Well, the UCMJ does have to be revised regarding that. But that's because Lawrence v Texas pretty much makes that clause unenforceable anyway.
You flat out *cannot* make homosexual *acts* illegal anymore. Not if they are consensual. Period. End of discussion.
A lot of places still haven't changed laws about "sodomy", but if they are dumb enough to try to enforce them, they'll get a major legal slapdown and be forced to change/remove said laws.
"Being" homosexual (but not engaging in homosexual acts) is apt to be covered as fallout from this decision.
And even if it isn't, given the reasoning on this decision, it'll be really hard to make enforcing any rules against being homosexual stick.
Congress may not *want* to revise that part of the UCMJ. But if they don't, the courts will do it for them.
The thing is, stuff that would be prohibited to civilians isn't always automatically prohibited to the Armed Forces; if you look around, I'm sure you'll see a tagline on some current or retired military person's postings to a newsgroup or forum that says something like "Servicemen give up their rights to protect yours". More, the courts have historically deferred to the military authorities on matters of military discipline, and there is a case to be made that since enlistment is completely voluntary, signing those enlistment papers is agreeing to a contract, part of the terms of which include obeying the UCMJ. So, it's not so clear-cut. Lawrence v Texas does not address the question of its own applicability to the Armed Forces, and it HAS been held that restrictions that would be absolutely unacceptable on purely Constitutional bases for civilians are acceptable in the military - such as barring serving members from openly criticizing NCA.
Don't count on the courts in this - and don't assume that the overturning of DADT is going to work out the way you want it to. The Military Is Different From You And Me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
You flat out *cannot* make homosexual *acts* illegal anymore. Not if they are consensual. Period. End of discussion.
A lot of places still haven't changed laws about "sodomy", but if they are dumb enough to try to enforce them, they'll get a major legal slapdown and be forced to change/remove said laws.
"Being" homosexual (but not engaging in homosexual acts) is apt to be covered as fallout from this decision.
And even if it isn't, given the reasoning on this decision, it'll be really hard to make enforcing any rules against being homosexual stick.
Congress may not *want* to revise that part of the UCMJ. But if they don't, the courts will do it for them.
no subject
Don't count on the courts in this - and don't assume that the overturning of DADT is going to work out the way you want it to. The Military Is Different From You And Me.