Today's Seattle Times reports: "Lesbian challenges military policy". A decorated Air Force nurse from McChord Air Force Base was suspended for being a lesbian. Major Margaret Witt has now filed suit in federal district court in Seattle to prevent her discharge from the military:
"My objective really is to go back to my unit, serve my country and help the injured troops that need me at this time," she said at a news conference at the office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed the suit on her behalf. ... Witt, who is technically still a member of the 446th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron at McChord, has provided medical assistance and helped transport injured U.S. soldiers and other multinational-coalition forces in the Afghanistan conflict.This is one of those rare occasions when the ACLU is doing something that I can agree with. Major Witt's private life is irrelevant to her service and none of the military's business. The injured troops she would be caring for need her. Her country needs her. Let her serve. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 13, 2006 08:42 AM | Email This
Anyone who wishes to serve thier country should be commended. I find it ironic that we we are recruiting criminals and kicking out people who have clean records.
Posted by: BV on April 13, 2006 08:57 AMI agree with Stefan's analysis 100%. Private life is not the business of government, and she wants to serve and therefore should be allowed to do her job.
This is very true, but for her to be told that she will be seperated from the military she must have outed herself wich violates the Dont ask DOnt tell policy. Therefore she was not keeping this as part of her "private life".
Anyone who wishes to serve thier country should be commended. I find it ironic that we we are recruiting criminals and kicking out people who have clean records.
The only way a criminal can be recruited is with a waiver and they will only get a waiver for something minor. In otherwords Felons need not apply.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 13, 2006 09:17 AMThe only way that she would be getting discharged is if she violated the highly-publicized policy, implemented by Congress during Clinton; "don't ask, don't tell".
She is under contract, sounds like she broke the contract.
Posted by: Shaun on April 13, 2006 09:28 AMThe article says that "she never told colleagues about her sexual orientation", and that somebody else outed her.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 13, 2006 09:32 AMI haven't served since long before Don't Ask Don't Tell. How does it work if somebody outside the service outs you?
Posted by: RBW on April 13, 2006 09:47 AMBut that obscures the bigger point. Why should the military deprive itself of the services of someone who performs their job well, solely because of their sexual orientation? I have a hard time understanding why, especially at a time of war, we would turn away people who are eager to serve and perform their duties?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 13, 2006 09:50 AMA: she violated the policy
or
B: her chain of command violated her rights.
Look at the facts homosexuals have infested & co-opted every sector of our society with their liberal Socialist agenda, our bureaucracies, courts, political arena are all infected with gay cronyism and their leftist agenda.
The only reason the military hasn't been effected is because of their don't ask don't tell policy.
Remove the policy and gay ideologues will take over every aspect of our military and destroy it just like everything else they've touched.
The gay are corrosive & corrupt, homosexuality used to be a mental illness, and a security risk, anybody who knows gay folks knows their misery, substance abuse, and outright contempt for all traditions and fidelities.
Gays can't even trust their own mates and we're supposed to turn over national security to them?
Look at the gay agenda-it's all Communist, Socialist or fascist, they'll team up with anybody literally and politically.
If Islam endorsed homosexuality-they'd convert.
Oh ya and if you "open the doors" to gays in the military thousands of heterosexual patriot warriors WILL BAIL.
Posted by: Smitty on April 13, 2006 10:03 AMPerhaps Major Witt's partner was threatened with the "it's a crime to lie to a federal officer" that landed Martha Stewart in jail. So she can't lie, and she can't claim marital privilege. Gay marriage wouldn't solve this problem because if Major Witt were to get married it would be a tacit admission of lesbian sex, thus exposing her to discharge from the military. It's ironic, but if my presumption in the first two sentences of this paragraph is correct, then the only thing that would have protected Major Witt's partner is an anti-sodomy law; then she could claim 5th amendment rights against self incrimination.
The military should take the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at its word. Major Witt didn't tell, and they shouldn't have asked.
Let her serve.
We are sexual beings, especially at that age. That is my problem.
The times you live off base- then fine, but once you have to live in close quarters like they do, it is another story. I have the same problem with opposite sex in tight quarters, BTW. But at least there, you aren't spending all your time in the same proximity of the bunks as the two sexes have different quarters and you 'tag' up in different places.
Out in the workplace- then it is another story. What is the ratio- 9 support people for one person in the trenches?
