Sex and UCMJ. What are your translation/thoughts about this subject, gents/gals?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:49:41 -0400

I have always thought this was hilarious. Just my opinion. What are your translation/Thoughts about this subject gents/gals?

“(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.”

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 1:16 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:16:21 -0400

This antique is still law? Thank goodness the statute of limitations have expired!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 25 at 2014 1:22 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:22:02 -0400

Just like all the old laws that are still on the books in some states. It is pretty funny!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 1:38 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:38:41 -0400

One day...hopefully soon...the UCMJ will get out of the dark ages. We need to stop pampering GO's/senior officers by protecting them and allowing them to retire quietly for the very offenses we reduce in rank to E-1, BCD/Dishonorable and fine enlisted personnel. We need to quit letting local commands decide whether to prosecute a rape claim. Trust me, you take away the authority to investigate, interview and prosecute rape charges you will see a huge number of these sexual predators suddenly decide to retire - rather quickly. The ability of these GO's to intimidate subordinates is part of the issue when it comes to dealing with sexual predators. There is a sense of entitlement that seems to creep up on senior leadership which really does not even come close to the true definition of leaders. Why is it we don't see these sexual predators in our midst? Are we stupid?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 1:41 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:41:55 -0400

I think it is funnier that it HAS to say with and animal. I wonder who the person that caused this to be required in that is.

Response by PO3 Jonathan Cooper made Oct 25 at 2014 1:54 PM

PO3 Jonathan Cooper — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:54:48 -0400

On a related topic, how long does it take for something like this in the UCMJ to get changed? And I'd hate to be the service member who made the "with an animal" part added in.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 2:18 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:18:47 -0400

Back when I was a PO1 I was talking with a female LT (she's a CDR now) and she remarked, regarding that UCMJ Article "90% of the people in the military are violating it - and you have to feel sorry for the other 10%!" I heartily agreed.

That said, I believe that one got changed with the repeal of DADT to add "forcible" to it. Finally enacting some version of the recommendations of the Institute for Military Justice back in 2001 - although they recommending combining several Articles to ban non-consensual sexual activity.

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Oct 25 at 2014 6:15 PM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:15:00 -0400

I had heard years ago that the sodomy part was removed. And that was from a female NCO. Of course she got red in the face when she said it too.

In my humble opinion, that part of the UCMJ needs to be updated to reflect the times. Of course keep the having sex with an animal illegal as hell..... That is just plain disgusting. Even if we humans are considered animals.

So with that said. It needs updating that is for sure.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 6:39 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:39:57 -0400

Right before commissioning we had a briefing on the UCMJ from a JAG officer. She explained those are typically stack charges for sexual assault and/or child molestation.

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Oct 25 at 2014 6:57 PM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:57:28 -0400

Instead of editing my original post I will post here the UPDATED articles of the UCMJ for this discussion. See Articles 120, 120a, and 125. Click on the link to the left of the article number and that brings up the section in the US Code since that is the basis for the UCMJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64Stat.109, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946), is the foundation of military law in the United States. It was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 7:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:10:32 -0400

I wonder when that was authored and how many times it has been requested to revise?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 7:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:12:41 -0400

My 2¢:
I should probably stop sticking my finger where it doesn't belong?

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Oct 26 at 2014 1:58 AM

1LT William Clardy — Sun, 26 Oct 2014 01:58:38 -0400

Kind of hinges on the meaning you attach to "unnatural", doesn't it?

Or, to put it indelicately, what would constitute natural carnal copulation with a member of the same sex? Or with an animal?

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Oct 28 at 2014 10:38 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:38:58 -0400

Despite the fact that these charges are usually used to stack the deck for a wayward troop who commits rape, sexual assault, child molestation, etc, I think with the repeal of DA/DT and the growing acceptance of both gays in the military and gay marriage, the UCMJ needs to get a heavy dose of reality injection.

Response by TSgt Christopher D. made May 4 at 2015 10:34 AM

TSgt Christopher D. — Mon, 04 May 2015 10:34:42 -0400

Doesn't this cover oral sex? Had I EVER been hauled before a courts martial for getting a blow job, I'd have had to laugh my ass off if for nothing more than the total hypocrisy... as if the attorneys, jurists and judge him or herself had not engaged in oral sex in their lives. HA!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 4 at 2015 2:27 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 04 May 2015 14:27:10 -0400

Laws and regulations that are unfair will be ignored by a lot of people. It makes criminals due to archaic laws and regulations.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 4 at 2015 2:30 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Mon, 04 May 2015 14:30:10 -0400

Well no one can say that the UCMJ has ever been associated with or informed of the "sexual revolution".

Response by CDR Tom Davy made Jul 13 at 2017 7:31 PM

CDR Tom Davy — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:56 -0400

Obama says it is normal. He is even having tax payers pay for sex change operations. How sad. We lead with moral authority, where is that moral authority now?

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 14 at 2017 2:01 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:01:55 -0400

I had read Obama ordered a bunch of the
Sex related UCMJ punishments deleted.
Did s'body just shove them in a draw to
Save and put back when he was gone..
Obama was out to ruin our country and our Military with all them social changes.

Response by 1SG Clifford Barnes made Jul 20 at 2019 12:32 PM

1SG Clifford Barnes — Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:32:07 -0400

That’s the law and it’s up to the command on whether to punish or not

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 18 at 2019 8:01 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:01:13 -0400

I retired. Should I turn myself in?

Response by CPO Jeffrey Bohemier made May 18 at 2020 3:56 AM

CPO Jeffrey Bohemier — Mon, 18 May 2020 03:56:17 -0400

I personally think that sex has absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER BEING ADDRESSED IN THE UCMJ. Frankly, it’s none of the government’s business, PERIOD. That certainly includes the military. The last people I want telling me how to act morally is that of the government, ESPECIALLY with THIS President in office. He couldn’t spell M O R A L S, let alone have any. I haven’t forgotten about the horrible disservice conducted by an Admiral against a young man on the USS Iowa to explain why the 16” gun turret exploded. This was a particularly major SORE AREA DURING MY CAREER, because it directly reflected on how little the Navy’s top brass concerned themselves over enlisted Navy members. That Admiral basically spit in the face of every enlisted service member when he said it was the fault of a young “gay service member who was committing suicide” to justify keeping his battleships that we’re using gun powder that dated back to WWII instead of creating all new charges as they should have done right from the start. The fact that that explosion didn’t happen sooner was a miracle in itself. The Navy was the responsible party for every single one of those deaths and frankly, should’ve been held fully accountable far beyond the merger life insurance payout. I think those that decided to use that old powder to save money over creating new charges should’ve been called out for making that terrible decision that they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER IN MAKING. The Navy’s top leadership has once again shown their true nature recently when the CO of an aircraft carrier was wrongly terminated for trying to save the lives of his crew from COVID 19. This instance reminded me of the Russian Navy’s irresponsible decisions with regards to their submarine, KURSK, which I remember as though it had just happened yesterday.