The problem with repealing "Don't ask, don't tell"

The concept of "Don't ask, don't tell", established during the Clinton years, was not only a viable option for gays and lesbians to use in serving in the US Military, rather, it was a opportunity for heterosexuals to bypass the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

When in the military you are governed by a different set of rules than the average citizen, called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ for short. The section of the UCMJ specifically regarding the code of conduct of a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine with regards to "homosexuality" is UCMJ Article 125 - Sodomy. The UCMJ, as taught during basic training, is a higher standard to which enlisted men and officers must hold themselves as representatives of the United States Military. It is a series of strict guidelines, restricting how you talk (no swearing), how you dress, how you organize your closet, etc. It is difficult for non-military individuals to understand the pride and honor that is supposed to go into being in the military - the honor of serving in the defense of the states. Orders like "Don't ask, don't tell" encourage deceit in the face of the UCMJ, and should absolutely be stricken down.

However, this does not come without a cost - which brings me back to the Article 125 issue. The wording of 125 is as follows:

“TEXT: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) With a child under the age of 16.

(a) Article 125—forcible sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (2) below)

(b) Article 134—indecent acts with a child under 16

(c) Article 80—attempts

(2) Forcible sodomy.

(a) Article 125—sodomy (and offenses included therein; see subparagraph (3) below)

(b) Article 134—assault with intent to commit sodomy

(c) Article 134—indecent assault

(d) Article 80—attempts.

(3) Sodomy.

(a) Article 134—indecent acts with another: 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.

(b) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

(1) By force and without consent. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(2) With a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 but is under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.

(3) With a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life without eligibility for parole.

(4) Other cases. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years"

In general, the "offense" of the homosexual soldier is Sodomy - an act that is defined as openly and morally depraved - including oral and anal sex of all manners. Such conduct, in regards to the UCMJ, is less than honorable, and worthy of punishment.

My question is this: to what standards do we hold our men and women who serve? Should they encourage depraved acts of purely carnal pleasure, or should the military uphold sodomy laws during terms of service - demanding a higher standard of self control in what is right or not?

Of course, our society now openly embraces oral sex, anal sex, freaky this, and sexy that... commercials are Cialis followed by Victoria Secret followed by Viagra... there are low rise jeans, low V shirts, wonder bras, and "Go Daddy" ads... We are a sexually charged, uncontrolled, and sexually addicted society. Don't believe me? Where Playboy and Hustler were the "Taboo" of my youth, children today are barraged with free online hardcore sexual images and videos - one being so bold at one point to obtain the domain name "whitehouse.com" (as opposed to whitehouse.gov) which lead you to explicit images (this site has since been removed - I ran across this one at age 17). Every aspect of marketing and entertainment drive toward the carnal sexual desire.

So what?

Do we lower our expectations of our military men and women? Do we encourage acts of sodomy? Do we care? Do we hold ourselves to any standard, or does it not matter? Does carnal pleasure lead to evils of one sort or another? Does current conduct of military personnel indicate an adherence to sodomy laws? Are those military laws simply outdated?

There are a few points that need to be addressed for the sake of this argument - so please let me round this up:

1. You cannot simply repeal DADT without addressing the UCMJ guidelines on Sodomy. What is the military law is the military law - DADT was a 'verbal' order to ignore certain parts of the written military law. Should the UCMJ be changed?

2. There is a double standard - that which the "market" expects of us (sexual desire) and that which the UCMJ expects of the soldiers. Should we hold our service personnel to a higher moral standard than that of the sexually charged civilian populace?

3. Our enlisted men now perform acts of sodomy, and more. There are soldiers who target married women, and those who have the pictures to prove it (both in violation of UCMJ). There are those in civilian life who do the same. Does living a "carnal" lifestyle in private adversely affect one's ability to perform job functions?

4. There is no doubt that our society has changed over the last 234 years with regards, specifically, to sexual promiscuity - from both sexes. Do we hinder ourselves by adhering to "arcane" laws such as those pertaining to Sodomy, or is this the last shred of sexual moral fiber to which we should hold ever more tightly?

The problem with repealing DADT is not so much the act of allowing gays in the military as it is asking the military to lower the standard code of conduct to allow that which was once regarded as 'moral depravity'. Should the military be expected to control the sexual desires and conduct of those in service to this degree?

In this great experiment in liberty, at what point do we define (and subsequently redefine) morality?

Repealing DADT is easy to say, and easy to do - the simple stroke of a pen. But rewriting the UCMJ's Sodomy laws... what does that say about how far we've come...

Domestic Partnership on the Ballot In WA State - Ref 71

The talk radio airwaves are full of advertisements calling for the rejection of Ref 71 in Washington State, a referendum addressing Gay Marriage versus Domestic Partnership Laws. The text of the referendum reads:

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688[4] concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

Should this bill be:

Approved ___
Rejected ___

Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.

The problem is two fold. Social Conservatives see this as a bridge to Gay Marriage recognition in the state of Washington, and Gays and Lesbians who may otherwise be sympathetic to the Tea Party "Limited Government" cause are being turned away from "Conservative" issues because of the dictation of "Social Morality."

The rift in the Republican Party is the loyalty to social causes, regardless of the impact on true liberty. In this way, Republicans use the power of elected office to dictate social morality. This is wrong. It is this abuse of power that is the cause of concern when democrats dictate social morality when it comes to expression of religion or attacking Fox News as a legitimate news source. This is wrong. This is not the intended use of government in the United States. It is not a force to rule, but rather a mediator to the Just Rule of Law, protecting Persons and Property - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What is the TRUE ROLE of Government? What authority do we want to give the government, understanding that if we give a certain power, it is bound to be used against us when the "others" are in control... which holds true for whichever side of the aisle you find yourself seated. How much liberty are you willing to surrender?

Considering Domestic Partnership. I cannot advocate more for the cause of liberty, especially when it comes to an individual's free choice to grant power of attorney or trust over their own person or property. The law should not dictate morality. Rather it should allow for equal protection under the law. As such, as a true advocate for absolute liberty and with an understanding that government has the most limited role in our daily lives, it is only right to support legislation that protects equal rights for all.

Considering Gay Marriage. Marriage, as is defined in the Pierce County (WA) Marriage License, is a "blessed event". As such, the government should eliminate all forms of licensing or regulating marriage. Of course, protection of minors, the population from incest, etc. should be expected and upheld, but the concept of marriage as a "blessed event" should be eliminated from government control. We should advocate for a move to a single service system of "Common Law" property and legal authority to protect individual and joint property - a contract between two adults with a common interest in the legal protection of property.

Let us take into consideration a group of three women, 60 years or older, all of whom are heterosexual, widowed or never married, and who all decide that for their safety and friendship they will live together. They all use equal sums of money to purchase a home, are equally responsible for the maintenance of the property, and have equal share in the decoration and furnishing of the home. Because of their common interest they choose to also investigate the legality of being labelled as the "care-taker" for one another to allow access or medical decision authority in the case of emergency. These women should have the ability to willingly allow certain legal privileges to their "domestic partners". Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this case, but should the women happen to be intimate with one another, the legal basis for their desire to allow legal authority over their person or property is no less substantiated.

Because of relocation issues, I was not eligible to register to vote in this November 3rd election. However, as a staunch conservative and Liberty Republican, I openly support Referendum 71 as a cause for Personal Liberty in this State.

For those of us who support the cause of the tea parties, the cause of liberty from excessive government control, and who support true reduction in the size of government, it is necessary to consider the power which you are willing to grant to government. As I said, it is a power which may be used against you at some point in the future.

Miss California USA, the Gay Mob, and My Outrage

Carrie Prejean answered a question on same sex marriage the way that about 80% of Americans would - that she believes we should live under a set of rules that limit legal marriage between one man and one woman. Instant outcry from the Gay Panelist Judge, Perez Hilton, created an instant internet buzz and eventual media blitz. The media reported the question and answer as "Controversial"... and I have promised to stay away from junk news, until now... where there is an actual story.

There are three issues within this story -

1. When is an issue considered "controversial"?
2. The defamation of character as a tactic of the left.
3. The insane anger of the gay-lobby.

From the beginning of this "story" the media reported that Miss USA California was asked a "controversial" question, or that she gave a controversial answer. The question was: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or Why Not?" Her answer: "I think it is great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. In my family, I was raised, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to any body out there, but that is how I was raised and that is how I think it should be, between a man and a woman." The answer she gave is the same answer that Obama gave during an election cycle interview:


The controversy of this statement made by Miss USA California is not in what she said - but that she dared to say it directly to a Gay judge. What began the story is not her answer, but the angry tirade that followed by Perez Hilton - where he called her an explicative "B" word, which he openly reinforced by following it up on MSNBC by calling her an explicative "C" word. The controversy is that an individual dared to challenge the gay-lobby, and openly admitted to her belief in traditional marriage.

In response to Carrie Prejean's answer, the enraged gay-lobby began an investigation into Carrie's background - looking for anything that may be used to discredit and destroy the high-profile advocate for Same Sex Marriage. What they found where images of her modeling for lingerie - and further semi-topless art photos that are completely tasteful and artistic (photo courtesy of TMZ.com). They have set out on a crusade to destroy this woman's life, attempt to destroy her career, and to attempt to defame her character - all because they see her as a threat - one who is not afraid to take the state and suggest that she supports the same position as a super majority of Americans when it comes to traditional marriage. As I previously mentioned, this is a common tactic of those on the left - hold conservatives to the higher standard to which they subscribe, while living in a set of morals that are of a lower standard and thus suggest that they can "get away" with their actions. This double standard tactic is often used by the left - and is nothing but a straw man. It is a distraction with pure malicious intent.

I believe that Miss USA California should take the podium, acknowledge that the photos are of her and that she took them willingly, reveal the photos in larger than life B/W prints behind her from beneath a curtain, and deliver a speech on the history of artwork involving the human body - dating back to the earliest days of human civilization... reference the Venus De Milo, with both breasts exposed (oh, the horror!) She should end her speech with a resounding "SHAME ON YOU" to Perez Hilton and his ilk for attempting to vilify a woman because of her traditional beliefs, and for her artistic free expression of her body.

Finally, what needs to be addressed is the insane anger of the gay-lobby. This includes grassroots gay-activists, as well as "celebrity gossip columnists" like Perez Hilton. After Prop. 8 recognized marriage in California's Constitution as a legal union between one man and one woman, the gay-lobby was so enraged that they attacked Mormon temples, assaulted members of churches, burned copies of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Again, we see another case of outrage and anger - to the point where their specific intent is to DESTROY the opposition. I argue that their anger is misplaced, as is the the focus of their fight... from a military standpoint, the worst combat decision for a minority force is frontal assault - blunt force will not work when you are outnumbered. Even when you attempt to snipe advocates of traditional marriage, your tactic is still blunt force... it is wrong, and grossly misplaced.

I am outraged that such attacks against NON-GAYS are not classified as "hate crimes" - a protection that a gay-rights advocate can claim if ever attacked, physically or otherwise... There is unequal footing, and it does nothing but add to the frustration and outrage on both sides.

The solution is simple - Leave government out of marriage. Stop making laws regulating religious rights - it is in violation of the Constitution. Stop providing tax benefits for marriages, stop issuing marriage licenses, stop treating marriage as a legal right, and return it to faith.