Most military laws regarding soldier behavior make sense. There are the obvious rules, like those against murder, kidnapping and theft. Then there are the laws that are of a decidedly military angle, against such incidents as jumping from an aquatic vessel, wearing unauthorized insignias or decoration and the notorious conduct unbecoming of an officer. To civilians, rules in the latter category can seem nitpicky or anal retentive, but the military needs an extra level of discipline to maintain its effectiveness. Most of these laws are accepted as necessary to the integrity of military operations.
But there is one particular article in the armed forces' Uniform Code of Military Justice that irks some people, a law that many say intrudes too far into the average person's life: Article 125, which bans sodomy, or any sexual act the military deems unnatural. While the military is not the only government entity to have such a law, as several states had similar sodomy statutes, the military is the only one that is trying to place its law beyond the reach of the Constitution. The Pentagon wants to place its consensual sodomy laws under the sole jurisdiction of the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, a code that oftentimes bypasses constitutional rights to privacy that the UCMJ is subject to. The move signals a move to preserve a culture of ferreting out homosexuals within the military, a culture that is discriminatory, pointless and violates the privacy rights of any American in the military.
Relatively few servicemen and servicewomen are court-martialed for sodomy, and even fewer are convicted. Of those convicted, and thereby dishonorably discharged, it seems an inordinate number of them are caught in homosexual acts, not only breaking the military's sodomy statutes, but also its "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality. The military is supposedly an efficient operation, but these overlapping policies are wasteful and invasive. If the military wishes to maintain its policy of privacy regarding homosexuality, then it needs to forget about what consensual adults do in private.
Officially, the law states that sodomy is "unnatural sexual copulation with any person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal." Included in these "unnatural acts" include both anal and oral sex between hetero- and homosexuals, in other words, many of the intimate acts suggested in many popular sex columns. The Spectrum would never recommend the complete repeal of sodomy laws, as child and forced sodomy and sex acts with animals are abhorrent acts, but completely banning consensual sodomy intrudes into a private area the government - military or otherwise - has no business being a part of.
The most recent cases of military sodomy under the UCMJ involved two charges of heterosexual sodomy. The Supreme Court ruled both cases as unconstitutional invasions of privacy. In the last decade, over 9,000 military personnel were discharged for homosexual activity. Ideally, moving the laws to the Manual would prevent discrimination, subjecting heterosexual cases to the same standards as the homosexual cases.
The weakness in that argument is that the Manual allows prosecution to subject the charges to "facts and circumstances themselves to establish 'conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting,'" according to Pentagon officials. All this does is again represent the vagaries of military law regarding privacy, making it possible that sodomy cases can be based on hearsay, rather than actual fact. The Pentagon can solidify its commitment to privacy by making its "don't ask" policy just that, and staying out of peoples' personal affairs.
Photo: Courtesy of Matthew Messina, from the RMBERS' Instagram page
