A serious question about DADT

[Stinky The Clown]

I am no lawyer, as will be evident by this question.

It seems to me the essence of the law is that if you are gay and serving in the military, you cannot proclaim your sexuality. If you do, they can discharge you for no reason other than being gay.

On the other hand, they have no authority to look into your sexuality.

So . . . . does it not follow that if a third party outs a gay person, the gay person broke no law and the military has no authority to investigate. No one with legal standing asked or told.




If that simplistic overview is true, how is the military discharging people who never "told?"

[MineralMan]

1. "Credible Information" can also be used. To understand what

that means, here's an illustration, directly from an army training guide:




This is sourced from the Wikipedia article on DADT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

[ruggerson]

2. because they can do whatever the hell they want to

once they know that someone is gay. The statute has been abused for many years.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Homosexuality is illegal in the military under Article 125

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 125—Sodomy
By Rod Powers, About.com Guide
.Filed In:US Military
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.”

Before DADT it was instant BCD, and was against regulations. DADT allowed gays to serve as long as they remained in the closset, and kept the military from looking for people who were violating the UCMJ.

Before DADT, GLBT were not allowed to serve in the military in any capacity open or in the closet.

However, if a Gay person is outed, no matter how, the person is out of the military under DADT.

[SanchoPanza]

4. They have authority once a credible accusation is made.

There are three ways a person can be discharged under DADT. Proclaiming oneself to be a homosexual, as you said, is one way. Another way is to attempt to marry someone of the same biological gender.

The third way, relevant to your question, is if a person has (from the text of the statute):

ENGAGED IN, ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE IN, OR SOLICITED ANOTHER TO ENGAGE IN A HOMOSEXUAL ACT OR ACTS UNLESS THERE ARE FURTHER FINDINGS, MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SUCH REGULATIONS, THAT THE MEMBER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT-
(A) SUCH CONDUCT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE MEMBER'S USUAL AND CUSTOMARY BEHAVIOR;
(B) SUCH CONDUCT, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS UNLIKELY TO RECUR;
(C) SUCH CONDUCT WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF FORCE, COERCION, OR INTIMIDATION;
(D) UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MEMBER'S CONTINUED PRESENCE IN THE ARMED FORCES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN PROPER DISCIPLINE, GOOD ORDER, AND MORALE; AND
(E) THE MEMBER DOES NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY OR INTENT TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

This is the section where gay servicemembers who have been outed by a another servicemember come in. This section generally creates a legal loophole where someone who wants a homosexual (or perceived homosexual) to be drummed out of the military can claim that said member made sexual advances against them (if they are the same gender) or someone of the same gender that they know, or they found out that the servicemember has made sexual advances toward, or had sex with, a member of the same sex outside the military. Finding out through items like diaries or letters are admissible.

The military then has to launch an investigation to determine whether or not the servicemember does not qualify for an exemption under the above five criteria.

[DevonRex]

5. They have authority if somebody "outs" them. And it happens a lot.

From what I've been told, they're frequently outed by coworkers who dislike them for other reasons - like the gay soldier was promoted ahead of them, or the gay soldier was even just better at their job and so he got plum assignments, etc.

I was in the Army before DADT. When I was in it was the investigators who regularly followed gay soldiers to see what they did in their off hours. Everyone in my unit protected those that we knew to be gay. But then we were in MI. We had endured almost 2 years of training together before we got to our permanent assignments. We knew each other well and we respected each other. There was a bond that none of us would have broken for anyone or anything.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

6. who engages in unnatural carnal copulation, WELL WE JUST DECLARE TO TO BE PERFECTLY NATURAL

WHAT COULD BE MORE NATURAL THEN HAVING BUTT SEX WITH YOUR BOY FRIEND ?

[MrScorpio]

7. The military has used 3rd parties to pursue investigations

Think of that case in SD where to cops saw a marriage license though the window on a kitchen table of a troop and then reported to her base as a gay marriage.

Shit sucks I know.

What it is, is that DADT has been used as a tool to purge the military by a cadre of bigots.

With DADT no longer around, those bigots no longer have a leg to stand on.

Everyone needs to prepare themselves for a new era, where sexuality means nothing.

But, there is a downside... As of yet, there are no protections in place to protect gay and lesbian troops from a purge by other means.

One fix at a time, I guess.

[TheWraith]

8. That was supposed to be the original deal.

The idea behind DADT when it was first fashioned was that the military would not make inquiries about the private behavior of gay troops, even if for instance that "private behavior" was attending a gay pride parade on personal time.

In practice though, the mid to upper level brass haven't been willing to operate that way.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. See, that's what I thought. If we simply followed the damned law, there would be no purges.

In essence, that makes what was done to so many of our military just plain illegal. In essence, the military "asked"."

No, I am not looking for a way to keep it in place.