With DADT out of the military, are LGBT sex lives totally at ease?
According to Uniform Code of Military Justice’s website, Article 125 states: “(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 be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
However, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,” which was passed in December 2013, repealed any consensual acts between same/opposite genders as well as bestiality. Basically, this means anal and oral sex acts are okay as long as both parties consent. Any forcible acts are still punishable by a court martial. (Looks like the UCMJ needs to update its website.)
Oddly enough, that also means someone can penetrate an animal … as long as it agrees. For this reason, the repeal of the consensual nature of Article 125 was controversial and took a while to pass. While I agree that bestiality is absolutely unethical, why must the sex lives of any service member be determined by military law, let alone be lumped together with animal sex?
In Colorado, sodomy was a criminal offense from 1860 through 1971, when it was decriminalized between consenting adults in private. Soon after, a public indecency law banned public displays of affection between same-sex couples, but that was taken away in 1974.
The US military discharged soldiers for homosexual acts for a couple centuries, but military law did not clearly exclude homosexuality or homosexual behavior until February 1921. In 1950, Congress passed the UCMJ, banning all types of sodomy. It took until the next century for any kind of progress to be made toward the sexual rights of a service member choosing to engage in private sexual acts with their chosen partner.
Though the repeal of consensual sodomy was a step in the right direction for LGBT rights in the military, it seems like they’re hanging onto something. Basically, the repeal banned any sodomy in the form of rape. Article 120 of the UCMJ already covers rape and sexual assault offenses.
It seems a bit excessive to cover essentially the same act in two separate articles. Since 2014, no further progress has been made to Article 125. And it looks like the US military still thinks gay sex is somewhat equivalent to bestiality.
