First gay group forms on U.S. military base

[Luissa]

First gay group forms on U.S. military base

First gay group forms on U.S. military base - 1326 - Gay Lesbian Bi Trans News - Windy City Times

Tell me who didn't know the guy second from the left wasn't gay before DADT was over turned?

What makes you say that? that guy is one of the biggest cooze hounds I know.

someone should have told his pants that

 

[High_Gravity]

Tell me who didn't know the guy second from the left wasn't gay before DADT was over turned?

What makes you say that? that guy is one of the biggest cooze hounds I know.

someone should have told his pants that

He told me he dresses like that to make women feel comfortable and not percieve him as a threat, the dude is tappin Eva Longoria on the low.

 

[Katzndogz]

This new group has me wondering some thing, when I was serving at Vandenberg they were very adamant about us not ******* married women, in fact any type of adultery was frowned upon as our senior leadership were a very conservative bunch, they actually stormed this couples house on base that was hosting a swingers party and arrested all the Military members who took part and escorted the civilians off post, if I were to start a wife swapping or a swingers group on post now, would that be ok? because back when I was in they weren't having any of that, I am guessing we still can't because those damn adultery laws are still in place.

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

 

[High_Gravity]

This new group has me wondering some thing, when I was serving at Vandenberg they were very adamant about us not ******* married women, in fact any type of adultery was frowned upon as our senior leadership were a very conservative bunch, they actually stormed this couples house on base that was hosting a swingers party and arrested all the Military members who took part and escorted the civilians off post, if I were to start a wife swapping or a swingers group on post now, would that be ok? because back when I was in they weren't having any of that, I am guessing we still can't because those damn adultery laws are still in place.

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

They need to end discharges for heterosexual affairs as well, if you are going to do this you have to make it fair for everyone, I shouldn't get in trouble for ******* some married lady on post, especially if her husband is not in my chain of command.

 

[Katzndogz]

This new group has me wondering some thing, when I was serving at Vandenberg they were very adamant about us not ******* married women, in fact any type of adultery was frowned upon as our senior leadership were a very conservative bunch, they actually stormed this couples house on base that was hosting a swingers party and arrested all the Military members who took part and escorted the civilians off post, if I were to start a wife swapping or a swingers group on post now, would that be ok? because back when I was in they weren't having any of that, I am guessing we still can't because those damn adultery laws are still in place.

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

They need to end discharges for heterosexual affairs as well, if you are going to do this you have to make it fair for everyone, I shouldn't get in trouble for ******* some married lady on post, especially if her husband is not in my chain of command.

All regulations prohibiting unbecoming conduct should be done away with. Legalizing beastiality and maintaining rules against heterosexual adulterous relationships make no sense.

 

[High_Gravity]

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

They need to end discharges for heterosexual affairs as well, if you are going to do this you have to make it fair for everyone, I shouldn't get in trouble for ******* some married lady on post, especially if her husband is not in my chain of command.

All regulations prohibiting unbecoming conduct should be done away with. Legalizing beastiality and maintaining rules against heterosexual adulterous relationships make no sense.

Yeah, might as well toss all those silly rules out.

 

[Katzndogz]

They need to end discharges for heterosexual affairs as well, if you are going to do this you have to make it fair for everyone, I shouldn't get in trouble for ******* some married lady on post, especially if her husband is not in my chain of command.

All regulations prohibiting unbecoming conduct should be done away with. Legalizing beastiality and maintaining rules against heterosexual adulterous relationships make no sense.

Yeah, might as well toss all those silly rules out.

At least until the first homosexual has a heterosexual adulterous affair.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

I believe that is incorrect, the government never filed a case for adultery, instead they opted for a discharge based on violation of DADT. The resulting court cased was a product of the DADT discharge being challenged in federal court. The Air Force decided to pass on the adultery charges and passed up the bite at that apple.


>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

I believe that is incorrect, the government never filed a case for adultery, instead they opted for a discharge based on violation of DADT. The resulting court cased was a product of the DADT discharge being challenged in federal court. The Air Force decided to pass on the adultery charges and passed up the bite at that apple.


>>>>

You can still face a court martial and other non judicial punishments for having an affair.

 

[techieny]

Wow. Now you can enlist under the buddy plan....

 

[WorldWatcher]

The case that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell was indeed a case of adultery. Margaret Witt, a lesbian, was involved in an adulterous affair with Laurie McChesney. The affair was exposed when McChesney's husband complained to Witt's superiors. Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She sued and eventually ended DADT.

I guess adultery is okay if it is homosexual adultery. Discharges for adulterous affairs for heterosexuals may still be done.

I believe that is incorrect, the government never filed a case for adultery, instead they opted for a discharge based on violation of DADT. The resulting court cased was a product of the DADT discharge being challenged in federal court. The Air Force decided to pass on the adultery charges and passed up the bite at that apple.


