Don't Ask, Don't Tell declared unconstittuional

[sdtennisgal]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

DADT is a law but didn't amend the UCMJ. It just said that you couldn't seek out whether or not someone was gay and that as long as the person didn't "admit" to it they could be gay in the military.

The UCMJ currently states that homosexual conduct (not like on the front lines but AT ALL) is grounds for separation. (The policy is in pdf form here) And it puts into practice this US Code:
10 USC 654


So, currently, revoking DADT doesn't solve the problem that being gay in the military will get you discharged.

Drolefille: Just to clarify...DADT is not part of the "punative articles" of the UCMJ (i.e., the specific criminal laws that a service member can face a courts martial for violating, for instance Article 92 - disobeying a lawful order, Article 120 - Rape, etc.). A soldier can't be criminally charged for "being gay," but they can be ADMINISTRATIVELY separated under the provisions you quoted, which is like being "fired for cause." Most administrative separations in the military are for things like poor performance, losing a security clearance, drug and alcohol rehab failure, failure to pass physical fitness tests, etc.

It should be pointed out that a service member can face charges under the UCMJ for homosexual conduct, such as rape, carnal knowledge, indecent exposure, prostitution, etc. In my opinon, this is even MORE of a reason to repeal DADT, since there are mechanisms in place to prosecute service members of any sexual persuasion for inappropriate conduct.

One last thing: There was a recent change (largely unnoticed by the media) concerning what can be used to trigger an investigation into sexual orientation status. It was mainly a list of what CAN'T be used: Information that comes up in a security clearance investigation and anonymous "informants" chief among them, as these were two of the main reasons these investigations would be started in the past.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sdtennisgal

Drolefille: Just to clarify...DADT is not part of the "punative articles" of the UCMJ (i.e., the specific criminal laws that a service member can face a courts martial for violating, for instance Article 92 - disobeying a lawful order, Article 120 - Rape, etc.). A soldier can't be criminally charged for "being gay," but they can be ADMINISTRATIVELY separated under the provisions you quoted, which is like being "fired for cause." Most administrative separations in the military are for things like poor performance, losing a security clearance, drug and alcohol rehab failure, failure to pass physical fitness tests, etc.

It should be pointed out that a service member can face charges under the UCMJ for homosexual conduct, such as rape, carnal knowledge, indecent exposure, prostitution, etc. In my opinon, this is even MORE of a reason to repeal DADT, since there are mechanisms in place to prosecute service members of any sexual persuasion for inappropriate conduct.

One last thing: There was a recent change (largely unnoticed by the media) concerning what can be used to trigger an investigation into sexual orientation status. It was mainly a list of what CAN'T be used: Information that comes up in a security clearance investigation and anonymous "informants" chief among them, as these were two of the main reasons these investigations would be started in the past.

However until the homosexual conduct = separation policy is changed, repealing DADT only makes it easier to discharge gay people from the military.

That doesn't mean that Congress wouldn't do both at the same time, I think it's very possible that whatever is passed will revoke DADT and amend the USC. The UCMJ will then be amended by whoever actually does that part to put the new USC into effect.

I worked in government bureaucracy long enough to figure out the hurdles

I just think it's important to point out that while DADT was not a good thing, it was put into place as kind of a half-ass way to let gays serve without making it "OK" and condoning the icky gay people.

ETA: And I am actually familiar with the newer restrictions on investigation, however it's still asking gay servicemen and women to live a lie. You can't have a picture of a partner hanging around and you can't talk about what you're going to do on leave, or why you don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend.