Should Article 125 of the UCMJ still be enforceable?

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:26:44 -0400

Given SCOTUS has ruled same sex marriage is legal and that Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DA/DT) is unconstitutional, should Article 125 of the UCMJ be rescinded? Should it still be enforced under the "Good Order and Discipline" clause?

Article 125: Sodomy
(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.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 28 at 2015 1:28 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:28:55 -0400

I would chuck everything but the animal part and let people go about their merry way.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jun 28 at 2015 1:33 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:33:55 -0400

For Heaven's sake I would hope so! BUT, with today's 'freedoms' Art 125 will probably be re-interpreted by the courts also!

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 2:20 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:20:50 -0400

Didn't even know that article was still active. Kinda hypocritical after getting rid of the "don't ask don't tell" policy and allowing all sexual orientation to be open. And to add icing on the cake the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing same sex marriage nationwide.

Definitely a current hypocritical rule that needs to get rid of before someone gets a fire up their ass and uses it in retaliation for something else.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 7:52 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:52:51 -0500

The way "unnatural carnal copulation" is defined, if you stick your finger in someone's mouth and smile, you have committed the crime.

Keep the animal parts and dump the rest. We have ALL engaged in this, whilst in the darkness of our own rooms/homes, and to claim differently is disingenuous.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2016 7:57 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:57:14 -0500

What exactly is "unnatural carnal copulation"?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2016 12:08 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 12:08:07 -0500

Throw out the Animal part and the maybe redefine "Unnatural" part as well. Maybe break it down with crayons and a dancing muppet. Until then, don't get caught going in the back door or throat of anyone....

Response by Bill Talts made Sep 10 at 2016 6:57 PM

Bill Talts — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:57:59 -0400

Essentially until someone challenges it outright (and they enforce it outright), it is here to stay.

Response by LT Terry Lober made Oct 20 at 2017 7:53 PM

LT Terry Lober — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:53:59 -0400

Our opinions have no weight. The UCMJ, is codal law passed by the US Congress and is part of federal statutory law.
The MCM, Manual for Courts Martial) however is Not. The MCM is an Executive Order, issued by the
POTUS. Want to change Art 125, visit your elected Congressmen and Congresswoman in both Houses.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2017 10:16 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:16:52 -0500

That article should be erased (except for the animal part)

Response by SPC David Willis made Dec 1 at 2017 10:19 AM

SPC David Willis — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:19:32 -0500

Maybe don't get rid of the animal part, butt there is no need to keep this on record. It would be a large brown smear in the anals of history.

Response by LT Terry Lober made Aug 2 at 2018 5:27 PM

LT Terry Lober — Thu, 02 Aug 2018 17:27:19 -0400

It will take an Act of the Congress to change the UCMJ because it is Codal Law. The MCM however is an Executive Order, by the CIC.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Aug 3 at 2018 3:42 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 03 Aug 2018 15:42:31 -0400

hell yes, sexual assault is still sexual assault, it is fine right where it is.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2020 8:50 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 20:50:14 -0400

They should strike the words "with another person of the same or opposite sex or" from this article. It was discriminatory anyway. Oral sex would be considered sodomy, and if you think an opposite sex couple doesn't do that, you're wrong. In fact, when I was an active duty SSG during my second tour in Germany, the Stars and Stripes had an article about this one jr. enlisted soldier that got an Article 15 for violating this very article. He received oral sex from a female at a party off base and off duty hours, but they performed the act in front of other people.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2020 3:50 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 03:50:50 -0400

UCMJ is extremely outdated on many points especially concerning Ethical Nonmonogomy, sexual acts and same sex relationships, which are about 40 years behind the times.
Even when it is updated its still decades behind.

However UCMJ is still law. And unless it is superceded by another federal law or federal court order.

It requires dancing around a subject without saying anything damning.

I'm kind of interested in seeing how the recent Gender Equality fo Employees ruling passed by the Supreme Court will ripple into UCMJ.