One Step Closer

[pecunium]

In May the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Lawrence v Texas meant the military couldn’t just discharge homosexuals. The court ruled that merely being gay (or having a “predisposition” to engage in homosexual conduct) isn’t justifiable grounds to discharge someone.

A week ago the case wasn’t granted an en banc hearing. That means that, barring the case being taken up by the Supreme Court (which the Air Force is likely to try to get), in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, discharges for merely being gay can’t be processed.

If the AF does make the appeal, the Obama Administration could elect to withdraw it.

In practical terms, it doesn’t mean anything. All a service would have to do to discharge someone is transfer them outside the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction. Sadly, because of the hullabaloo trying to get Art. 125 repealed (it takes an act of congress, and the signature of the president), the only way, in the foreseeable future to get it repealed will take either a concerted action on the part of straights in the military (since most of the people in the services violate the regulation... oral sex is part of sex in the US, and it’s forbidden to those who are in the services), or a court case.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Article 128? Assault? How does that apply?

I think most of the prosecutions for claiming homosexual orientation are under article 134, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

it takes an act of congress

Very serious subject. Will stop sputtering shortly.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Crap, meant 125 (and I always confuse them, I don't know why).

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Thwappety!

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

... what, no blowjobs but you're allowed to BEAT HELPLESS WOMEN?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Helpless?

You?

Hardly.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Only when your forearms are involved...

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I think my objection to the current policy in this sphere is that the Government is operating on the basis of Thought Crimes. That seems to me to be A Bad Idea, even though it does appear to be gaining traction in our society as a whole.

But, hey, I'm all in favor of our troops in Iraq teaching the kids there to play baseball, with special attention to their pitching skills.

[elf]

I suspect the court case it'll take will be triggered when the armed forces attempts to induct some person who was in the reserves, and doesn't want to go overseas... so s/he turns around and marries someone of the same sex.

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

And then that will be doubly cool, as the overturn of the antiquated policy will also result in a feeling of sweet schadenfreude as people who were trying to get out of their sworn duty will also be thwarted. :-)

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

Feeling 12 again?

DV

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Yep. I blame Making Light this time.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Why? They routinely send such people to Iraq, and then discharge them when the tour is done.

Now... when someone puts their Mass./Conn. spouse on the books as a dependant...

[elf]

They routinely send such people to Iraq

There are gay married-to-a-person-of-the-same-sex people in the military right now? (This would be residents of Mass. only, 'cos Connecticut is a recent addition.)

That's what I mean--someone who marries, and claims as a dependant and spouse and all that, someone of the same sex.