So, this 'serve my country', etc. rhetoric doesn't cut it when dealing with homosexuals, etc. when you have tight and close quarters. That is why the policy is there in the first place.
Civilian life, Stefan, is much, much different from military. If you choose to be around that lifestyle you can (I have had gay dentists and house designers), but don't force me to share living quarters.
Other than that, okay.
That's not the question at issue. This is:
Witt's case is one of two active lawsuits, both with local ties, that challenge the constitutionality of the military's ban on openly gay personnel, under a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
I don't believe she has a constitutionally protected right to serve. The discussion on this thread addresses whether the policy makes sense. Those are two different issues; those who fail to see the difference had best get used to judges making decisions about their lives. Court rulings where judges throw out the Defense of Marriage Act because a particular judge does not "see the logic" of a particular law come to mind.
Posted by: South County on April 13, 2006 10:15 AMNow, having said this, I think it's appropriate to bring UCMJ against soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who display inappropriate sexual conduct [i]while in uniform.[/i] This goes for straights and gays both, and pertains to maintaining military discipline and bearing.
But why in the world do we want to kick out NCO's and officers who are currently serving, but just happen to be homosexual? Especially if they have a satisfactory or even exemplary service record? Good lord, if our goal is to divorce ourselves from those we deem "sexually deviant", half the gottdamned military is going to get kicked out!
What a grown man or woman chooses to do with him or herself in his or her private life, is his or her business. So long as it does not impact his or her ability to execute the mission, we should not care, and their careers should not be affected negatively.
Quite frankly, I'd rather see the military actively pursue and punish the wife beaters and child abusers in its ranks.
Homosexuals in uniform are, in my experience, harmless.
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on April 13, 2006 10:21 AMBut, in retrospect, at least the gays I know are five times as clean as some of the slobs I bunked with.
Posted by: swatter on April 13, 2006 10:26 AMBut I, for one, don't believe the military is a place for ANY compromise, because no social experiment is worth compromising the strength and precision of our military. Also, the term "no man is an island" is directly relevant here. Whether or not this woman thinks or believes her personal habits or "private behavior" has an effect on those around her, they in fact do. No different than if the married CEO of a company is fooling around with his executive secretary. Or somebody is "expressing themselves" with facial hardware or excessive tatoos. While a person may THINK that it's their own business, and nobody should be affected by it, it still creates a ripple effect.
Is the military a place where we really want to draw a soldier's focus away from the objective??
Posted by: Brian C on April 13, 2006 10:30 AMSo.. by this logic, it's okay for the President of the US to commit adultery and then lie about it because it was his "private life". Coming from someone who harps on rules, Shark? I expect better on this. Don't ask Don't tell(Public Law 103-160, codified as 10 USC Sec 654) was passed by the Congress (which has the authority to lay out rules concerning the conduct of the armed forces, as spelled out in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8)in 1993. The policy, regardless of whether or not it is flawed, is the rule. She broke the rule. End of story.
Want the rule changed? Fine. Vote, start a proposal, get someone to sponsor it, get it passed. Until then, rules is rules.
Posted by: Aaron on April 13, 2006 10:35 AMIssue 2: She knew when she was commissioned that she was a lesbian. Thus, she was lying thru inference when she took her oath.
Issue 3: The military has the right to regulate conduct. The military has the right to determine entrance standards.
Issue 4: What was conveniently left out of the article concerning Watkins is, first of all, he was drafted (he didn't enlist) and secondly, he informed the Army he was gay when they drafted him... and, for whatever the reason, they didn't believe him. That is the only reason he won his case.
Issue 5: One does not "rapidly rise through the ranks" when one is a major at 19 years.
In the end, if you don’t like the military’s rules, then don’t enlist. But to lie about it and then get upset when you’re caught in your lie… well, frankly, she has no bitch coming.
The West Point Honor Code sums it up for all officers: "I will neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal, nor allow a misleading silence to continue, nor tolerate anyone who does."
She has no right to stay. And that you don't understand or approve of that is really rather meaningless, Shark.
Posted by: Hinton on April 13, 2006 11:11 AMSexual immorality is chief among sins, second only to murder. People who commit these acts don't value their bodies and other's bodies, have a whimsical view of their role in procreation, and show that they don't guard and reserve those powers for the one place it can be used properly: in the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman who love each other and want to bring children into this world.
