NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/13019

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-05 | 8.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13019 alt.politics.clinton:19611 alt.politics.bush:15535 alt.politics.homosexuality:8963 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11532
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!briand
From: [e-mail] (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:27:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 142

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Knight) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Knight) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>>>BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for
>>>>>consential sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should
>>>>>Clinton repeal this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?
>
>>>Where do you get this stuff from Brian?
>
>>U.S. News & World Report.
>
>Could you let me know which issue.

November 9, 1992, Page 60, Paragraph 2:

"Last April Marine Lt. Frank Reister was sentenced to seven years in
military prisor for womanizing.  He was convicted of consensual
heterosexual oral sex, fraternization and six counts of adultery and
conspiracry [sorry, erred on sodomy].  Reister was also convicted of
assault--for having sex while infected with herpes.  Much of the evidence
against Reister was found on two pages of a personal diary he kept in his
house, where on Jan 18, 1989, he decided to list his "conquests."  Some of
the affairs occurred when he was married.
"Reister certainly had marital difficulties, but his legal trouble did not
start until after his divorce, when he dated a Navy nurse whom he asked to
take care of his house while he went on vacation.  While Reister was away,
the nurse discovered his diary and read of Reister's affairs.  She went to
the NIS and told them she had been raped."
"...Using the information in Reister's diary, NIS agents tracked down five
women and his ex-wife.  The Navy nurse's testimony at Reister's
court-martial was not convincing enough to convict him of rape, so the
charge was downgraded to consensual sodomy [I stand corrected, again], a
crime under th Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Today, Reister remains in
prison..."

>I was basing what I said from what I got
>from articles that I have read(newspaper, Nov. and Dec. issues of NEWSWEEK)
>have indicated that Clinton will pass stricter rules for military
>people concerning sexual conduct. I went and re-read some of the NEWSWEEK
>articles last night and I admit they were somewhat slim on details of just
>exactly what would and would not be covered other then "sexual harasment".
>The articles only spoke vaguely about "other changes". Could be I was wrong
>(1st time---NOT)about Clinton's plans concerning sodomy or oral copulation. If
>such is the case I apoligize for the near flame!

No harm no foul.

>
>>And though I believe the subject of the
>>article was in the Navy and prosecuted for consential sodomy, I could not
>>remember precisely and so again did not overstate the claim.
>
>I think you're right here. I beleive the consential sodomy took place with
>this guys wife! Not sure how they got caught though. But make no mistake that
>such acts, no matter where comitted, are currently covered in manual under the
>personal conduct chapters. Punishments are also covered.
>
>>To paraphase what many have proclaimed here: "the military no business in the
>>private lives (i.e. sexual) of its personnel, and so whether someone is gay or
>>not should be irrelevant."  Not my words, not my thoughts.  But looking at
>>things from their side for a moment, I must ask, if such assertion is true,
>>mustn't the military do away with all of its rules regarding consential sex?
>>And obviously I'm not talking about criminal acts.
>
>I would tend to agree with those that think the military should stay out of
>of the private lives of its personnel. HOWEVER the military doesn't see it that
>way and never has.(At least not our modern military) It would seem pretty clear
>that some of the old standing rules that exist will have to at least be
>modified if gays are allowed in.

Indeed.  Another little interesting piece from this same article:

Page 59, Paragraph 4:
"In a policy statement vehemently challenged by gays, NIS officials insist
that agents investigate homosexuality only when they have evidence of a
specific act or attempted act of sodoymy, which is a crime under military
law;  general allegations of homosexual preference are not pursued.
"That's a lot of bull," says Krug, citing his investigation.  "They didn't
have any evidence of an act that had occurred.  All they had was this
person that said I'm a friend of his and that I'm gay."

This states that while sodomy, and the earlier piece oral sex are a crime
under military.  And other's indicate that gays are banned by Executive
Order.  If so, might it possible to rescind the Executive Order, but leave
the current laws in place (a year, 5, 10) as a compromise?  Basically
giving homosexuals a chance to openly prove themselves (they have done so
privately for centuries), while alleviating the perceived threat to
privacy, masculinity, and unit cohesion?   As many have stated, being gay
does not equate to being a raving sexual maniac, and their ability to hold
their libidos in check and be professional is just the same as the
hetrosexual soldiers holding in check desires to fraternize with soldiers
of the opposite sex.  Such a "cool" period, while absurd to many here,
could provide the compromise to slowly, but inexorbly integrate open gays
into the military.

Comments?

>
>>Well, since sodomy and oral copulation would still be banned, wouldn't this
>>be discriminatory towards the gay members?  After all, there's not much
>>left, except maybe hand-jobs. 8-).  That may offend some, which is not my
>>intent (maybe a little levity).  However, if it is repealed for gays, must not
>>it also be repealed for hetrosexuals?
>
>Actually this is a good question. One thing for sure is that the military
>has always done is to make sure that once you're in you become part of the
>"team". This means no individuality of any kind(hair, dress ect.)In short
>there is one set of rules for EVERYONE which are usually strictly enforced.
>I think it would be a big mistake to have any "special" rules for any
>group of people within the military. Further I can't see much chance of
>the established military allowing that to happen without a fight.
>
>>Just some points of ponder.
>
>And ponder them I have!

I await your answer to my above suggestion.  Some people I've talked to
recently that represent some of the more "modern" aspects of the military
feel the real question is not Why, or When, but How?  How do you balance
the mission of the military, National Security, with the need to respect
the will of the society they protect, which is growing to tolerate open
homosexuality?  This is the real question many senior commanders are looking
for answers to.  How to do you match up the stress oriented, typically macho
training methods with a group that is stereotyped as non-masculine?  How do
you get a chance to "experiment" with open homosexuality?  How do you break
down stereotypes without the individual experiences to elucidate the
education?

Until answers are found, in general the military would rather not deal
with it and possibly compromise its mission.  (It's an argument a little
genuine, a little bullshit.  The military just hates instability.)

>
>Stan Knight
>|Ponder not and stay ignorant forever|


--
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
    Jefferson
Brian Douglass        [e-mail]     602-870-3330 X657