Rachel Maddow interviews Major Micheal Almy who was dismissed from duty because of DADT laws and examines his role in the the ruling that was just handed down.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While Judge Virginia Phillips has remarked, The logic defies description” regarding currect DADT policy, an appeal is expected in many circles. This very well might be a case of ‘be careful what you wish for.’ Regardless, this is a huge decision that has the potential for huge impact on our military.

Do you think DADT is unconstitutional? What will the outcome be? Will we revert back to a nation that prohibits gays and lesbians from legally serving in the military? Will the military now actively begin a witch hunt to weed out all gays and lesbians or will there be new legislation that allows gays and lesbians to serve?

5 Thoughts to ““The Logic Defies Description” according to Judge Virginia Phillips”

  1. Until Article 125 of the UCMJ, outlawing sodomy, is removed, homosexual acts will be illegal in the military. Yes, I know that heterosexuals do “it” too, but, homosexuals are limited only to those acts, and therefore, admission to homosexuality will constitute a basis for charges.

  2. Does that have to be done by Congress? Is there a chance that this judge could rule that article unconstitutional?

    I would think if some people could do it and some people weren’t allowed to do it, then that would be cause right there.

    Not to ask a stupid question, but does that ‘it’ when referring to sodomy mean everything that isn’t sex where someone could conceive? I hate the word ‘sodomy.’ It is a legal word that is so vague.

  3. From http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm


    “(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 by punished as a court-martial may direct.”


    (1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

    (2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

    (3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.


    It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

    There ya go….

  4. And somehow, I don’t feel a bit better now the cloud of confusion has been lifted. I wish they would just spell it out using the words that describe the individual acts. I hate the word sodomy—like it is the grand sweeping grandfather of everything other then missionary.

    The fact that heterosexuals get by with it will be the caveat in a court of law.

    Thanks Cargo. Thus ends the lesson.

  5. Actually, heterosexuals don’t get away with it. We had two sailors caught together. Both married to other people. One an E-7 and the other an E-6. One of the charges was an Article 125.

Comments are closed.