Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 27, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Active-Duty Gay Marine War Vet Proposes to His Boyfriend, Also a Marine War Vet, On the Base Where He's Stationed
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM
I'm sure Tony Perkins will have something to say about this—and I'm thinking we'll hear from Tony right after he finishes rubbing one out.
2
It almost brings tears to my eyes these men are willing to die for a country that legally sees them as second class citizens.
Semper Fidelis indeed.
Semper Fidelis indeed.
3
This should be good. If they get married and either or both of them remain Marines, they will be prohibited from consummating the marriage.
Per Article 125 of the UCMJ, sodomy (including oral sex) is prohibited and anyone who violates this provision is subject to face a Court Marshall (no idea what the punishment might be???).
Should be interesting.
Per Article 125 of the UCMJ, sodomy (including oral sex) is prohibited and anyone who violates this provision is subject to face a Court Marshall (no idea what the punishment might be???).
Should be interesting.
4
This, this should have been taped and turned into a commercial for marriage equality.
Would have felt more honest and compelling than this:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Would have felt more honest and compelling than this:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
5
It will embolden our enemies, because our enemies are cartoon villains determined to spread evil for evil's sake, and they'll see marines in love, and go "Noo! Shoot them! They have the power of love on their side! Allah akhbar! Orphan sandwiches and 100 DevilBux for the one who brings them down!"
8
I am from a military family and this makes me so god damned happy I could bust. The looks on their faces! So beautiful.
9
@3: Not sure that's so. Lots of jurisdictions still have sodomy laws on the books, but Lawrence v. Texas makes them dead-letter.
10
@3, the sodomy law may still be on the books, but it isn't enforceable. Can you cite a single sodomy case being prosecuted in the military in the last decade?
11
I'm conflicted. Things like this make me feel that the world isn't an entirely rotten place, and I hope they are a happy smoochy couple until they are old and grey.
But I do love me some orphan sandwiches.
But I do love me some orphan sandwiches.
12
@10
Can I cite a single case? No, but Google can - US vs Hartman, 2011 (I'm sure there's more, and Article 134 has been used for the same purpose)
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/o…
What the fuck is the internet? - Jay (of Jay and Silent Bob fame)
Can I cite a single case? No, but Google can - US vs Hartman, 2011 (I'm sure there's more, and Article 134 has been used for the same purpose)
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/o…
What the fuck is the internet? - Jay (of Jay and Silent Bob fame)
13
@9
Lawrence vs. Texas doesn't apply to the military, just like so many other cases don't apply. You waive a significant number of your rights when you enter the military. some of them are understandable, some aren't.
All I'm sayin' is that the repeal of DADT isn't the end of the struggle for gays in the military...not by a long shot. People who serve know these laws. Civilians ignore them or don't bother to look and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Well done.
Lawrence vs. Texas doesn't apply to the military, just like so many other cases don't apply. You waive a significant number of your rights when you enter the military. some of them are understandable, some aren't.
All I'm sayin' is that the repeal of DADT isn't the end of the struggle for gays in the military...not by a long shot. People who serve know these laws. Civilians ignore them or don't bother to look and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Well done.
14
His name is Avarice? That's unfortunate.
But everything else about this makes my heart feel like it's going to burst. Congratulations to both of them.
But everything else about this makes my heart feel like it's going to burst. Congratulations to both of them.
16
@13: While it is true that a court martial can be applied, the military is foolish to do so. It will always be overruled in appeal due to the violation of constitutional rights implicit in such a charge. While soldiers do waive certain rights, the major civil rights remain intact.
I also have to question your assertion that Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to the military, when the appeals board in the case you cite specifically mentions Lawrence v. Texas as a justification for the overturning of the original verdict.
Amazing they were still trying to do this in 2011 though. Damn.
I also have to question your assertion that Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to the military, when the appeals board in the case you cite specifically mentions Lawrence v. Texas as a justification for the overturning of the original verdict.
Amazing they were still trying to do this in 2011 though. Damn.
17
Sorry...doesn't necessarily apply would have been a more precise way to state it.
Who knows anymore? The 1st, 2nd, 4th-6th, 8th and 9th amendments to the constitution don't seem to apply to anyone anymore, so what the hell do I know about the law, anyway?
All I was saying is that there are still loopholes to kick out the soldiers who are ":too gay", and Articles 125 and 134 are those loopholes.
Who knows anymore? The 1st, 2nd, 4th-6th, 8th and 9th amendments to the constitution don't seem to apply to anyone anymore, so what the hell do I know about the law, anyway?
All I was saying is that there are still loopholes to kick out the soldiers who are ":too gay", and Articles 125 and 134 are those loopholes.
18
@16
I just read the entire decision in the case I cited. The decision wasn't completely reversed, the appellate was simply granted a new trial.
If you read through it, then you know it's not as simple as "consensual butt sex" is OK. The fact that "butt sex" is anywhere in the mix is cause to investigate further. This wouldn't have even been a case if the dude's boyfriend had a pussy. That's crazy to me. Maybe it's just me, though.
I just read the entire decision in the case I cited. The decision wasn't completely reversed, the appellate was simply granted a new trial.
If you read through it, then you know it's not as simple as "consensual butt sex" is OK. The fact that "butt sex" is anywhere in the mix is cause to investigate further. This wouldn't have even been a case if the dude's boyfriend had a pussy. That's crazy to me. Maybe it's just me, though.
19
@18: Trust me, the entire idea of anyone being prosecuted for consensual genital fun is completely crazy to me.
20
@19: Really? You think that kindergarten teachers should be free to go to town on each other in front of their charges?
21
@20
That's, by definition, not consensual because that includes the 4-year-olds in the act and they do not have the requisite ability to consent.
Basically, your argument is stupid.
That's, by definition, not consensual because that includes the 4-year-olds in the act and they do not have the requisite ability to consent.
Basically, your argument is stupid.
22
@3: How would their marriage be consummated? Would such consummation necessarily entail sodomy as defined by the UCMJ? And if so, what *kind* of sodomy?
24
@22
Sodomy, as defined in Article 125 of the UCMJ is sexual contact that doesn't involve the "sex parts" (that's what it says).
So, they could basically do a dick sword fight, and once it went beyond that, they'd be in violation of the UCMJ (and, per the military oath they take and honor code that they sign on to, obligated to report one another for it).
Basically, straight or gay, if you're not putting your sword in a girl's sheath, you're in violation (like no woman in the military has ever given a BJ to anyone). It's stupid, but gays are the only ones who seem to face Court Marshall under the Article, which is bullshit.
Sodomy, as defined in Article 125 of the UCMJ is sexual contact that doesn't involve the "sex parts" (that's what it says).
So, they could basically do a dick sword fight, and once it went beyond that, they'd be in violation of the UCMJ (and, per the military oath they take and honor code that they sign on to, obligated to report one another for it).
Basically, straight or gay, if you're not putting your sword in a girl's sheath, you're in violation (like no woman in the military has ever given a BJ to anyone). It's stupid, but gays are the only ones who seem to face Court Marshall under the Article, which is bullshit.
25
Things that make me cry:
Marriage proposals
Soldiers coming home to their families
If they'd thrown in the soldiers dog, leaping around in joy because he is back, I'd be curled up in the fetal position, sobbing.
I love those kinds of cries. Thanks Dan.
Marriage proposals
Soldiers coming home to their families
If they'd thrown in the soldiers dog, leaping around in joy because he is back, I'd be curled up in the fetal position, sobbing.
I love those kinds of cries. Thanks Dan.
26
Well, maybe night right after her rubs one out. You'll have to allow for a few minutes of remorse.
28
Yeah, well both need to be arrested for violating UCMJ Law. No Sodomy allowed. Yes, I was active duty at one time, and I know this to be true. More law breaking by the defenders of law, what hypocrisy. That's what's wrong with America. I am personally
going to make a stink about it with the Marines.
going to make a stink about it with the Marines.
29
A little googling shows that Cory Huston was discharged from the military for being gay in 2006, and lost his benefits etc. It gives an angry edge to this sweet story.
30
As for the U.S. Armed Forces, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125, severely narrowing the previous ban on sodomy. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct [consensual sodomy] falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court,"[23] but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence."[24] Examples of such factors include rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under Lawrence in both United States v. Meno[citation needed] and United States v. Bullock.[25]
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS