Per Reuters:Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly told Marines on Sunday that they won’t be able to opt out of their enlistment just because they disagree with a government decision to end a ban on gays serving openly in the military.
I am of really mixed emotions with this.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
There are a number of major religions that disapprove of homosexuality itself, whether we consider a distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual behavior or ignore that distinction. Members of those religions are going to be in a very uncomfortable position until their enlistments are up.
Of course, those people who enlisted / re-enlisted after Congress lifted the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” restrictions last winter knew what they were getting into – they should have to live with the consequences of their decision.
But I have a completely different reaction for those who enlisted before DADT was repealed. Those people have a constitutional right to believe what they choose to believe. And the “rules of the game” changed half way through. At least as far as Judeo-Christian beliefs, it is very, very explicit:
As far as Islam, the pertinent reference is here:
“And (remember) Lut, when he said to his people: Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceded you has committed in the worlds?” (7:80)
Per Mufti Ebrahim Desai,In this verse, the word *“Fahishah”, *which means an atrocious, obscene, lewd, shameless act, is referring to the practice of homosexuality. After the people of Sodom ignored the warnings of Lut (Alayhis Salaam) to stop this act and to follow the true path, Allah Ta’ala wiped them out with a severe punishment by turning their towns upside down and burying them with stones of baked clay. This was a telling punishment by Allah Ta’ala for going against the natural order created by Him.
The big question, though, for me is this: Congress did not change military law on homosexual conduct. Article 125 of the UCMJ is still in force. This Article states,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.
The Manual for Courts Martial gives a definition for unnatural carnal copulation:It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
I wonder what they are going to do with that dichotomy.
Bottom line: dealing with this situation is reason #238,253 why I am glad to be retired from the military.