I don't think anyone who doesn't value sexual purity should be allowed to serve in the military (or hold any position in our government). Certainly anyone who violated the principles of sexual purity should be held to account and kicked out and/or punished it if is severe. Being homosexual isn't a crime, anymore than being heterosexual or asexual. However, having sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage should be a crime (because it is a sin), regardless of what type of relation it was or with what age the other person was.
To give you an idea of what "private sins" cause, I would like to take you on a tour of parts of Seoul, Korea. These are the areas that were built and populated by prostitutes because our American soldiers were over there paying young girls for sex. There isn't just the prostitutes, but there are the pimps, the gangs that control the area, and the government and police that refuse to enforce the laws on the books in those areas. Then there are the countless number of women seduced into a "well-paying" lifestyle, and the countless number of men who find it all too easy to find a prostitute in Seoul. But let's not forget the weakening of public morality. (After all, since prostitution is "ok", then free sex is "ok" and so is cheating on your wife and ruining your family. In fact, everything that "feels good" is good for you, traditions and morality be damned.) Yes, this "private sin" created an entire industry of public sin and created massive destruction.
There are reasons for the commandments God inscribed on that piece of rock so many thousands of years ago. There are reasons that you only have to exercise a bit of your brain to understand. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Why are so many couples divorced, so many children fatherless, and so many people's futures crushed from the time of their infancy? Because of sexual impurity, because of this "private" sin.
"But hey, it's my life I can ruin it right?" Sure, go ahead, but keep in mind the effect you are having on everyone else in this planet, and remember that you will be held to account not just for the damage you caused yourself, but the damage that you caused them. And you will also be held to account for breaking the hearts of your ancestors who invested so much of their blood, sweat, and tears in providing for you a world that you can live in safely.
And we as a people will be held to account as well if we stand idly by and allow people to choose death and destruction without warning them of the consequences and doing our best to persuade them to choose life.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 13, 2006 11:14 AMWell said, Mr. Gardner!!
Posted by: Brian C on April 13, 2006 11:22 AMMajor Witt should be retianed in the AF Reserves.
Posted by: Libertarian on April 13, 2006 12:09 PM
Lying officers are not fit to serve.
Could you explain your exact position a little better? Are you saying that you believe the military should just ignore the law because the lady is doing good, or are you saying the law doesn't apply? Perhaps you should change your stance to indicate that you disagree with the current law and that you support changing it. If you are saying that the law should be ignored for a greater good, then you are turning into a liberal Democrat. That would be front page news!
Posted by: PW on April 13, 2006 12:28 PMIt seems to me that a discussion around this simple situation has the potential to shed light on the gays in the military issue. I've always thought that the separate public bathrooms configuration had to due with the sexual attraction of the opposite genders. This separation only works for heterosexuals. With homosexuality, it throws a monkey wrench into the works. If a gay male can use the men's restroom, then why can't a heterosexual female?
Posted by: PW on April 13, 2006 12:36 PMMy point is, relations’ are mightily frowned upon and energetically discouraged aboard the same command and the Navy went so far as to make every attempt to not place people where they would even have the opportunity to engage in these practices. Now, for the sake of argument, let's take a female crewmember that is lesbian. Where do you quarter her? With the men, so that she doesn't have the opportunity to get herself in trouble in a relationship, but potentially causes great strain in the command she's attached to? Or with the women where both of these potential problems exist? Do you try to create units comprised solely of gay/lesbian members? Setting aside the amazing cost of creating and maintaining additional units just for this, are you sure you'll have enough people to keep them full to the capacity they'll need to operate? Would it be considered discriminatory to create such units?
I absolutely hate the 'if you haven't been there you can't know argument', but I can't get around it either. Anybody that doesn’t believe housing isn't a huge factor hasn't spent 6 months at sea on 6 on 12 off watches without EVER touching land, all the while living in the aforementioned small metal box. We were on occasions ready to kill each other even without any sort of sexual tensions in the air.
I'm quite torn on this one. I agree that the first issue here is that unless she 'discovered' she was gay after enlisting, then she lied to join and doesn't have a leg to stand on. On the other hand, don't ask, don't tell was and is an abortion, but I'll be darned if I can think of a better way around it. She has obviously proven that she can serve her country well. There's got to be a better way, but whatever it is it's not going to help her any.
She knew the consequences of letting her personal life be open.
the debate over the policy is a seperate issue. For now it stands and she has to live with her agreement to abide by it.