>>>>

You can still face a court martial and other non judicial punishments for having an affair.

I know.

There are three elements to Article 134 (Adultery) (Manual of the Courts Martial, Page IV-114):

1. Wrongful sexual relations,
2. The the accused or other person was married,
3. The under the circumstances the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit on the service.​

If I remember the case correctly, at the time Major Witt was having an affair the conduct of the affair was:

A. Taking place about 200-250 miles away from Major Witt's permanent duty station. If Major Witt was traveling that far to see her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove it had a negative impact on good order and discipline in the command if no one at the command knew about it.

B. Secondly, if the affair was being conducted in a relatively private fashion, i.e. 200 miles away from base and Major Witt was not wearing her uniform while dating her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove discredit upon the service.​

So, while I'm not saying that the Air Force couldn't have made a case, they choose not to at the beginning of the process and choose instead to go for the DADT discharge instead of UCMJ prosecution. Once they passed on the Article 32 process (similar to a grand jury), the chance was lost. The Air Force is the one that tried for the easy way out.


>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

I believe that is incorrect, the government never filed a case for adultery, instead they opted for a discharge based on violation of DADT. The resulting court cased was a product of the DADT discharge being challenged in federal court. The Air Force decided to pass on the adultery charges and passed up the bite at that apple.


>>>>

You can still face a court martial and other non judicial punishments for having an affair.

I know.

There are three elements to Article 134 (Adultery) (Manual of the Courts Martial, Page IV-114):

1. Wrongful sexual relations,
2. The the accused or other person was married,
3. The under the circumstances the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit on the service.​

If I remember the case correctly, at the time Major Witt was having an affair the conduct of the affair was:

A. Taking place about 200-250 miles away from Major Witt's permanent duty station. If Major Witt was traveling that far to see her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove it had a negative impact on good order and discipline in the command if no one at the command knew about it.

B. Secondly, if the affair was being conducted in a relatively private fashion, i.e. 200 miles away from base Major Witt was not wearing her uniform while dating her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove discredit upon the service.​

So, while I'm not saying that the Air Force couldn't make a case, they choose not to at the beginning of the process and choose instead to go for the DADT discharge instead of UCMJ prosecution. The Air Force is the one that tried for the easy way out.

So as long as I am ******* a married woman a couple hours away and not in uniform I'm good to go? what kind of precedence does this send? I'd just go tell my married friend to go meet me a few hours away in a hotel and I can smash in my civies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can still face a court martial and other non judicial punishments for having an affair.

I know.

There are three elements to Article 134 (Adultery) (Manual of the Courts Martial, Page IV-114):

1. Wrongful sexual relations,
2. The the accused or other person was married,
3. The under the circumstances the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit on the service.​

If I remember the case correctly, at the time Major Witt was having an affair the conduct of the affair was:

A. Taking place about 200-250 miles away from Major Witt's permanent duty station. If Major Witt was traveling that far to see her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove it had a negative impact on good order and discipline in the command if no one at the command knew about it.

B. Secondly, if the affair was being conducted in a relatively private fashion, i.e. 200 miles away from base Major Witt was not wearing her uniform while dating her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove discredit upon the service.​

So, while I'm not saying that the Air Force couldn't make a case, they choose not to at the beginning of the process and choose instead to go for the DADT discharge instead of UCMJ prosecution. The Air Force is the one that tried for the easy way out.

So as long as I am ******* a married woman a couple hours away and not in uniform I'm good to go? what kind of precedence does this send? I'd just go tell my married friend to go meet me a few hours away in a hotel and I can smash in my civies.

Not being recommended for further punishment from an Article 32 is not a "precedence" occurrence. I wouldn't recommend it then and I wouldn't recommend it now.

Remember the Air Force was looking at what it assumed would be a straightforward administrative discharge under the DADT policy. They probably looked at is as the affair was quiet and far away with no impact on the command - so why go through protracted legal problems to Court Martial a Major with 17-18 years of exemplary service (at the time when it was reported) and just go for the low profile administrative discharge. I don't think they figured on the federal court challenge.



>>>>

 

[gallantwarrior]

I seen quite a bit of that in the Air Force, on my last deploymeny to Kuwait we had 2 people ***** out of the deployment and 2 others got tagged to take their place, I had put in to separate via force shaping around that time and since my new DOS was less than 3 weeks from our expected return date, technically I was not supposed to go on the deployment and I could have very easily slithered out of it but I didn't feel that was right, to make another fool go in my place, I just sucked up the last months of my service and made extra money, I just don't see how someone who wants to stay in the Military could ***** out of a deployment and look at themselves in the mirror, this is what we are here for after all.

