Repudiation: Sen. Santorum on DADT

Today's Huffington Post has an article on Sen. Santorum's appearance on the Fox News Sunday show this morning.  (I first saw the link at Joe.My.God).  Mr. Wallace baited Mr. Santorum with a quote from Col. Householder at the time of military desegregation; a quote which fits as easily for those who are continuing to fight the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).

"The problem is that sexual activity with people who you are in close quarters with who happen to be of the same sex is different than being open about your sexuality," Santorum said on "Fox News Sunday."

So, a fair question might be 'How does the military treat unwanted sexual activity?'  The answer has two parts.  The first involves the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the letter of the law.  The second is how it is carried out in practice.

By my reading, there are three articles in the UCMJ that appear to be germane.  The first is an article on rape,

920. ARTICLE 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

The second is an article on sodomy,

925. ARTICLE 125. SODOMY

and the third is the "general article", which may be the most important,   

934. ARTICLE 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

The general article is worth quoting in whole:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Any unwanted or non-consensual sexual activity in the military that does not fall under articles 120 and 125 is clearly addressed, as such activity would harm good order and discipline. It is that simple.

In practice, the Stars and Stripes has a pre-repeal of DADT article that appears to fit for the purpose of discussion. In short, a Command Sgt. Maj. was frustrated with the bragging (size of genitalia) of his driver, stuck his hand down his driver's shorts and touched him through his underwear. There was no consent for this act and no direct-skin contact (as would be necessary for either of the first two UCMJ articles cited above). The Command Sgt. Maj. was sent before a courts martial, demoted and given a formal reprimand.

While the driver's bragging was inappropriate, the response crossed an important line. That line, the same line that Sen. Santorum so fears will be crossed by gays in the military, was crossed by one heterosexual with another heterosexual. It was wrong when done by a heterosexual and would be equally wrong if done by a homosexual. The military, with its UCMJ, already has the situation covered.

I don't expect that Mr. Santorum will stop appealing to bigotry. He has a long history of telling lies and distortions of the LGBTQ community. It was a series of his lies that provoked Dan Savage into creating Mr. Santorum's Google problem (link is NSFW). Still the lies need to be countered. The United States military and people in general are far better than Mr. Santorum believes.

17 October 2011, FollowUp 1