Posted by: karl on April 13, 2006 12:41 PMI'm sure that heterosexuals engage in all kinds of activities in private that might offend other heterosexuals, or even homosexuals. And not just sexual behavior. One is free to rant and rave in their own privacy as long as it is impacting no one else in an unsolicited manner.
As long as Maj Witt was not flaunting her sexuality in an inappropriate way, or letting it interfere with her job, it's really a non issue.
I believe this is how most conservatives view homosexual activism as well. Hey, if you want to do something with another consensual adult, I may not agree with it, but if it's not bothering me, what do I care? It's only when that activity becomes an outward offense such as having sex in public, or using one's sexuality as a racist tool for advancement of a political agenda that it becomes a problem foisted upon others.
Making a big deal about this ultimately lends credence to the victim agenda mindset that is prized by those who wish to pit us against each other with class struggles . I can see TrueSoldier's argument if indeed it was Maj Witt that violated a policy, but if it was not her visible behavior that led to her outing, it hardly seems fair to hold that against her now. What's to prevent anyone from simply accusing a soldier of being gay to negatively impact their reputation or possibly remove them from the military?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 13, 2006 12:44 PMJust for info sake.
Posted by: karl on April 13, 2006 12:45 PMIt seems to me that that is a risk that can't be tolerated within our ranks. This woman had something to hide and hid it she did. Her hiding of that conduct directly led to her downfall and in a different set of circumstances could have resulted in much more dire consequences.
One more thing - and this is personal - after seeing how the AF operates, every AF member seperated from the service is taxpayer $$$ saved.
Posted by: Aaron on April 13, 2006 12:50 PMWhat I want to see is the ACLU deal with the matter honestly and in all areas. Equality should be accross the board, not just for the favored group this week.
Sure, lets open debate on how to answer the logistical problems in the policy.
But let's also debate equality in general, and acknowledge all areas of inequality.
To do otherwise is disengenuous.
The problem with the whole premise of quartering issues and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is that in effect these are hate crime rules.
My problem with hate crime laws, is that thought should not be criminal. If one is gay, and one keeps that to themselves and their private, off-duty life, there should be no more problem with that than a heterosexual who might be attracted to another shipmate, but who realizes that it's innapropriate and possibly dangerous to engage in a physical relationship while also maintaining the clarity required for battle operations.
But as long as there is no action, there really should be no a problem. Real professional soldiers should all be able to be quartered in the same room and have the decency to put their duties first.
This might be somewhat naive given the obvious human tendency of attraction to other humans, but that's the whole point, if you can keep control of your behavior, then there should not be a problem in the first place.
I'm not sure how Major Witt was outed, but if it is not of her own doing, she should be allowed to serve because her private thoughts should never be penalized.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 13, 2006 12:58 PMAs per my experience (5 yrs USMC), my belief is that women should not be in the operating forces. Period.
My backup is anecdotal, but suffice to say I was in a unit with no page 11s or even an NJP and females showed up and we had 5 within the same week.
Unreal.
Posted by: Aaron on April 13, 2006 01:00 PMIt is also not a forum for socialogical experimentation.
Being Black and being gay are way, way different things. We, however, as a nation tend to think about race and gender interchangeably in this country, and they aren't. As for calling homosexuality a gender, and not a gender abnormality, that's a line that liberals have been blurring for 30 years. As such the effort to reclassify other gender abnormailities such as transgenderism and paedophilia are intensifying.
What you must understand about the military is that it is NOT a service organization. Yes, you serve your country when you are in the military, but the MISSION of the military is to kill, maim, and break things - WITHOUT having the same done to you in the execution.
Performing this mission under the best of circumstances is harder than you can accurately portray in either writing or footage. Adding gender variation of any sort to that equation is just making a life-threatening situation worse.
People who characterize the arguments against having blacks integrated into the military as the same as the arguments against having gays or women serve in the military are being either naive or disingenuous.
In the military there are by-products of gender relations that need to be compensated for that race relations don't have. Black men and white men can serve in the same unit, and we don't have to change berthing, shower, or latrine arrangements.
We don't have to go to war with race integrated units as field commanders and plan on losing 2 to 3 percent to pregnancy medievacs or the like.
If you say I've got to accommodate women, fine, let's do right by them and give them their own commands, where every member of the commands is female. It's fair on every level, since it gives females access to command assignments, let's them get real battle experience, and eliminates all of the compromises you have to make to accommodate a second gender, such as taking valuable area away from the storage of things that may help in battle, such as food, guns, and medicine and using them to house men.
