The United States Senate has approved a defense authorization bill by a vote of 93-7 that includes changes to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: no longer banned are sodomy and sex with animals (bestiality).
Article 125 used to state:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The change in Article 125 ostensibly is due to President Obama’s support to remove the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Quite likely, the removal of the bestiality provision was not intentional. But, the simple fact is that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there’s no longer a provision to prosecute military personnel who engage specifically in bestiality.
The U.S. Armed Forces have been touted by those on the political left as being on the vanguard of “social change.” They cite, as the primary example, the demise of segregation in the U.S. military following World War I and officially when President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948.
_hdln.jpg?resize=238%2C320)
So, if The Motley Monk “gets it,” any soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Uniform Code.
Hopefully, the Conference Committee will deal directly with this particular “social experiment,” as the House version of the Defense Authorization Act includes reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and prohibiting same-sex marriage on military bases.
What is this nation coming to when U.S. Senators legislate something like bestiality in the U.S. Armed Forces?
When homosexual sodomy is legalized and sanctified as marriage, then why not marriage between multiple consenting people? Why not Mormon polygamy (we will now have to apologize to all those LDS members for discrimination against their life style generations ago)? Why not between adults and children? Why not between human and other species. If everyone is consenting and no one hurts anyone else, then what’s the problem?
With liberalism there is no morality because everything is relative – if it feels good and everyone agrees and no one is hurt, then go right on ahead.
I despise and loathe liberalism and the Demokratik Party of death.
“Quite likely, the removal of the bestiality provision was not intentional.”
I want to believe whoever did it knew what he/she was doing and the political commissars missed it. Mark Shea often writes: “Sin makes you stupid.”
Never misunderestimate the GI.
Otherwise, this fuster cluck gives new meaning to the Vietnam war-era saying “F… the Army.”
Was this a parody of how the far right obsesses over extreme trivialities? How many cases of bestiality in the military were prosecuted before the ban was lifted? And how is lifting the ban “legislating something like bestiality”? Wouldn’t reintroducing the ban now be social engineering?
@Paul P., lots of people are for legalizing polygamy though some have reservations because many times polygamy is a result of coercion. Children and non-humans can’t legally consent. The pro-gay-marriage side’s concept of marriage is a legal contract so all the normal rules of contracts would still apply. To debate them, you have to argue against their first principles. Why is marriage merely a contract? You can’t argue by bringing up things that don’t follow logically from their own definition.
Yes, you are logically correct, RR. Thanks.
[…] How’s this for “Diversity” and “Inclusion”? – The Motley Monk, The American Catholic […]
RR
Same same the extreme left, justice and peace cadres obsess over trivialities like four water-boardings and 200 executions to rationalize providing material support for 45,000,000 abortions and taxpayer funding for millions more.
FYI – among Real Catholics bestiality is as much a mortal sin as sodomy. Among the justice and peace cadres, there is no sin except tax cuts for the rich.
Be advised that the bill hasn’t gone through the House of Representatives yet. I’m sure they’re already aware of the problem. It’s just a question of whether only the anti-bestiality clause will be reinstated in the House version or whether they’ll put the whole thing back in and fight it out during the reconciliation process.
That first picture is brilliant.
What’s this nation “coming” to? I would suggest that we’ve been here for quite some time. We have dug quite a hole for ourselves and I think we’re still digging. God bless America.
It seems logical, fair, and inclusive.
If it is licit for a male to stick his “member” into another male’s orifice (generally rectum, I hear) and pour in his seed; why the vicious hatred against someone that desires to do likewise to a beast?
PS: I don’t buy the peta B S that animals are rational.
As the Catechism puts it, it is contrary to human dignity to cause unnecessary suffering or death to animals. To abuse them to offend against chastity is wicked, disordered and cruel.
These things to waste more time avoiding debt reduction, to so much further revile people, and to show our children and the world more atrocious depths of U.S. officialdumb. Senators and Representatives: Please read the short story about the origin of the word you are legislating in Genesis Chapter 19 and weep.