Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[denuseri]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

[IAN 2411]

I was in the UK Special forces, and i think that we all had kinks and sexual prefrences, the UK has restrictions on gays, but i believe that is understandable. There is a buddy, buddy system and if you upset a person, you dont want his boy freind fucking up your life if you need his protection, because he is retaliating. I believe the Danish Army allow gays but they have very few wars, and in no way do i mean to insult the Danes or their Army with that remark. Other kinks? Well i believe that it would not interfere with their daily life, in fact, i think their vanilla relationships cause the most problems. There was one person i knew that had a boyfreind, but out of the army that i knew of, and he knew that i knew, but live and let live, he was not likely to mess with the other personel so i said nothing. He never once in 14 years asked why, but he gave me a lot of respect and it was a natural respect, but i have always been very broad minded.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

I just find it odd that we in the USA have taken the stance that we have on it considering we are supposed to be all about freedom. (Not to mention the role of women in our military)

Which, I do give kudos to Obama and the Adm. Mike Mullen for stateing that the don't ask don't tell policey is in serious need of revision.

Odd how McCain has changed is position 180 degrees too.

Smh, F'ing politicians.

[IAN 2411]

denuseri,

The thing that you have to remember is that the laws about gays in the forces of both the USA and GB were placed there many years ago. They were placed there not by the polititions, but the forces comanders themselves, all being at least Brigadeer upwards. They were made water tight by the military lawers, and what politition or high ranking commander is going to jepordise his / her career by trying to change tradition. I expect there are gays in both our armies, but it will be behind closed doors, and if it ever comes to the serface it will not be publisised in a court martial, because it never happened. Before i left the army in 1980 there was a case in my Regiment, the whole battalian knew about it, but the two men involved were secreted away back to the UK. The expected court martial never happened, they were both honerably discharged as soon as their feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow Airport.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[denuseri]

Being "uncomfortable" isn't a good exuse imho, it didnt stop other minorities from serving and alltough women have restricted access in some militaries, it hasn't stopped women from serving.

As far as sexual relations go between service members, thats commonly been restricted even between hetrosexuals and is a punishable offence between members of the same command.

[IAN 2411]

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[SadisticNature]

I think its absolutely ridiculous for the military to turn away able bodied people of sound mind in a situation where they have stop loss programs that prevent people from leaving after their term is up. And yes that is regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender or any other factor they could consider discriminating on.

[fetishdj]

The precedent has to be ancient Greece here, where it was not only encouraged to be gay but the men in the army were encouraged to pair up because it was beleived that a strong pair bond between two individuals made them more likely to fight effectively - to defend each other if nothing else. Whether this has any comparison in the modern forces is a different matter and I am not aware of any evidence - would be interested in seeing if there is.

One question I do have to ask, however, is: which is worse - a man pining away and not focusing on his duties because of missing his wife/lover or a man worrying about his wife/lover being in the same place as he is? Personally I think that they are the same and, frankly, don't think any professional soldier serves any less well because of 'the wife and kids back home' so why should it be any different if the 'wife' happens to be a man?

But we are mired in the conventions and traditions which not only forbid gays in the military but also prevent women from serving on the front line (I beleive that one is on the Geneva convention, though some countries - Isreal, for example - do ignore it). It may be time for a rethink of some old traditions which were largely based on old fashioned attitudes to sexuality and gender politics.

Of course, what always amused me is the fact that it is precisely because of gays in the military that we have the BDSM lifestyle we have today :)

[IAN 2411]

fetishdj, you should read my post once more, because i have given you a good reason why the army thinks that gay people should not be soldiers on the front line. We do have women on the front line in the uk, and they are there because we have one with her leg missing, and one that was caught in a cross fire and shot to pieces, and they both have the George Cross to prove it. It might be accidental that they were in that position in the first place, but that in no way minimises their heroic deed. While i was in the Para's, i think every one of my buddies had some kind of kink or fetish, it was those little faults that made us the powerful men we were.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

[Ozme52]

They use the other F-word. No fraternization.

Means exactly the same thing of course.

[azure]

Equal opportunities are thrust down our throats to the ridiculous extreme. Gays in the military - not a great idea - when you have 16 to a room, and have to strip down inches from a gay girl / boy - that's uncomfortable. Women in the military - sure but do not expect them to do all the same jobs as the men. One-armed vegetarians and single mothers with 15 kids... no way! Regardless how well they can carry six men through a field of burning straw.

[IAN 2411]

Equal opportunities are thrust down our throats to the ridiculous extreme. Gays in the military - not a great idea - when you have 16 to a room, and have to strip down inches from a gay girl / boy - that's uncomfortable. Women in the military - sure but do not expect them to do all the same jobs as the men. One-armed vegetarians and single mothers with 15 kids... no way! Regardless how well they can carry six men through a field of burning straw.

I think you might be a little off line, as i have explained women are already on the front line in the UK. I also think you might be getting the wrong idea about Gays, just because a person is a gay, that does not mean he/she is going to jump on the first naked body they see sleeping next to them, that is a very outdated view. It does not matter if you are Gay, streight, or kinky, you will always be a soldier/whatever first, in the UK if a gay in the army crossed that line he would be out on his ass. The other thing about a gay in the UK forces is, he volenteered, and that means he is not going to jepoudise his carear for the sake of crossing that same line. Dont think for one minute that they are not there, because if they were there in the 60s-70s whan i was in the forces, you can bet your life they are still there now. If you feel threatened by the thought of being next to a gay while being naked, dont go swimming in the public baths, and dont go to leasure centres and use the shower fascilities afterwards. The thing about women on the front line, 70% of all operatives/spies/espianage that were dropped into France during WWtwo were women. You dont have to be a man to hold a rifle and walk 10 miles, you only need to be fit, one other thing it is a fact that a woman has a far higher pain tollerance. Dont put the gentler sex down, because they might not be as gentle as you think, but i will add in your defence, those type of women are a minority.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

I would just like to remind us all (myself included) as this may be a heated topic for some of us, to please refrain when discussing opposing views from doing so in a manner that seems as if we are making personal attacks at each other.

I would also purpose the question then: Do policies like "don't ask don't tell" apply to a military member's off base lives? What kind of restriction is that really? Isn't it a rather subjective kind of thing that forces one to hide all the time?

And if sexual relationships or fratrenization as Oz so kindly pointed out the military term for us, isnt allowed period between serving hetro-sexual men and women, then whats the problem with letting homosexuals stop having to live behind closed doors allways affriad of aqusation and come out into the open?

What really makes sexual orientation such a hurdle? Other than "fear" of the suposabely unknown?





PS I would also like to thank fetish for bringing up the ancient greeks, the Sacred Band of the Thebans in paticular is where we have the most evidence of male to male pairings of a sexual nature being encouraged and also proved quite effective for them as
They did after all defeat the pedastic Spartans dominion over the Peloponese.

[Thorne]

What really makes sexual orientation such a hurdle? Other than "fear" of the suposabely unknown?
My strictly personal opinion is that it is fear: fear that "someone might become sexually aroused by my nudity" and that, through some mysterious system of osmosis or something, "that might make me gay."

I think much of this can be attributed to a rigid code of morality which views the naked human body as obscene. Remove the fear, or disgust, of nudity and you remove much of the foundation of the fear of gays.

I have no evidence for this hypothesis, only my own feelings and observations.

[Bren122]

The ideology behind the pairing system in the Sacred Band was that you were less likely to run away and leave your lover in danger. There is some evidence that the Sacred Band also contained a number of women at certain times. It is thought that homosexuality amongst warrior groups was quite common; it should be remembered that the bulk of the armies of most city states were in fact militia. The warrior groups, like the Sacred Band, were regarded as being separate from general society and thus opportunities to marry were less common.
What really surprises me about this current debate is that we have countless examples of men and women who have served long and distinguished careers and only outed themselves when they left the service. What is it exactly that makes people believe that being homosexual also means that you can't keep your hands to yourself?

[DuncanONeil]

I was active duty '65 - '69. In that time I encountered a few "gays" in uniform. At least one hit on me. So I do not see the issue in the restriction if folk can still get in.


I just find it odd that we in the USA have taken the stance that we have on it considering we are supposed to be all about freedom. (Not to mention the role of women in our military)

Which, I do give kudos to Obama and the Adm. Mike Mullen for stateing that the don't ask don't tell policey is in serious need of revision.

Odd how McCain has changed is position 180 degrees too.

Smh, F'ing politicians.

[DuncanONeil]

If it is put in place by the General Staff it is not a law but a policy. ANd I suspect that in both countries it is a policy and not a law.


denuseri,

The thing that you have to remember is that the laws about gays in the forces of both the USA and GB were placed there many years ago. They were placed there not by the polititions, but the forces comanders themselves, all being at least Brigadeer upwards. They were made water tight by the military lawers, and what politition or high ranking commander is going to jepordise his / her career by trying to change tradition. I expect there are gays in both our armies, but it will be behind closed doors, and if it ever comes to the serface it will not be publisised in a court martial, because it never happened. Before i left the army in 1980 there was a case in my Regiment, the whole battalian knew about it, but the two men involved were secreted away back to the UK. The expected court martial never happened, they were both honerably discharged as soon as their feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow Airport.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

As for Women in combat. It was not merely an issue of sex in the unit.
As for the other stuff;

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.
Applies to everyone. Article 120 deals with rape and carnal knowledge, but as of 2006 was changed. The new article can be found at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/art120new.htm It list 36 specific offenses. which is why I did not post it.

ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Anything that affects discipline can come under this article, including consensual sex.


Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

While that is the standard and accepted argument for preventing the situation, it does not stand to test. Soldiers do not die for a cause nor, really, for their country. They die for the guy in the next foxhole. This bond is strongest in those that have actually gone into harms way, likely strongest among Marines. You count on that "other" soldier to keep you safe. If that means they fire "danger close" they are expected to do so. All uniforms know this!


I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

See msg #21


The precedent has to be ancient Greece here, where it was not only encouraged to be gay but the men in the army were encouraged to pair up because it was beleived that a strong pair bond between two individuals made them more likely to fight effectively - to defend each other if nothing else. Whether this has any comparison in the modern forces is a different matter and I am not aware of any evidence - would be interested in seeing if there is.

One question I do have to ask, however, is: which is worse - a man pining away and not focusing on his duties because of missing his wife/lover or a man worrying about his wife/lover being in the same place as he is? Personally I think that they are the same and, frankly, don't think any professional soldier serves any less well because of 'the wife and kids back home' so why should it be any different if the 'wife' happens to be a man?

But we are mired in the conventions and traditions which not only forbid gays in the military but also prevent women from serving on the front line (I beleive that one is on the Geneva convention, though some countries - Isreal, for example - do ignore it). It may be time for a rethink of some old traditions which were largely based on old fashioned attitudes to sexuality and gender politics.

Of course, what always amused me is the fact that it is precisely because of gays in the military that we have the BDSM lifestyle we have today :)

[DuncanONeil]

UCMJ Article 120


I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

[DuncanONeil]

But that only seems to affect us guys. The ladies seem to be much more comfortable about such things than most of us seem willing to even begin to think about!


My strictly personal opinion is that it is fear: fear that "someone might become sexually aroused by my nudity" and that, through some mysterious system of osmosis or something, "that might make me gay."

I think much of this can be attributed to a rigid code of morality which views the naked human body as obscene. Remove the fear, or disgust, of nudity and you remove much of the foundation of the fear of gays.

I have no evidence for this hypothesis, only my own feelings and observations.

[DuncanONeil]

More so in the navies!


The ideology behind the pairing system in the Sacred Band was that you were less likely to run away and leave your lover in danger. There is some evidence that the Sacred Band also contained a number of women at certain times. It is thought that homosexuality amongst warrior groups was quite common; it should be remembered that the bulk of the armies of most city states were in fact militia. The warrior groups, like the Sacred Band, were regarded as being separate from general society and thus opportunities to marry were less common.
What really surprises me about this current debate is that we have countless examples of men and women who have served long and distinguished careers and only outed themselves when they left the service. What is it exactly that makes people believe that being homosexual also means that you can't keep your hands to yourself?

[IAN 2411]

If it is put in place by the General Staff it is not a law but a policy. ANd I suspect that in both countries it is a policy and not a law.

I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

But that only seems to affect us guys. The ladies seem to be much more comfortable about such things than most of us seem willing to even begin to think about!
I agree, it does seem more prevalent among men. Probably because women tend to be more open about showing emotion, due to cultural conditions more than anything else. Real men don't cry, real men don't hug other men, that kind of thing. All crap, really, but that's the way we're taught.

[MMI]

It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

[IAN 2411]

It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

Nice thought MMI but it has a slight problem, UK military law is old outdated and has never been changed from the day it was written. I believe that they still have death by firing squad for Desertion and cowardice in the face of the enemy. There is also life for fraternising with the enemy, whatever the hell that means, I also believe that the death penalty still holds on treason. These penalties will never be used but they are still in place, I did ask my platoon commander once why they had never been repealed, he was also a military lawyer and civilian lawyer. His answer was, if for any reason the UK had to come under military law, the laws were in place to take the appropriate action. I don’t think the UK book of military law has been changed since it was first written, it has had amendments to minor offences, but the capital punishment laws remain. The answer to military law is, if it is not broken, don’t fix it.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

You are free to contradict. I still contend, and admit I am not familiar with the pertinent documents in British service, that here in the US the governing document for courts martial is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that this is not a law per se in the US but a codification of other US laws in a form unique to the military.
As can be seen by; " Authority: E.O. 12473; 10 U.S.C. 47.

Source: 68 FR 36916, June 20, 2003, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 152.1 Purpose.

This part:

[[Page 569]]

(a) Implements the requirement established by the President in
Executive Order 12473 that the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United
States, 1984, and subsequent editions, be reviewed annually.
(b) Formalizes the Joint Service Committee (JSC) and defines the
roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the JSC in reviewing and
proposing changes to the MCM and proposing legislation to amend the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C., Chapter 47).
(c) Provides for the designation of a Secretary of a Military
Department to serve as the Executive Agent for the JSC.


Sec. 152.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Military Departments (including the Coast Guard by agreement with the
Department of Homeland Security when it is not operating as a Service of
the Department of the Navy), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Combatant Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other
organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter
collectively referred to as ``the DoD Components'')."
This MCM and the UCMJ by extension are based on executive order and federal regulations. Which are also not laws, though grounded in them.


I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps but it may be more basic than that.
In the past the division of labor was between camp and hunting. In camp you can have a very social and gregarious nature. However the same behaviours on the hunt will likely leave you hungry. With the amount of time spent in such activity the needs of quiet and care likely became more ingrained, unconsciously. Add to that the observation of the manner of behaviour among the women, in primitive understanding, could easily become to be marked as difference between the genders. With the belief than supported that such actions or behaviour would label that "hunter" as a women.
Just a thought, no basis nor classroom interaction created this. The differences seem so ingrained they have to have been inculcated in the human psyche in humanities youth.


I agree, it does seem more prevalent among men. Probably because women tend to be more open about showing emotion, due to cultural conditions more than anything else. Real men don't cry, real men don't hug other men, that kind of thing. All crap, really, but that's the way we're taught.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually the fraternization rules are more about command than sex.
Think about it in terms of the business world. If the boss is dating a secretary it matters not a whit how good she is at her job. If she gets a raise or a promotion is is seen as not earned. That is the issue with fraternization.


It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

[denuseri]

I don't know Duncun, more than a few of my friends that are in the service have told me, that if they get cuaght doing it with anyone else in thier command in the field or at sea, on even on base property in some cases; that there are consequences, even if its on shore leave or off post sometimes.

More often than not they go after the woman alone and eaither don't penalize the male or have far less harsher penalty enforced, and regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

[IAN 2411]

You are free to contradict. I still contend, and admit I am not familiar with the pertinent documents in British service, that here in the US the governing document for courts martial is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that this is not a law per se in the US but a codification of other US laws in a form unique to the military.

I understand what you are saying, but as you say you are unfamiliar with UK service law. I do know that a lot of the laws that are used today in the UK army, and were in place during the Napoleonic war. They are very much in difference to the ones you talk about, but whether UK or American, even if it were not against military law, there would be found another reason why the gays would not be allowed in the military of either country. 1: there is not an American officer above the rank of colonel which would jeopardise his/her career to openly defend a gay staying in the forces, with the fear of themselves being called camp. 2: with their stiff upper lip, and pomp and ceremony, the British officers are no different. The higher ranks, in the war departments on both sides of the pond, are full of outdated bigots, and they are dinosaurs of the free world.


Regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

The same punishment takes place in the UK forces, and it is carried out with immediate effect. There was a case in my unit, and the two personnel were flown back to the UK from Cyprus, went to a holding camp and were dismissed from the service, all within 24 hours. There were no charges, no trial and no court martial, because gay relationships never take place in the British army.


Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Actually ian our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stood up and said before congress that "dont ask dont tell" be revised and he is about as high up as an admiral can be and still be in the military.

[Lion]

I find it sad that gays are still treated as second class citizens in most "Free" countries around the world.

I'm not a soldier, never fought in battle, so I cannot speak for the trust that one must have when fighting in the front lines. I know that the Canadian military is fighting currently in Afghanistan (yup, we have an army too ~15 000 people) with no restriction of sexual orientation, and there has not been a single story about a problem arising from someone being gay.

Secondly, not all army personel are on the front lines. If you're known to be gay, you can do anything, including drive a truck, be an interpretor, be a medic, anything! How is that just? Why don't they kick out the known Muslims off the army because it'll make things easier too? Call it the 'Don't pray don't tell' rule.

I know what it feels like to be a second class citizen, my family moved from that country to Canada for a lot of reasons, a better life was the primary concern. I know how it is when positions and possibilities are denied just because of my label, and I will never accept that another group go through what I did.

[IAN 2411]

I find it sad that gays are still treated as second class citizens in most "Free" countries around the world.

I'm not a soldier, never fought in battle, so I cannot speak for the trust that one must have when fighting in the front lines. I know that the Canadian military is fighting currently in Afghanistan (yup, we have an army too ~15 000 people) with no restriction of sexual orientation, and there has not been a single story about a problem arising from someone being gay.

Secondly, not all army personel are on the front lines. If you're known to be gay, you can do anything, including drive a truck, be an interpretor, be a medic, anything! How is that just? Why don't they kick out the known Muslims off the army because it'll make things easier too? Call it the 'Don't pray don't tell' rule.

I know what it feels like to be a second class citizen, my family moved from that country to Canada for a lot of reasons, a better life was the primary concern. I know how it is when positions and possibilities are denied just because of my label, and I will never accept that another group go through what I did.

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

Perhaps but it may be more basic than that....Add to that the observation of the manner of behaviour among the women, in primitive understanding, could easily become to be marked as difference between the genders. With the belief than supported that such actions or behaviour would label that "hunter" as a women.
I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

[IAN 2411]

I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

You are quite correct Thorn, the Amazons were not a ficticious race, they were trained by the Romans to fight in the arena. It is writen though that they became to powerful for the Romans to handle, instead of the Romans putting them to death, they were taken to the Russian stepps and released. There are tapastries showing them fighting Atilla the Hun before Siberia and the Sayan mountains were lost to the Russians. They were all women, and the stories say they attacked other villages for the men, but only for breeding, but after the women mated the men were not killed as it is generaly thought, the Amizons looked after their men and they kept house while the women went hunting. I have spent over seven years studying the Amazons, because it is part of a book that i hope to be published this year.

[denuseri]

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

[Thorne]

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.
I'm not so sure it's off topic. The Amazons were, as he says, real, not mythical, and I'm quite sure they indulged in lesbian sex, as well as heterosexual when they wanted children. Nor were they the only female warriors in ancient times. From what I can recall (no citations, though, sorry) homosexual warriors, both male and female, were at one time considered superior warriors.

[Lion]

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[IAN 2411]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.
The subject of Amazons is still in keeping with your original question denuseri, because to answer it with knowledge and conviction you must delve into history for reference. As thorn as stated they were a not a mythical race as some historians stated, they lived on the shores of the Black sea. They were part lesbian race, and i supose one of the first bi-sexuals, and only had sex with men once a year, and it was for breeding purposes. Taking that in mind, the Amazons had a direct bearing on your question at the beginning of this thread. Proof of reality for the Amazons came about 15 years ago when an expeditionary force of historians went to the Steppes of Russia. They dug into over twenty burial mounds out of several hundred and found all the graves to be of women, all were buried with their swords and all had bowed legs from continues riding of horses. It was also stated that at one time not only did this army of lesbian females fight against Attila the Hun, but they also joined forces with him in several battles. Throwing water on the fire, that gays cannot fight alongside heterosexuals and be successful. Attila and the Amazons were probably one of the most fierce and feared armies that roamed the Siberian plains and Mongolia.


Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

All of which is still highly contested. A few Sythian burial mounds containing remians of a small grouping intermingled with males all buried with weapons a superiour lesbian fighting force that mated only once a year does not make.

The validity of which should have its own seperate thread where supporting evidience can be presented in detail becuase as a side bar it will consume a great deal of this thread which isnt here to debate their existance so much as determine if sexual orientation should be a criteria of modern militaries. Its about equal rights.

[IAN 2411]

which isnt here to debate their existance so much as determine if sexual orientation should be a criteria of modern militaries. Its about equal rights.
Russian Women

World War II
Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War. In most countries though, women tended to serve mostly in administrative, medical and in auxiliary roles. But in the Soviet Union women fought in larger numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served their Motherland in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.

Land forces
The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops. Women also served as machine gunners, tank drivers, medics, communication personnel and political officers. Manshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery.


I said in my last post denuseri, that the only way you can argue a case for equality is have a firm basis to work from. Now the above paragraphs state a case for women’s equality that no one can argue with, now as you say it might be a good idea to find one for the gays and lesbian community.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

I had no intent to discount what you said here. Though that is in the specific, rather than the general. One of the big arguments in SCA was the reality of women fighters in the ages represented. The women proved their case!
It is just that I see the general nature of the species and it division of labor as being a potential for the differences in PDAs. As for bonding, true, but that bonding also usually centers around shared activities, which also would make for differences in PDAs.
As basic as I can put it male/male PDAs and female/female PDA are likely to have arisen as a result of our maturation as a species.


I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with Ian, they are not a myth. Don't know about his details though.


As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

[DuncanONeil]

Gays may adopt in the US!


I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[denuseri]

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.
In a letter to President Obama obtained by CNN, three congressional sponsors of legislation to repeal the policy outlined the proposed agreement that would set contingencies based on completion of a military review of the matter already under way and subsequent final approval from the president and military leaders.

Specifically, the proposed agreement calls for repeal to become final only after completion of the military review expected by the end of 2010, followed by a review certification from Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration endorsed the proposal in a letter sent to the congressmen Tuesday from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who wrote that the agreement "meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Congressional Democratic sources said they hoped Gates himself would explicitly support the compromise language because that could determine whether the measure will pass. Several Democrats in the Senate and House have said they are reluctant to support any legislation that doesn't have complete backing of the Pentagon.

There was no formal comment from the Pentagon on a possible agreement.

"Given that Congress insists on addressing this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Initial votes on the measure in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House could occur as soon as Thursday, sources said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, praised the agreement.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops," he said in a statement Monday. "Today's announcement paves the path to fulfill the president's call to end 'don't ask, don't tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The agreement emerged from a meeting Monday at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, the sources said. There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

Gates has said he supports repealing the policy, but also has launched an extensive review of how to make the change. The review won't be finished until the end of the year.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently said he would push for a measure now to repeal the law. Gates opposed the idea, saying in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee chairman that he "strongly opposed" any changes before completion of the military review.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on defense issues, also indicated his support for the military review before any possible repeal.

"I think most members really would like to hear from our commanders and men and women in uniform and get their input on a decision like this," said Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain committed to taking the time to get views from troops.

That process is well under way, the official said, noting that a survey will go out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views. In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The official noted that military commanders have been telling the troops for weeks that the review process was intended to ensure their views were incorporated in contingency planning in the event that Congress changes the law.

According to the official, changing the process now before completing the review could be harmful because some troops believe the whole repeal initiative is an effort to appease supporters of repeal.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

The Obama administration letter indicated the agreement would address those issues, saying its approach "recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions."

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's mid-term election and be unable to pass the measure then.

A senior administration official said Monday it was the understanding at the White House that "Congress is determined to act this week."

[DuncanONeil]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?


The military has all kinds of restrictions on sexual activity and said restrictions are not limited to same sex issues.

Personally I think it is a red herring issue. There are gays in the military, probably always have been. This pressure is more likely aimed at aiding the Gay community in the civilian world than anything else!

[DuncanONeil]

The male - female issue is called fraternization. Same applies between the ranks.
It is not as simple an issue as many would like to call it.


Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

And this is any difference when the specialist is a female and the boyfriend is in that threatened unit?


I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

0123456789

[DuncanONeil]

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?


There are several things that can be done all fall under Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is a very ambiguous articles. It is considered to be the "catch all" article. For things considered to be "prejudicial to good order and discipline"

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Example; Cohabitation, Wrongful
"See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).
Elements.

(1) That, during a certain period of time, the accused and another person openly and publicly lived together as husband and wife, holding themselves out as such;

(2) That the other person was not the spouse of the accused;

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. This offense differs from adultery (see paragraph 62) in that it is not necessary to prove that one of the partners was married or that sexual intercourse took place. Public knowledge of the wrongfulness of the relationship is not required, but the partners must behave in a manner, as exhibited by conduct or language, that leads others to believe that a martial relationship exists.

Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Confinement for 4 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 4 months.

Or; Indecent Acts With Another
See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).
Elements.

(1) That the accused committed a certain wrongful act with a certain person;

(2) That the act was indecent; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. “Indecent” signifies that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations.

Lesser included offenses. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years."

Some offenses formerly adjudicated under Article 34 have been moved to Article 120, a much more punitive Article as it is based on events such as rape.

[IAN 2411]

It seems that i overlooked this when writing my previous posts, the Laws have now been changed.






British Army Gay
Recruitment Drive Launched
By Jonathan Leake and Philip Cardy
The Sunday Times - UK
8-27-5

The army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks.

It set up a recruitment stall at the Gay Pride festival in Manchester, backing its new-found commitment to homosexual rights by sending 10 gay and lesbian soldiers in combat trousers and tight T-shirts to join thousands of marchers on a five-mile parade through the city.

They strode out behind a float put together by the RAF, which was also recruiting. Themed on a fighter jet, it featured an oversized cockpit and a banner proudly proclaiming, "RAF rise above the rest".

At the stall, the men in uniform, complete with medals, mingled with eager would-be recruits, one dressed in tight leather shorts and a pink cowboy hat.

It was the first time the army had actively tried to recruit from such groups. It says it simply wants to tap into the talents of the gay population.

Lieutenant-Colonel Leanda Pitt, commander of regional recruiting in the northwest, said: "It is such a massive event in the Manchester calendar that we can't afford not to attend. As far as the army is concerned, sexual orientation is a private matter."

For campaigners, however, the sight of gay soldiers on parade was more reminiscent of a victory march.

It was only because gay rights groups such as Stonewall went to the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 that the Ministry of Defence was forced to lift its long-standing ban on homosexuality in the services.

Yesterday Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, welcomed the military presence at the Gay Pride march. He said: "The army is now beginning to realise that even at infantry level there are very good, tough lesbians and gay men who are capable of serving very competently. There is a huge pool of talented lesbian and gay people out there who want to serve their country."

This weekend, the MoD confirmed the new policy also applied to transvestites and transsexuals. A spokesman said: "People's sexual orientation is none of our business. We have a code of social conduct that everyone has to follow whatever their preference."

The RAF became the first of the armed forces to take part in a Gay Pride festival when it joined the same Manchester march last year.

The police have allowed uniformed officers to take part in such events since 2003. Yesterday there were contingents from three forces - Greater Manchester, Cheshire and North Yorkshire.

While the march continued, the army's recruiting stand did brisk business. The officers manning it were dressed in full military regalia, but were easily outdone by their would-be recruits: one sported a pair of red devil horns and a cape.

Captain Guy Sutcliffe said hundreds of people had taken leaflets and many more were expected to visit before the festival ends tomorrow.

He said: "We are actively recruiting anyone. We reflect society irrespective of sexuality, gender or religion." Sutcliffe said the army had 'no idea' how many gay soldiers there were within its ranks. "It's not relevant," he said. "It's not something we monitor."

Such attitudes mark a huge change within the forces. Recruitment of non-heterosexuals has only been permitted since 1999 when the European court ruled the ban on gays was against the law.

Since then, the RAF has led the way in promoting diversity. It attended last year's Manchester Gay Pride and a similar event in Brighton this year, and has also supported transsexual officers seeking sex-change treatment.

In 2000 Flight Lieutenant Eric Cookson became Flight Lieutenant Caroline Paige and last year two squadron leaders applied to have £32,000 sex-change operations and now fly as women.

Warrant Officer Lutha Magloire, 39, of the Logistic Corps, who organised the soldiers, contingent, said he had asked for 10 recruits " and got 30 volunteers. "We don't really care what sexual orientation you are if you want to come and join us in the army."

Regards ian2411

[Hamishlacastle]

ahh Deni you complicate every thing it is simple put the gays into their own battallions. the competition betweent eh gay and straight battalions would lead to a fiersom army. Can you imagine dome taliban not knowing which batallion is attacking. spoils of war and all lOl. mixing the straights and gays is not wise if they are identifiable. I think the army had the best policy in dont ask dont tell. It seems to have worked so far. Why do they openly want to enroll as being homosexual. thats like declaring your religion. or sexual fantasies. being a special class may be desirable, but it opens the door to to many other issues what about cross dressers, transsexual etc. I would be terrifying for the taliban to have bunch of men dressed in burka charging across the field lol

[Hamishlacastle]

or Gorean women who think they should be in the mens battalion because they are just as tough

[Hamishlacastle]

i WILL LEAVE THIS ISSUE TGO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. the military should have one law for all

[Hamishlacastle]

it is simple put the gays into their own battallions. the competition betweent eh gay and straight battalions would lead to a fiersom army. Can you imagine dome taliban not knowing which batallion is attacking. spoils of war and all lOl. mixing the straights and gays is not wise if they are identifiable. I think the army had the best policy in dont ask dont tell. It seems to have worked so far. Why do they openly want to enroll as being homosexual. thats like declaring your religion. or sexual fantasies. being a special class may be desirable, but it opens the door to to many other issues what about cross dressers, transsexual etc. I would be terrifying for the taliban to have bunch of men dressed in burka charging across the field lol

[Hamishlacastle]

I have stepped into a minefield here. I was born during the 2nd world war and lived in a war vets housing complex.(war destroys everyone not only the wounded and dead) At university I took a course on the history of war. one thing I learned is that, study after study shows that soldiers in active combat function best in groups of 5

through out history it has been said by many soldiers why didn't you run when it happened. the answer was always I couldnt leave my buddies. They were not fighting for king and country or family or god. they were fighting for each other. One thing is sure you dont want a homophoe in a squad where there is a gay. Perhaps for the future they should put the homophoes in their own groups and the rest of the straights and gays mixed. I am straight. the issue has never crossed my mind.

previously on this page I took a frivious look at it If I were in a squad I think that I would be more concerned that my back is covered than someones sexual orientation. I apologise. It comes down to the squad being able to handle hellish pressure that one man cant. they do it as a unit. If one breaks they often all do. If the unit is a band of brothers, women working as one.
I am told women have proven them selves in war. I was opposed to that, it is not the person; it is can you trust them. that is all that matters. you put your life in their care. I never thought if they were gay or not until the issue was raised a few years ago. If they want to sacrifice for their country let them and honor them for their service. like we do all military personal. not gay or straight. just soldiers serving their service to country. they should march proudly with their medals like every soldier.

[DuncanONeil]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?


I do not know who designed the poll questions but they do not allow for a reasoned analysis. The intent behind the poll must always be considered before you allow yourself to make your Regis answer (Is that your final answer). I could answer "no", yet I have no problem with the current policy. I only object to the "requirement" of losing your position in the Services. So presuming that the poll is to help in determining the countries feeling toward open gays in the Military, I can not answer at all. But the point is not the actual sexual orientation, it is one of security.

In spite of the potential risk ghays have always been in the Services!

[DuncanONeil]

Our favorite kink will also get you in trouble with the power structure in the Services!


Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

Fraternization covers a lot more than just sex!


I would just like to remind us all (myself included) as this may be a heated topic for some of us, to please refrain when discussing opposing views from doing so in a manner that seems as if we are making personal attacks at each other.

I would also purpose the question then: Do policies like "don't ask don't tell" apply to a military member's off base lives? What kind of restriction is that really? Isn't it a rather subjective kind of thing that forces one to hide all the time?

And if sexual relationships or fratrenization as Oz so kindly pointed out the military term for us, isnt allowed period between serving hetro-sexual men and women, then whats the problem with letting homosexuals stop having to live behind closed doors allways affriad of aqusation and come out into the open?

What really makes sexual orientation such a hurdle? Other than "fear" of the suposabely unknown?





