Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
Ok...I was thinking of the anti-sodomy laws purely in the private context. I'll admit that I haven't looked enough into the issue as far as public sodomy, although I'd wonder why that didn't fall under some larger public indecency act covering all public sexual acts.
|
They probably do.
It's also probably worth nothing in the context of the thread that Clinton's DADT really doesn't deal with orientation or private behavior. It seems to me to deal with requiring people to be closeted.
Sure, it holds homosexuals to a different standard than heterosexuals, but it also doesn't seek to evaluate orientation or private behavior and act on it.
ETA: Nevermind, a mere suspicion of behavior means that a supervisor can "ask" and investigate, so I think I was way too optimistic. It definitely seeks to evaluate orientation in cases where there's some reason to be suspicious. A quote from wikipedia: "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender."