someone who’s wife has given them a bj is also a sodomite, but that’s simply not true). Sorry.
But...but...but virtually every Republican Senator endorsed dropping sodomy and bestiality earlier this week. They don´t read what they vote on either?
We came very close to being another Sodom and Gomorrah. We’re not out of the woods yet.
I had thought at the time that this would have been a perfect chance to hoist the perverts on their own petard. Remember that DADT was a Clinton dodge to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they remained "in the closet" about their behavior -- as such, I never understood why conservatives fought so hard against its repeal.
The UCMJ wasn't being changed -- which was the fatal flaw from the liberals' perspective. By repealing DADT, they think they've allowed the perverts to serve openly, but technically, any who do "come out" expose themselves to court-martial via Article 125.
It would be a career-ender, but I'd just love to see an officer refer these degenerates to court-martial citing Article 125.
This is the part I am pondering. I assume what this means is they can state their desires but not be caught acting on them. How would this affect them negatively ? How about if they pair up with the same sex, the relationship turns bad (almost enviable) and one decides to get revenge on the other one who is in the military and turns him in for sodomy?
In addition add the potential complication of same-sex marriage in some states that they are sueing for to be recognized by the military.
Once you start defining civil rights protected class's based on personal desires little makes sense anymore.
Well I have NO problem with “sodomy” being illegal. Why anybody in their right mind would think the organ created by God to remove waste from the human body was created for sexual pleasure defies logic.The ban was instituted when our
Congress was yet run by Moral and Religious people who wanted
guidlines to encourage Morality in our Armed Forces.The the prohibition put an end to sodomy? or attempted sodomy? No But neither has it encouraged immorality and the spread of diseases commonly found bothering those who engage in such abnormal behavior.
Shall be punished— is a subjective clause in that the whole deal relies on inquiry and the unit commander has general control over such. Only rarely is the command to override the authority of the Unit Commander made manifest.
Is sodomy —or attempted sodomy a civil right? I have read somewhat reasonable reports that suggest sodomy is not a civil right.(at least it was not until the US supreme court tossed
Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas,2003)
Assuming sodomy is limited to anal sex only is incorrect. Sodomy also includes oral sex...
Still support it being illegal?
I do not believe that and challenge you to present something credible in your defense.
I was using the Article 125 definition of ‘sodomy”, that is the definition that will get you imprisoned and discharged. Article 125 has been in place for some time now, before the homosexuals redefined “gay”, for instance.
(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.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.
(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that persons mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that persons sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
Lesser included offenses.
(1) With a child under the age of 16.
(a) Article 125forcible sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (2) below)
(b) Article 134indecent acts with a child under 16
(c) Article 80attempts
(2) Forcible sodomy.
(a) Article 125sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (3) below)
(b) Article 134assault with intent to commit sodomy
(c) Article 134indecent assault
(d) Article 80attempts.
(a) Article 134indecent acts with another
(b) Article 80attempts
(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.
(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
Next Article> Article 126-Arson >
I think this can be called “throwing stupid conservatives a bone”, because with the DADT repeal, this was just so much mustard.
What really matters is that everybody lost with the authorization for the military to detain American citizens (at the demand of the White House) without arrest, indictment or trial.
Does anyone in their right mind believe that unlike all the other Patriot Act anti-Bill-of-Rights laws, that are now used *exclusively* against American citizens for routine purposes, NOT against terrorists, that this will be any different?
The ONLY win in this foul bill was that the law was changed, so that the ultimately corrupt Attorney General Holder would no longer be able to order the military to arrest his political enemies; now Obama has to order the military to do it himself.
Which I do not find particularly reassuring.
So, what Americans are Obama’s political enemies, that he can now order the military to “detain”? Victims who will have no recourse in the federal courts for relief?
Rush Limaugh? The Koch brothers? Sarah Palin?
See, that’s the problem with having RINOs like McCain and Graham in the senate. They don’t seem to grasp the whole Bill-of-Rights thing, and are just fine with agreeing with liberals that it is just a scrap of paper.
just means that 'enforcement' will now be on trial, as anybody that uses the UCMJ will be required to show cause in PC terms, and risk getting a scarlett letter in their own personnel file as being intolerant and biased...
sure, the sickest of the pervs can still be weeded out by law, but the practical effect is an open door to the closet, and the 'in yer face' homoagenda towards the avg soldier, who reasonably believed he was entering an organization where he could be free from certain societal issues, and allowed to do his job in peace, so to speak...
Thus any soldier giving or receiving oral sex with his wife would be guilty of a Court martial offense worthy of a dishonorable discharge.
Now how many here think a soldier returning from deployment getting a blowjob from his wife should be cortmartialed?
Sorry, I am wrong.
Well that’s absurd. Another victory for the left.
From “The Stars and Stripes”...
Even if Article 125 is removed, the UCMJ contains provisions under which troops can be punished. Article 134, for example, forbids all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Breasseale said that would cover any and all animal abuse.
In fact, past instances of bestiality in the military have been prosecuted under that statute, instead of Article 125. The legal record dates back to 1957, when Pvt. Ricardo Sanchez was convicted of an indecent act with an animal under Article 134, even without specific wording prohibiting sex with animals.
In addition, before the potential language changes reached Congress, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice drafted a list of punitive offenses under the UCMJ which specifically includes animal abuse. That is set to be included in the Manual for Courts-Martial, and will give clear guidance on what to do in such cases.
Breasseale said the change pending before Congress is truly just a legal clean-up effort, and will in no way endanger animals.
It is difficult to envision a situation where a servicemember engages in sexual conduct with an animal that would not be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting, he said.
Yes —I do. while I served on active duty 69-77—Exclusion was
the policy and the law. In 69 I was drugged, raped and sodomized by a hyphenated American until the drugs he had added to whiskey began to wear off. I bled from my anus for 8 days I did NOT dare tell anyone the truth —even LIED to Army surgeons who repaired the damage he had done. simply because attempted sodomy —or sodomy are penalized under the UCMJ does not mean the unit commander will elect to proceed with inquiry. No inquiry—no penalty. The entire oral sex thing between a man and a woman appears a red herring.i.e. without merit.
Interesting, thanks. I think the House took out the repeal of Article 125, so both articles will be in force.
I served alongside Gays. They were good soldiers, and team players. Straight soldiers who decided one guy was Gay made fun of him, yet had gone to him to get patches and rank insignia sewn on.
Anti-Sodomy law in the military was established to stop the possibility of what would happen while on guard or on the battlefield.
Gays don’t engage in drugs anymore than straights.
Did this happen?
Not that I know of ... yet.
With Obozo, however, all kinds of usurpation and evil are possible.
The senate approved it 93-7 correct?
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.