Now you want me to accommodate at least two new genders - homosexuals and lesbians. Excellent - how should I now deal with the legitimate concerns of all involved around privacy, marriage status, dating, etc. What is that going to cost me in supplies I can't store, weapons I can't install, and fuel I cannot carry?
How about we do the following first:
1. Before we permit gays or lesbians serve, let's at least decide whether we are dealing with a genetic disorder or a psychological disorder first, and then decide whether it is a curable condition, and then decide whether we should issue a waiver prior to military service for it.
2. Once we've decided that, let's decide as a policy that we will exploit gender on the basis of the needs of the military, and not the other way around. We'll factor gender into whether it gives the commander a tactical or strategic advantage. If the answer is that gender can't help you either way, then you make sure that in the deployment of forces it basically doesn't hurt you either. Single gender battle unit policies would accomplish that without compromising your ability to wage war.
As such, we discriminate against people with flat feet, vision problems, color blindness, etc. The human anatomy did not provide naturally for the accommodation of gays or lesbians, and as such, it isn't any form of normal. To that end, to discriminate against a homosexual for a condition that will inevitably cause the command to have to compensate for that condition, and to discriminate against someone on the basis of color, a condition which requires no such accommodation are simply not the same.
And as for what you want to do at Headquarters, I guess you build separate heads for gays, and another set for lesbians and any other gender that comes down the pike and I guess you are okay.
Posted by: SSIGUY on April 13, 2006 01:01 PMHowever, once the policy has been breached or the person admits to being a homosexual, then the military is within its rights to remove that person, no matter what the individual's rank is, how necessary the job is, or however much the person wants to serve.
Why can't she work for the military as a contract employee or some such position, if she is so eager to work for them? Most likely she doesn't want to lose the perks & benefits she has accrued, but she should have thought of that beforehand. Actions have consequences & personal responsibility for one's actions is a given.
Posted by: Clean House on April 13, 2006 01:05 PMYou ever share a saddle trench? Perhaps you too are aware that you can fit up to 13 individuals around a urinal. Or maybe you've been in a bank of shi##er stalls with no doors?
Oh, I know. You've shared two man tents with members of another unit. And you've obviously been on the tail end of a detail being stashed in someone else's tent for the night. What's that? You've been stuck in common showers with anyone who can walk in the door? Perhaps you've also shared a machine gun fighting position! You've obviously utilized the human operated air cooled dirt removal tool and dug a nice and snug hearth for two! Hmm.
You are obviously qualified to comment on military training and SOPs!!!!
Posted by: Aaron on April 13, 2006 01:08 PMBy acknowledging and allowing some wiggle room for human emotion, we open the door for more debate. It seems to me that if you can get the level of discipline in the military to the point where a naked man can stand next to a naked woman in the shower and both soldiers can still put their focus first and formost on combat activity that would be ideal. And if you expect and only tolerate a strictly platonic military, then you'd have a far more disciplined military in the first place.
I'm not in the military, and I realize that given the immaturity of many young soldiers, this might be practically impossible, but it seems like it would be far easier to police than Don't Ask, Don't Tell. To me it does not seem any harder than registering to vote properly and casting only one vote. If military policy says don't engage in any sexual activity while on a tour, then you don't.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 13, 2006 01:23 PMRegarding your acceptance of religious arguments: You should well note that everything is based on religion when it comes to government. Where does our right to free speech come from? Where does our right to establish a government come from? What about the right to punish criminals and execute traitors? What about the right to fight wars and to defend oneself, family, neigbors, and one's property? When is it right to kill or to help, to maim or to heal? What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
These are all religious subjects, every one of them at the center of every religion. The subject of religion itself is protected because we as a people have a religious belief that religion should be a matter of individual conscience and choice, and should not be forced upon the individual by the society by any means but persuasion.
You'll well note, your own religion, that there is no God or that God has no role in the "real" world, is a religion. Your religion ultimately worships man or man's ideas, which we know from experience to be imperfect and changing and arbitrary, even cruel, unjust, and tyrannical. If that's the foundation you want to build on, that's up to you. (My religion says that man is given a conscience, and the freedom to choose right and wrong. So you are certainly free to choose wrong.)
