Rep. John Ragan, the Tennessee Republican, isn’t convinced the upcoming death of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell means gay soldiers will suddenly be immune to discharge for being gay. At least if they’re sexually active gays. See, the little repealy thing passed by Congress and signed off on by President Obama doesn’t kill the military’s ban on sodomy. Which means any butt sex crimes committed by gay (and straight!) soldiers is still grounds for discharge. Insubordination or something?
Though he’s now a freshman congressman, Ragan, a former commander who graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, is the same guy who campaigned as a state rep claiming things like sexual orientation is just a term “used to describe feelings” (“no practitioner of any sexual behavior, whether such is polygamy, prostitution, homosexual behavior, etc., is entitled to a claim of civil rights purely on the basis of feeling a certain way and engaging in that behavior”); that gender identity is a term that “outside of the fields of psychiatry or psychology … has no practical meaning”; and bullying is just a universal problem not specific to certain classes of people (“it does not matter who is the victim, it is the act of bullying and its perpetrators that must be targeted for remediation”). So do his feelings about gays in the military really surprise you?
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, signed into law under President Truman, makes sodomy illegal, and repealing DADT doesn’t kill it, Ragan claims, according to Out & About Nashville. What about Lawrence v. Texas? Screw it, apparently.
But even if DADT repeal didn’t kill the No Sodomy rule outright, isn’t it, in effect, already pretty moot?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“This provision from the UCMJ is not enforced,” says Christian Berle, Deputy Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans. “If it were to be enforced, I would imagine that a servicemember would simply challenge the constitutionality of this section in the UCMJ as Lawrence v. Texas overturned every enforcement of ‘bans’ on sodomy in all laws save the UCMJ.” He adds that this prohibition in the UCMJ applies to heterosexual military officers too, were they to engage in such acts. However, Rep. Ragan rejects the use of Lawrence v. Texas, as it did not happen in a military court, and he adds he has been directly involved in military trials involving the UCMJ. While the LCR suggest appealing to Mike Mullen, Rep. Ragan stresses it is Congress who has the last word in this case.
So according to Ragan’s logic, even after DADT is dead, gays should be careful where they stick it. The congressman, I can only assume, will be watching.
ChicagoJimmy
Does it need to be said that any man this focused on butt sex between men has some secret fantasies, or possibly a secret love life?
paulflorez
You can be a sexually active gay soldier without having anal sex. Many gay men prefer not to have anal sex.
Sid
Many gay men (including me) don’t have much if any anal sex, but it should certainly be an option unless there’s a good reason why not.
I’d support buttsex ban if they also have a vagsex ban. Whatever rules apply to one should apply to the other. Or if anything, vagsex should be given more scrutiny since the consequences can be more serious.
M. Bergeron
sodomy is bjs too.
Geoff B
Why are old ugly straight men always so concerned about what gay people do with their genetalia?
Paul
Maybe you should do some more research before you make quotes about Lawrence, “Screw it.” Lawrence was directly addressed by US v. Marcum by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Interesting neither the author nor LCR seems to understand this. However, this certainly makes for more interesting headlines. Rep Ragan will be sad to know that military people can legally engage in butt sex and oral sex, etc. Seems like he too is unaware of legal research.
Harbo
Good question, Geoff B. I’ve often wondered that myself.
One of the CA 36,000
Yet another Republican filthy cracker opening his stupid piehole to make it known that he, a Gawd-Fearing White Heterosexual WHITE MAN (Hallelujah!!), will do everything in his power to deny us dirty homos even a shred of human dignity.
Never mind we pay taxes that pay his ridiculously-inflated salary.
Jerkoff Republicans. They can’t die soon enough.
James
The legal definition of sodomy includes oral sex; so how many straight soldiers violate this on a regular basis with their wives, girlfriends, and hook-ups?
tjr101
@Geoff B: Better question is why do conservatives care so much about what goes on between other people’s legs?
B
No. 5 · Geoff B asked, “Why are old ugly straight men always so concerned about what gay people do with their genetalia?”
Jealousy.
Biffmont
He has gay face.
Ryan
Queerty, not that I think anyone you know expects fantastic reporting from you anymore, but jeez. Commander is a rank only in the navy and the coast guard.