Military Gay Marriage

[colmurph]

Gay marriages will never be permitted in the military unless they throw out the UCMJ. Sodomy is still a punishable crime under the UCMJ and gay's are sodomites.

[BLUEHAWK]

Hope your are right Colonel, hope you are right... in fact, I'm pretty much countin' on the UCMJ to hold up against the PC onslaught.

[theoddz]

If "sodomy" is punishable under the UCMJ, then every time a military member has sexual relations with his/her spouse (I say SPOUSE, because adultery, which is rampant in today's culture is also punishable under the UCMJ), and these people engage in any sexual activity that involves anything else except penile/vaginal penetration, then this military member and his/her SPOUSE can be prosecuted for "sodomy" under the UCMJ.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather my sexual activites not be sanctioned or monitored by a government entity.

[Seascamp]

Observing Countries that have institutionalized homosexual marriage and have a standing military organization could provide some answers as to how all this could play out. Canada and Holland come to mind. Holland adds a level of complexity in that all their military personnel are represented by labor unions and there really isn?t such a thing as what we would consider a regular Army or Navy. Virtually all are Reservists as I understand the Dutch military structure.
But I would agree that the UCMJ; even though selectively applied presently, will be a major roadblock for the foreseeable future and I don?t see that easily overcome regardless of what the non-military norms and laws become. But as in all things I suppose there will be a lot of secret/not so secret homosexual relationships/ marriages going on anyway, regardless of what the UCMJ puts forth. My take right now is that selective application of UCMJ provisions has acted to really water down and dilute it?s effectiveness as a legal tool. The concept of ?don?t ask, don?t tell? directly or indirectly infers that the UCMJ is to be ignored when convenient or desirable. Given that, I?d say that some specific provisions of the UCMJ are ten toes over the line of being revised, but not anytime soon.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

oddz - like you say, and I'd rather NO sexual anything be discussed or controlled by anyone, ANY ONE, ever in this context.
I am dang disturbed that the gay side has made such an issue of this deal... I can see the idea of someone needing their special person(s) to have their bennies given by law and the economy... but fer cryin' out loud, what sex one has or doesn't have is none of anybody's bidness! AND, it sure ain't a cause for granting or withholding anything.

Scampness- excellent observations, as usual.

[theoddz]

....for your understanding of the situation.

As you so aptly put it, being gay is no more to do with what happens in the bedroom as it IS about just living a life in happiness, as we see fit. Having the right to marry, or have the same bennies thereof, would satisfy me. Quite frankly, I really don't care what they call it, as long as the same legal entitlements would prevail.

For me, it's all about what our Constitution provides for, which is simply "equal protection under the law". And as far as President Bush's vow to support an ammendment that would take away a certain group's rights of equal protection provided for by the US Constitution, I would shudder to think what else that would set a precedence for. It would herald the beginning of the end of our democracy, as we would be ammending that precious document to exclude the rights of any group that the "majority" had a problem with. What kind of a democracy would that be??

It's interesting to note, that, in 1850, the majority of the US population actively supported the idea of slavery (or was indifferent to it). Just because the majority of a population supports an idea, does not make it right. Slavery was an abomination and, thank heavens, our Constitution prevailed and provided, once again, "equal protection under the law" was granted to the African-American population.

Do gays deserve anything less?? The Religious Right Wing Republicans are all in favor of depriving our nation's gay citizens of our rights, which are guaranteed under the law. If pressed, this group has, at the base of its reasoning, a religious notion that being homosexual is "against God". Well, here we go again with "separation of Church and State", which is also protected under the Constitution.

I'm not going to go into my personal religious beliefs, because I don't desire to get the right wingers here riled up. I just wanted to have my say in a peaceful environment where we have a good open-minded moderator who is willing to give all sides a voice in the discussion.

Thanks for listening.

[BLUEHAWK]

Oddz -

Well, if I took it the right way, then you are we;lcome... it just doesn't seem like that it OUGHT to even BE discussed... the way it is being now. Anybody who wants to designate anybody they please to receive their inheritance or benefits has every right to do so and to change their mind... I don't see what the problem with that is. Getting the whole marriage thing involved with it is just plain dumb.

I hope your life goes well Oddz, and that one way or another it will settle down sooner than later, get it off the newspaper and TV, and you can do as you please with your hard-earned personal economics.

[Andy]

Equal rights under the law.

A man and woman can usually marry. OK, so two men or two women should be able to marry. OK, then a brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter should be able to marry. OK then a man should be able to have several wives or a woman several husbands. OK, a 35 year old falls in love with a 11 year old and they marry. Everyone should have equal right?

Wait a minute, my religion says that during church services no one will take a sip of wine but we will use drugs so we can hallucinate in an effort to get closer to our god. My religion also forbids me from paying state or federal taxes. I?m only allowed to tithe to my church.

Equal protection should not be a license to engage in any activity. With equal protection comes collective responsibility. Marriage was created in conjunction with biology. One man and one woman should be able to engage in marriage. If, mostly for monetary reasons, a same sex couple wants to have a civil union under civil law, I see no problem. Has there ever been a society in history that had gay marriage? There is a long history of gays and bi-sexual people who left their mark but were any of them married? Do you think gay marriage just never passed the ?reasonableness test??

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Seascamp]

I really think the time for reasonable and rational thought is past us now and no matter what we may believe or think the institution of homosexual marriage has been ramrod-forced down our muzzles, that?s a done deal. The Massachusetts Supreme Court Judges decision has sent shock waves across the land and what I see now is that the Mayor of San Francisco has taken the vote mandate away from the people of California and now Judges refuse to validate proposition 22 and enforce the law. The California Attorney General, only very reluctantly, will follow the instructions of the Governor to enforce the law but that will only be a token effort, at best. Illinois and New Mexico are chomping at the bit to join the civil disobedience and blow right on by existing laws but are waiting to see what happens in California. Beyond that, we can expect to see cave-ins/civil disobedience almost everywhere. Plus we can expect to see incredibly expensive lawsuits stacking up as far as the eye can see and beyond.
But the biggest causality of all is that we are having another object lesson that laws don?t matter, votes don?t matter and the majority will doesn?t matter, only Liberalism matters. And once again we see that Massachusetts?s activists Judges are the dogs and the rest of the States are mere tails for their lab rat experiments and social engineering projects. This isn?t going to play well at all, guaranteed, but I don?t suppose those Judges give a pig?s butt about anything but their arrogance, stupid ego trips and that we all ?eat cake?.

At the end of the day, the legitimate needs of homosexual individuals will not be met and another round of deep resentment will be on the plate and that is too bad. What may have seemed as a bold step forward will end up being miles in the opposite direction and that is tragic, but reality.

In the humor of it all I guess Bush and Kerry agree on at least one thing eh. But I expect Kerry will wiggle-worm/osmossis into a pro-homosexual marriage posture once his Spin Doctors get his new script worked out. That will clear a field of fire to blast away at Bush as the identified and supposed ?boogieman-homophobic minion of evil?.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Unless I am mistaken (again), wouldn't it be true to say that were it not for the government and businesses KEEPING people from designating anybody they please as beneficiaries or survivor's or whatever, then this whole thing probably would never have come up in the first place?