You would do well to observe history and the present to see what the effect of that religion is, however. Unless of course your religion has a belief that doing the same thing over and over again can lead to different results. That throws out the relevance of historical precedence or even a motive for examining history at all.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 13, 2006 01:49 PMMy father will tell you that anything and everything can and will become bearable under combat conditions. Serving shoulder to shoulder with qualified women or homosexuals of either gender will no more destroy unit morale and readiness than integrating the corps did.
Only prejudice and inequality can harm morale.
What will destroy morale and readiness are officers, commissioned and non-coms, who allow any of their Marines to treat any other Marine unequally for any reason, including sexual orientation. The only appropriate inequality in the corps is rank.
And as far as blackmailing somoeone due to their sexual orientation - a person can only be blackmailed if some harm will come to them or their family due to a fact about them. If homosexuality is removed as an issue for a soldier, then homosexuals can not be blackmailed over it. This is so obvious that's it's laughable that it even comes up.
As far as "sexual purity" - oh, please.
First, having grown up on bases, I can assure you that the biggest sexual playgrounds in the world are just outside the gates of every Ameriican military installation in existence. To try to pretend otherwise is idiocy. Heterosexual armies have marched their best through the ages on two things - a full stomach and the lure of women at the next camp.
Second, and obviously, what a person does on their own time sexually is none of anyone's business, and thankfully we have a Constitution to protect us from religious zealotry.
And finally, do you really want to purge the U.S. military of the "sexually impure"? We'll be left with seven 18-year old Mormon recruits and a couple of Colonels with lifelong prostate problems.
I'm sure our borders and interests will be well-defended with these nine folks deployed throughout the world as our new, improved, sexually pure military.
Good Grief.
Posted by: USMCdaughter on April 13, 2006 02:01 PMNo, those subjects you named, freedom of speech, freedom to establish a government of choice, etc., are moral and ethical issues, but not religious ones.
One can have morality and ethics without religion.
And certainly religion can exist witout morality or ethics, as so many of our fundamentalist christian loonies in this country prove.
Posted by: USMCdaughter on April 13, 2006 02:05 PMOf coure there are laws about having sex in public. Has this been a problem for you? Has it been a problem in the military? Is there any reason to believe it will become one?
I don't understand your second point. What does it mean to use one's sexuality as a racist tool? I didn't realize sexuality had anything to do with race. And anyway, are you saying there should be laws againt advancing a political agenda?
Posted by: Bruce on April 13, 2006 03:25 PMAnd you no more know this then you can levitate.
As much as liberals would like to say that it is, this is not an issue of civil rights. And, I would remind you, that integration was accomplished through executive order... not by court order.
Further, had the nay-sayers about integration been proven correct, that order would have been instantly rescinded.
Since you seem to speak for your flag-rank Marine father, why don't you ask him, directly, about the FACTS of this matter. Not what YOU think... but what, instead, is the reality of the situation.
The reality is that the Military can call its own shots. The reality is there is no move in Congress to change the UCMJ to allow this conduct. To make the attempt now would be political suicide... which is why even the democrats are leaving this alone.
Without all of the facts, in this case we cannot judge!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 13, 2006 08:34 PMART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
or
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Maybe we should just get rid of these two rules for the Military too.
The management at your place of employment announces that a unisex restroom policy is being implemented.
Effective immediately, any employee can use any restroom.
Your feeling about this new policy is....?
Posted by: ewaggin on April 13, 2006 09:41 PMDo you also feel that Illegal Aliens should be allowed to stay in our country because the are contributing? The Major violated her contract; therefore by law she can be seperated. Why should she be allowed to violate her contract, yet say a servicemember who is overweight or even one who commits adultery cannot?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 14, 2006 09:11 AM1. There is no "private life" once you join the military. You are "on duty" 24/7.
2. She lied on her security forms in at least 5 places (1987) before she ever took her oath as an officer. This action alone will get you dishonorably discharged.
3. The military does not let men and women bunk together because of the problems it causes. Why is homosexaulity any different?
4. She did "out" herself by her, and her's alone, actions. For she honked someone off enough to bring it to her commands attention. The same treatment goes for spying (re: John Walker,jr)
anyone can turn you in.
5. There is no constitional right to serve. When she volunteered, she was told "in no uncertian terms", what would happen if it came out that she was a lesbian.
Mike
Navy 1982-1987
Keep in mind that the only woman I know who has been raped was raped by two women.
Posted by: Sailorette on April 21, 2006 12:49 AM