Fortunately, you are one of many and kudos to you. Grown ups will accept the unpleasant bits of life an make good of them. Thanks for your service.
A word to escaping deployments when I was in service...I began my first enlistment while Vietnam was still very much in the news. People were getting dead at a much greater rate there than they are in the ME. That's no excuse to be anything less than a man. We weren't exclusively all-volunteer at that time, either. The rich kids were getting deferments for college while those less fortunate were being sent to the meat grinder. Women were rare enough and had "traditional" jobs in the military.

Man I could only imagine what it was like for the guys in Vietnam. For me it just didn't feel right for me to try and talk my way out of this deployment, although I could have very easily done so with my DOS being so soon after our expected return date, if you join the Military being deployed is something you are going to have to deal with sooner or later, if that bothers you don't ******* enlist. When I worked Separations we had a guy who said he was waiting to see if his job would become deployable in the next coming year, and if it did he would separate, this clown was only in the Military for the benefits, nice bonuses and the safety of a non deployable job, that shit pissed me the **** off.

The 'Nam era was different from today's military in many ways. Homosexuals, while there, were very low-key. Recall that society overall rejected homosexuality in those days. Very, very few were "out of the closet", and most of them were entertainers, not soldiers. Nobody would have posed the question, let alone even considered telling.
Then there's the issue of pot. Talk about a kinder, gentler military...at least towards each other. The enemy caught hell, the the smokers were pretty cool with each other.
There's not real correlation between the military that was then and the military that is now. My brother retired from the Marines because he was disgusted with what a bunch of pansy-asses they had become.

 

[Trajan]

First gay group forms on U.S. military base

First gay group forms on U.S. military base - 1326 - Gay Lesbian Bi Trans News - Windy City Times

and so it begins.....


we'll see how long it takes.

I say, oh, 2 years very max....

navy huh? that figures.....

 

[High_Gravity]

I know.

There are three elements to Article 134 (Adultery) (Manual of the Courts Martial, Page IV-114):

1. Wrongful sexual relations,
2. The the accused or other person was married,
3. The under the circumstances the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit on the service.​

If I remember the case correctly, at the time Major Witt was having an affair the conduct of the affair was:

A. Taking place about 200-250 miles away from Major Witt's permanent duty station. If Major Witt was traveling that far to see her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove it had a negative impact on good order and discipline in the command if no one at the command knew about it.

B. Secondly, if the affair was being conducted in a relatively private fashion, i.e. 200 miles away from base Major Witt was not wearing her uniform while dating her girlfriend, it would be hard to prove discredit upon the service.​

So, while I'm not saying that the Air Force couldn't make a case, they choose not to at the beginning of the process and choose instead to go for the DADT discharge instead of UCMJ prosecution. The Air Force is the one that tried for the easy way out.

So as long as I am ******* a married woman a couple hours away and not in uniform I'm good to go? what kind of precedence does this send? I'd just go tell my married friend to go meet me a few hours away in a hotel and I can smash in my civies.

Not being recommended for further punishment from an Article 32 is not a "precedence" occurrence. I wouldn't recommend it then and I wouldn't recommend it now.

Remember the Air Force was looking at what it assumed would be a straightforward administrative discharge under the DADT policy. They probably looked at is as the affair was quiet and far away with no impact on the command - so why go through protracted legal problems to Court Martial a Major with 17-18 years of exemplary service (at the time when it was reported) and just go for the low profile administrative discharge. I don't think they figured on the federal court challenge.



>>>>

Basically if this was a straight man ******* a married woman, do you think the case would have went anywhere?

 

[High_Gravity]

Fortunately, you are one of many and kudos to you. Grown ups will accept the unpleasant bits of life an make good of them. Thanks for your service.
A word to escaping deployments when I was in service...I began my first enlistment while Vietnam was still very much in the news. People were getting dead at a much greater rate there than they are in the ME. That's no excuse to be anything less than a man. We weren't exclusively all-volunteer at that time, either. The rich kids were getting deferments for college while those less fortunate were being sent to the meat grinder. Women were rare enough and had "traditional" jobs in the military.

Man I could only imagine what it was like for the guys in Vietnam. For me it just didn't feel right for me to try and talk my way out of this deployment, although I could have very easily done so with my DOS being so soon after our expected return date, if you join the Military being deployed is something you are going to have to deal with sooner or later, if that bothers you don't ******* enlist. When I worked Separations we had a guy who said he was waiting to see if his job would become deployable in the next coming year, and if it did he would separate, this clown was only in the Military for the benefits, nice bonuses and the safety of a non deployable job, that shit pissed me the **** off.

The 'Nam era was different from today's military in many ways. Homosexuals, while there, were very low-key. Recall that society overall rejected homosexuality in those days. Very, very few were "out of the closet", and most of them were entertainers, not soldiers. Nobody would have posed the question, let alone even considered telling.
Then there's the issue of pot. Talk about a kinder, gentler military...at least towards each other. The enemy caught hell, the the smokers were pretty cool with each other.
There's not real correlation between the military that was then and the military that is now. My brother retired from the Marines because he was disgusted with what a bunch of pansy-asses they had become.

Yeah they are hard asses about pot now, they end careers with the quickness if you are caught anywhere near it, at least they do in the Air Force. Shoot I got out in 2007 and I can hardly recognize this Military anymore.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So as long as I am ******* a married woman a couple hours away and not in uniform I'm good to go? what kind of precedence does this send? I'd just go tell my married friend to go meet me a few hours away in a hotel and I can smash in my civies.

Not being recommended for further punishment from an Article 32 is not a "precedence" occurrence. I wouldn't recommend it then and I wouldn't recommend it now.

Remember the Air Force was looking at what it assumed would be a straightforward administrative discharge under the DADT policy. They probably looked at is as the affair was quiet and far away with no impact on the command - so why go through protracted legal problems to Court Martial a Major with 17-18 years of exemplary service (at the time when it was reported) and just go for the low profile administrative discharge. I don't think they figured on the federal court challenge.



>>>>

Basically if this was a straight man ******* a married woman, do you think the case would have went anywhere?

I've see a case of a straight man ******* a married woman that didn't go anywhere. Lt. Cmdr was having a deployment affair, she got pissed and made waves, he was allowed to resign.

So ya, I've seen it. I think the decision not to refer to NJP or Court Martial was based on more on being an Officer then it was being a female. I think if it was an enlisted puke it would have much more likely been handled through judicial channels instead of administrative.



>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

Not being recommended for further punishment from an Article 32 is not a "precedence" occurrence. I wouldn't recommend it then and I wouldn't recommend it now.

Remember the Air Force was looking at what it assumed would be a straightforward administrative discharge under the DADT policy. They probably looked at is as the affair was quiet and far away with no impact on the command - so why go through protracted legal problems to Court Martial a Major with 17-18 years of exemplary service (at the time when it was reported) and just go for the low profile administrative discharge. I don't think they figured on the federal court challenge.



>>>>

Basically if this was a straight man ******* a married woman, do you think the case would have went anywhere?

I've see a case of a straight man ******* a married woman that didn't go anywhere. Lt. Cmdr was having a deployment affair, she got pissed and made waves, he was allowed to resign.

So ya, I've seen it. I think the decision not to refer to NJP or Court Martial was based on more on being an Officer then it was being a female. I think if it was an enlisted puke it would have much more likely been handled through judicial channels instead of administrative.



>>>>

I think alot of these situations are handled on a case by case basis anyways, depends on rank, gender, time in service, how badly your chain of command wants to **** you etc. I seen an Airman First Class just get a Letter of Reprimand for ******* his Officer in Charge who was a 1st Lieutenant, the punishment could have been much worse if the commander wanted to follow through with it but the Lt and the Airman were both very young, the Airman was like 19 and the LT was 21, so he just moved the Airman to a different office, gave him the LOR and case closed, I don't know if he did anything to the LT.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not being recommended for further punishment from an Article 32 is not a "precedence" occurrence. I wouldn't recommend it then and I wouldn't recommend it now.

Remember the Air Force was looking at what it assumed would be a straightforward administrative discharge under the DADT policy. They probably looked at is as the affair was quiet and far away with no impact on the command - so why go through protracted legal problems to Court Martial a Major with 17-18 years of exemplary service (at the time when it was reported) and just go for the low profile administrative discharge. I don't think they figured on the federal court challenge.



>>>>

Basically if this was a straight man ******* a married woman, do you think the case would have went anywhere?

I've see a case of a straight man ******* a married woman that didn't go anywhere. Lt. Cmdr was having a deployment affair, she got pissed and made waves, he was allowed to resign.

So ya, I've seen it. I think the decision not to refer to NJP or Court Martial was based on more on being an Officer then it was being a female. I think if it was an enlisted puke it would have much more likely been handled through judicial channels instead of administrative.



>>>>

Actually, if it's an E7 or better, it's handled administratively. Had an AOC that I was stationed with when I was a 2nd. He transferred to shore duty, and about a month after that, we deployed for a shakedown cruise on the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON. Came back, and found out the bastard had sent HIS wife to boot camp and A school, called me to ask if my wife was available for babysitting, and when I came back, ****** was having an affair.

Was told by the chain and legal that the only way I could have him taken to mast was if I had photographic proof. However, they did put a letter of reprimand in his service record and he never saw E-8.

He divorced his old lady while she was in boot camp and married mine about 9 months after we got divorced.

Yes, you can have people prosecuted for adultery, but it's very difficult.