Dadt gone!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:00 pm

Congress repeals 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays in military | McClatchy

It's about time, I'm glad this is finally over.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Amen..!!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:20 pm

Did they also eliminate the military regulation that makes it illegal to be a homosexual? Remember, that's the whole reason DADT was enacted.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:25 pm

Accountable;1347229 wrote: Did they also eliminate the military regulation that makes it illegal to be a homosexual? Remember, that's the whole reason DADT was enacted.Good question, I don't know

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:38 pm

http://milcom.jag.af.mil/Military_CC_and_Law_2009.pdf

Page 292. Apparently the actual UCMJ still isn't online.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:42 pm

Accountable;1347236 wrote: http://milcom.jag.af.mil/Military_CC_and_Law_2009.pdf

Page 292. Apparently the actual UCMJ still isn't online.Changing the UCMJ will hopefully be the next step.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:55 pm

The UCMJ has regs against PDA (public display of affection). That should have always been enough.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:48 pm

Ahso!;1347225 wrote: Congress repeals 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays in military | McClatchy

It's about time, I'm glad this is finally over.

Still got a couple of hoops to get through, and then 60 days to be activated.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:39 pm

Accountable;1347241 wrote: The UCMJ has regs against PDA (public display of affection). That should have always been enough.

I was just reading Defense.gov News Article: DOD and wondered whether any statement had ever existed which defined what wasn't to be told, out of "don't ask, don't tell". I'd got as far as disbarring people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" which suggests to me that anyone who had never actually engaged in genital play with others of the same sex was always in the clear. Or does "homosexual acts" cover more than that? Did the regulations seriously disbar people whose behaviour strayed into "camp"? Or am I misreading your "public display of affection" comment?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:53 pm

Ahso!;1347225 wrote: Congress repeals 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays in military | McClatchy

It's about time, I'm glad this is finally over.

Well I think it was the right thing to do, I am glad its over myself.

Peace.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:40 pm

I found out what homosexuality is, if that helps the discussion.2. Homosexual. A person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

3. Homosexual Act. a. Any bodily contact actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires, and b. Any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (a) above.

4. Homosexual Conduct. Engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; a statement by the Service member that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex.

5. Propensity. The likelihood a person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts, beyond a mere abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts.

www.uscg.mil/directives/cn/1000-1999/CN ... 0_4_23.pdf

So it's definitely acts that have been legalized, not "a mere abstract preference or desire". Where that leaves demonstrations of affection I'm not sure. Those paragraphs are entirely focused on bodily acts.

It's quite a while since the UK Armed Forces discriminated against homosexuality. And I'm sure they've never discriminated against public demonstrations of affection. The idea of the Royal Navy ever having been devoid of camp ratings is absurd.

Besides, what else was South Pacific all about?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:52 pm

spot;1347475 wrote: I was just reading Defense.gov News Article: DOD and wondered whether any statement had ever existed which defined what wasn't to be told, out of "don't ask, don't tell". I'd got as far as disbarring people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" which suggests to me that anyone who had never actually engaged in genital play with others of the same sex was always in the clear. Or does "homosexual acts" cover more than that? Did the regulations seriously disbar people whose behaviour strayed into "camp"? Or am I misreading your "public display of affection" comment?"No PDA" is a mantra we heard from Day One in the Air Force, especially during tech school (specialty school after basic military training) where young people were finally free after 6-9 weeks of total abstinence. It's unprofessional to engage in hand-holding, butt grabbing, sucking face, etc. while in uniform. I would think it covers homosexual acts as well as it has always covered heterosexual ones, and thus should be all that is needed.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:54 pm

Nearly everyone on my ship could have been charged under those conditions because it was very common for guys to joke around with one another with simulated sex acts by humping at other members. You know, like dogs do to each other to express domination.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:56 am

just came across that obama sign the billing ending this