PS I would also like to thank fetish for bringing up the ancient greeks, the Sacred Band of the Thebans in paticular is where we have the most evidence of male to male pairings of a sexual nature being encouraged and also proved quite effective for them as
They did after all defeat the pedastic Spartans dominion over the Peloponese.

[DuncanONeil]

That is not the same thing. There is no provision in the UCMJ prohibiting BEING homosexual. The "requirement" to separate a homosexual from service is a policy not a law.


I hate to cotridict you on this one Duncan, but if ever you were charged in the army for any serious offence, including omosexual activities, it would come under Military Law. It is so binding that on a court martial of any sort in the UK, there has to be a QC for the defence. I had a freind that was charged with GBH under Military law, he had his own QC and the prosicution had a military lawer. When he lost his case, he served his first 30 days in a military prison at Coalchester, and then transfered to a civilian prison to serve the two years remaining before being dishonerably discharged.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Actually fraternization is not about regulating sex. It is about the command structure, I have been trying to find a comparable civilian term to help in understanding the term. Just while typing this got a hit on the search macro, Fraternization is akin to nepotism, for those not related "sleeping their way to the top". It is all about favored treatment not from skills and abilities but from a personal relationship of some kind.


It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

[DuncanONeil]

Not quite! The act of sex alone is insufficient.

"(O)ne of the Court of Military Appeals' earliest decisions observed, "It is true, as urged by appellate defense counsel, that fornication, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, has been held not to be an offense under military law. United States v. Ord, 2 CMR(AF) 84. This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual." United States v. Snyder, 1 C.M.A. 423, 427, 4 C.M.R. 15, 19 (1952). Later in the same paragraph, CMA noted that "simple fornication is not an offense cognizable under military law." Id.

Chief Judge Everett has provided this helpful synopsis of the law governing fornication in the military:

In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable." (http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2007/09/interesting-comment-about-military-law.html)

United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).

(as an indecent act under Article 134, UCMJ, fornication is open and notorious, flagrant, and discrediting to the military service if committed in the actual presence of others, when the participants know that a third person is present, or under circumstances where it is reasonable likely that others will view the act).

(evidence was legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where, although appellant hung a sheet between beds, two of appellant’s roommates were present during the fornication and both were suspicious of the activity behind the sheet).
(evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).


I don't know Duncun, more than a few of my friends that are in the service have told me, that if they get cuaght doing it with anyone else in thier command in the field or at sea, on even on base property in some cases; that there are consequences, even if its on shore leave or off post sometimes.

More often than not they go after the woman alone and eaither don't penalize the male or have far less harsher penalty enforced, and regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

[DuncanONeil]

I can understand your feelings on this matter but I am afraid I must disagree with your assumptions and conclusions.


I understand what you are saying, but as you say you are unfamiliar with UK service law. I do know that a lot of the laws that are used today in the UK army, and were in place during the Napoleonic war. They are very much in difference to the ones you talk about, but whether UK or American, even if it were not against military law, there would be found another reason why the gays would not be allowed in the military of either country. 1: there is not an American officer above the rank of colonel which would jeopardise his/her career to openly defend a gay staying in the forces, with the fear of themselves being called camp. 2: with their stiff upper lip, and pomp and ceremony, the British officers are no different. The higher ranks, in the war departments on both sides of the pond, are full of outdated bigots, and they are dinosaurs of the free world.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

You assume they are bigots! Yes, assume! You take one piece of information. The objection and determine an entire raison d'etre behind that objection.


No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

We had huge discussions in SCA about our female members that wanted to engage in combat. It was a long and interesting battle but it became apparent that women in combat, while rare, was not an aberration. But even making that determination it was clear that by and large such was not the case. And I was speaking to the larger population rather than specific. Specifics can be a tough nut to swallow when discussing large groups.


I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

[DuncanONeil]

How do you protect against hate??


I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[DuncanONeil]

It is entirely possible that this will turn out to be another feel good policy that does nothing. If a mixed sex couple can be charged and punished for openly sexual practices the same would be true of openly gay couples.


Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.
In a letter to President Obama obtained by CNN, three congressional sponsors of legislation to repeal the policy outlined the proposed agreement that would set contingencies based on completion of a military review of the matter already under way and subsequent final approval from the president and military leaders.

Specifically, the proposed agreement calls for repeal to become final only after completion of the military review expected by the end of 2010, followed by a review certification from Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration endorsed the proposal in a letter sent to the congressmen Tuesday from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who wrote that the agreement "meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Congressional Democratic sources said they hoped Gates himself would explicitly support the compromise language because that could determine whether the measure will pass. Several Democrats in the Senate and House have said they are reluctant to support any legislation that doesn't have complete backing of the Pentagon.

There was no formal comment from the Pentagon on a possible agreement.

"Given that Congress insists on addressing this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Initial votes on the measure in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House could occur as soon as Thursday, sources said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, praised the agreement.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops," he said in a statement Monday. "Today's announcement paves the path to fulfill the president's call to end 'don't ask, don't tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The agreement emerged from a meeting Monday at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, the sources said. There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

Gates has said he supports repealing the policy, but also has launched an extensive review of how to make the change. The review won't be finished until the end of the year.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently said he would push for a measure now to repeal the law. Gates opposed the idea, saying in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee chairman that he "strongly opposed" any changes before completion of the military review.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on defense issues, also indicated his support for the military review before any possible repeal.

"I think most members really would like to hear from our commanders and men and women in uniform and get their input on a decision like this," said Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain committed to taking the time to get views from troops.

That process is well under way, the official said, noting that a survey will go out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views. In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The official noted that military commanders have been telling the troops for weeks that the review process was intended to ensure their views were incorporated in contingency planning in the event that Congress changes the law.

According to the official, changing the process now before completing the review could be harmful because some troops believe the whole repeal initiative is an effort to appease supporters of repeal.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

The Obama administration letter indicated the agreement would address those issues, saying its approach "recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions."

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's mid-term election and be unable to pass the measure then.

A senior administration official said Monday it was the understanding at the White House that "Congress is determined to act this week."

[DuncanONeil]

They do! The UCMJ!


i WILL LEAVE THIS ISSUE TGO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. the military should have one law for all

[Thorne]

In summary, the treatment of adultery and fornication in military law seems to be this: (a) two persons are guilty of adultery whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse if either of them is married to a third person; (b) if unmarried, they are guilty of fornication whenever they engage in illicit sexual intercourse under circumstances in which the conduct is not strictly private; and (c) private sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not punishable."
Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?


"This is consistent with the view expressed earlier herein that Congress has not intended by Article 134 and its statutory predecessors to regulate the wholly private moral conduct of an individual."
I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

As I said 41 Minutes Ago in message #66
United States v. Izquierdo, 51 MJ 421(fornication, committed openly and notoriously, is an aggravating circumstance sufficient to state an offense under Article 134, UCMJ).
(evidence was not legally sufficient to show that fornication was open and notorious where intercourse took place behind closed barracks room door and nobody else was present in the room).



Nice job of research, Duncan. As you note, this seems to permit consensual sex between adults as long as it is kept private. I wonder, though: I don't see anything specifically stating that the adults must be different sexes, or even that there can only be two adults involved. Would a three-some violate the UCMJ? What about an orgy? Would a gay couple violate the rules if they remained private?


I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

I found this statement particularly illuminating. I wonder if anyone has bothered to inform Congress of this little gem? As far as I can tell, politicians generally spend far more time trying to control the morality of their constituents than they do trying to control themselves.


As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.

[Thorne]

As I pointed out somewhere in the thread it really is not about sex. It is an issue of security. Our favorite kink actually puts us in the same risk category as homosexuals. Although we would likely not suffer the same result.
Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.

[DuncanONeil]

I can agree with that. Hell yeah I can agree with that!


Yeah, I understood that. But the statement in question was neither about sex or security, but about morality! It seems to me that the comment you quoted stated flatly that Congress does not have the right to regulate an individual's morality as long as he remains private. Yet we constantly see regulations which attempt to do just that.

[mkemse]

No, ANYONE be they Gay, Lesbian etc. if they so choose to Serve our Country they should be allowed to
Just as I feel if woken wantto be allwoed to fight onte front lines they should be aloowed to as well
Rember that paer tha twas written in 1774, called the United States Contitution, the Bill of Right ect it does says in ther ALL MEN A RE CREATED EQUAL, it does not say ALL Men, unless they are Gay, Women who are Lesbians etc, are not Equal
The Billof rights and Our Constition does not sperate Striaght from Gay, TG. L etc whyshould the Miitary, if they are wiling to srve, they should be allowed to serve
Just my thought

[Lion]

How do you protect against hate??

Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party: (http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf)

Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.

Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

[mkemse]

Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party: (http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf)


Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

And I wonder what would happen in any Texas election if the race(s) were so close that the winner won by viture of Gay, Lesbian or TG votes, may then it would make the Republican retinnk their views of their Platform, don't laught it could happen alot of reacesNation wide recently have been close and have been decided by a paricualt group in those states

It is also intresesting that Texas has had more State Executinos of Inmates then ANY other State in the Union of the last decade, butthat is for a whole differentthread

[DuncanONeil]

I very specifically asked how you protect against "hate" You come back with the arificial construct of "hate speech". The artificial construct of "hate speech" falls into the same category of "sexual harassment" and "rape" - pre DNA. You have to prove you did not do it. And even then you never really get out from under when you do prove that you did not.


Hate speech is illegal in Canada. Our freedom of speech does not give someone in the media/or any political party to write or claim that Muslims/Gays/Jews/Blacks/group defined by religion, race, sexual orientation, and age, ruin the fabric of the society, or that their acts do.

From the platform of the Texas Republican Party: (http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf)


Claims like this, for a party platform is outlawed in Canada. Protection against hate. Hope this helped you understand the definition of the term now.

And personally, I think the platform that the Texas Republican Party is taking on homosexuality is nonsense. Feels like 1960s, instead of blacks, it's gays. Claims that are backed by nothing but idiotic assumptions and bigoted views.

[IAN 2411]

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.

US Senate votes to lift military gay ban

Politicians in America have voted to repeal the ban against gays serving openly in the US military and sent the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate voted 65-31 to end 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell," policy. The US House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week as lawmakers pushed to complete their work before the new Congress is seated in January.

"By ending 'don't ask, don't tell,' no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love," Obama said in a statement before the final vote.

Obama vowed during his 2008 presidential campaign to end the ban, which he denounced as unfair, unwise and a violation of basic human rights.

He had been criticised by liberal groups who said he had failed to push hard enough to end the policy.

More than 13,000 men and women have been expelled from the US military under "don't ask, don't tell," which allows gays to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. Many of those dismissed have said they hope to return to service.

****

Why was everything done so public as if fanfared? When the UK changed the rules of "Dont ask, Dont tell" no one knew of it not even the gays. It was never against British law to be gay in the forces after gays were given equal rights, it was only in the military book of regulations. However when the UK made that law the Military left the book of regulations shut tight.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[Lion]

I'm happy that congress has finally recognized the rights of those who proudly wear the uniform. Hopefully this will translate to full gay rights in every part of the country.

[denuseri]

Hip Hip Hoooorahhhh!! WOOOOOOOOOOOTZ! AWsome!!!! This is just fantastic and really fills me with hope that our governement isnt completely broken!

Its been a long struggle here in the states for this freedom to be extended finally.

[Thorne]

While I agree that this is long overdue, I think I'll withhold any celebrations pending the installation of the new Congress in January. If the Tea Baggers don't come up with some way around this, or something even worse, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

[brwneydgirl]

If the Tea Baggers don't come up with some way around this, or something even worse, I'll be pleasantly surprised!


I think Tea Baggers are a WHOLE different group of folks...just sayin'. :cool:

[Thorne]

I think Tea Baggers are a WHOLE different group of folks...just sayin'. :cool:

Context, girl. Everything in context.

Still, it can be hard to tell the two groups apart, sometimes.

[denuseri]

Blinks...um ...the Tea Baggers don't = the Republican party people...no matter how much some Republicans or some Democrats may want us too...(yesh I am a full on Tea Bagger).

Additonally most of the tea baggers Ive spoken with are for the repeal!

[Thorne]

Like most other groups, the Tea Party people are diverse, spanning from the ultra-conservatives to the slightly more moderate. Unfortunately, the ultra-conservatives tend to be more vocal, more colorful, more insane, and thus more noticed. They get the press coverage and thereby taint the Tea Party, and the Republican Party, with their bizarre platforms. To my mind, the only hope the Republicans have to retain any credibility is to separate themselves from these whackos, before it's too late.

[IAN 2411]

Remind me as i am not American, who are the Tea Baggers and Tea Party?

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[denuseri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement isnt wiki wonderful?

[StrictMasterD]

Our Military (In The United States) is ALL Voluntary, if someone who is Gay, wants to Serve His/Her country and put their life on the line so we can continue to Enjoy and Treasure the Freedoms we have, I can support that.

[denuseri]

HI!..Figured I would bump this one since I saw some intrest in this topic shown recently in the forums.

[denuseri]

A group of U.S. service members marched in a San Diego gay pride parade on Saturday, in a demonstration organizers touted as an unprecedented step for gay and lesbian military personnel under the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The military contingent in the parade numbered about 250 people, and the former Navy operations specialist who brought the group together said many are currently in the military, while the rest are veterans. They dressed in civilian clothes.
Marine Corporal Will Rodriguez-Kennedy is on active duty and said he looks forward to next year's parade, when he believes it will be possible to march in "dress blues."
"One of my friends here has been back from Afghanistan for three days, and when he heard about the parade he said he served in uniform and he should be able to march in uniform," said Rodriguez-Kennedy, 24.
It was unclear exactly how many members of the San Diego gay pride parade's military contingent were on active duty. Several participants who spoke to Reuters had recently left the armed services.
Under the military's existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, service members are barred from saying they are gay or lesbian, and that has until now discouraged some members of the military from participating in gay pride parades.
Organizers said the San Diego contingent, which included straight supporters also in the armed services, represented the largest group of members of the military to ever march in the city's gay pride parade, or any similar U.S. event.
Gay service members have been known to march in other pride parades, but usually in a low-key manner without calling attention to themselves.
COURT DECISION
The march came a day after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays, but blocked the Pentagon from penalizing or discharging anyone for being openly gay. The decision marked a reversal from an earlier order to immediately end the policy.
President Barack Obama signed legislation in December to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but the bill gave the Pentagon an unlimited time frame to implement the change, leading up to a final "certification" of the repeal.
That certification is expected within weeks.
In a parade that featured drag queens costumed as nuns and men dressed as pirates with G-strings, the military contingent of mostly men in their 20s and 30s marched in markedly more conservative clothing.
They wore green or grey t-shirts emblazoned with their military branch, and each carried in hand a small U.S. flag.
"This is my first time here, out as who I am: a gay man in the Army Reserves," Dale Smith, 50, told Reuters. "It's a great day for me and for all the gay people who've chosen to serve their country."
A Pentagon spokeswoman said U.S. Department of Defense regulations do not prohibit marching in parades while wearing civilian clothes, and that participation "does not constitute a declaration of sexual orientation."
The military contingent in the San Diego parade was organized by Sean Sala, an openly gay 26 year-old man, who left the Navy in June after six years.
"When we were walking, every step of the way it was standing ovations from the crowd," Sala said. "My mom was with me and it made her cry."
San Diego, California's second-largest city, has a large military presence. The nearby Camp Pendleton is the largest Marine Corps base west of the Mississippi River.

[denuseri]

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.


"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.


The Circuit Court backed up District Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled (http://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010) in August of 2010 that the state of California has no "rational basis" to single out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage. The group fighting for Prop. 8, which passed in 2008 after thousands of gay couples had already married, appealed Walker's decision arguing that it should be vacated because Walker is gay and has a same-sex partner. The 9th Circuit Court judges denied this motion.
Walker's sweeping 2010 decision was called a "grand slam" (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/next-prop-8-case-231953976.html) by gay rights advocates, who hoped it would convince the Supreme Court to rule states cannot outlaw gay marriage. But Reinhardt was explicit in his decision that his ruling is "narrow" and only relates to California, not to the entire nation. In California, gay people had the right to marry for five months before it was taken away by voters. This amounts to a violation of equal protection because a right was specifically taken away from a minority group, Reinhardt writes. But this argument would not apply to gay people in most other states, where gay marriage was never legalized in the first place. "It's a strong decision but it is not the ringing endorsement of broader marriage equality that some might have hoped for," Hunter College professor and gay rights advocate Kenneth Sherrill said.
But University of California Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky tells Yahoo News that the underlying reasoning in the decision is broad--there's no legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage rights. Chemerinsky noted that the decision appeals to swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, by citing his decision in a 1996 case striking down a Colorado law that prevented communities from treating gay people as a protected class.
Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush who represents the plaintiffs, said at a press conference that the decision is the first step to ending discrimination. "Today we are more American because of this decision," he said.
The pro-Prop. 8 camp has said it will appeal the decision. The group can now ask for 11 members of the 9th Circuit hear their case, instead of just the panel of three who decided against them on Tuesday. "Today's ruling finally clears the field for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where we are confident we will be victorious," the Save Prop 8 campaign said in a statement.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

[IAN 2411]

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected.

denu...I really can't make out what all this shit is about. It seems to me that the American leaders and the sheep that follow them in these public displays of bigotry, must love making themselves look like idiots to the rest of the world. If that is a display of American democracy then thank God you have it and the UK has not.

For a man to say, because I don’t like that judges, judgement, I will go and get my case passed through a judge that is like minded as me. That is obscene? I will kick out all judges that I don’t think have my values? I will put in judges that are all of the same value of morals as me?

That is dictatorship and I ask where will it end?

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

For a man to say, because I don’t like that judges, judgement, I will go and get my case passed through a judge that is like minded as me. That is obscene? I will kick out all judges that I don’t think have my values? I will put in judges that are all of the same value of morals as me?
This is the American way, though! After all, who better to decide which person would be best qualified to hold a position requiring intelligence and integrity than an elected official who has not demonstrated either of those qualities?

[lucy]

... must love making themselves look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Ian, it's awfully difficult if not outright impossible not to look like an idiot when you are an idiot.

[StrictMasterD]

No

[thir]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

What kind of restrictions do you mean?

[thir]

I started and answer and now I need to delete it, this is the only way I can.

[IAN 2411]

Same-sex marriage plan 'power grab'
Lord Carey said neither the state nor the church have the right to redefine marriage 'in such a fundamental way'

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey is lending his weight to a campaign against plans to legalise same-sex marriages.

In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey claimed the proposal to change the status of marriage "constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history".

In September, it was announced that the coalition Government would legislate for same-sex marriages by 2015. A public consultation on how to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples is to be launched next month.

Grassroots organisation Coalition for Marriage is launching a campaign against the moves, in a bid to halt attempts to redefine marriage.

The proposals were announced by Lib Dem Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone last year, but senior Tories made clear they had the strong backing of David Cameron - despite the likely opposition of many Conservative traditionalists.

Lord Carey wrote that he was "baffled" by Mr Cameron's statement at last year's Conservative Party conference, in which the Prime Minister said: "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative."

In his article, Lord Carey said: "Like many others, I was baffled by this statement. Not because I begrudge rights and benefits to homosexual couples."

He said he was baffled "because this Government's proposal constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history."

He went on: "The state does not 'own' the institution of marriage. Nor does the church. The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way."

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: "The Coalition for Marriage is intolerant and out of touch. Its support for the ban on gay marriage is homophobic and discrimination. Coalition members are entitled to believe that same-sex marriages are wrong, but they are not entitled to demand that their opposition to such marriages should be imposed on the rest of society and enforced by law."
.............................................

I don’t know why this Priest was made a Lord because he is no Lord of mine. He should stick to his church to be seen and not heard... I will be glad when the House of Lords is reformed and he along with the other hangers on will be kicked out on his ass. If he wants to live in the 19th century than do it quietly, I don’t want to hear this old fashioned bigotry. If it was not for the fact he is a has-been priest and now a Lord he could never get away with talking shit.

Be well IAN 2411