The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains the laws that govern service in the military. Given the mission and conditions of the military service, there are certain limitations on individual rights that most would find unacceptable in the civilian world. One of these would be Article 125 which prohibits "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal", stating that "penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense". Sodomy under the UCMJ doesn't just comprise anal sex, but oral as well:
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.
It appears that the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is making some headway in gutting this ridiculous law that effects both heterosexuals and homosexuals regardless of marital status:
United States v. Marcum, 10/2/03: A homosexual airman had his conviction for giving "oral sodomy" to another man tossed out due to the 2003 Lawrence decision by SCOTUS. The "oral sodomy" was deemed consensual and hadn't taken place in public. He had been charged with other crimes which were not part of this decision.
United States v. Bullock, 11/30/04: A heterosexual male soldier had his conviction for receiving "oral sodomy" from a female tossed out due to the 2003 Lawrence decision by SCOTUS.
Appellant asserts that his conviction for consensual sodomy, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ, violated his constitutional rights. We agree that the facts admitted by appellant during the providence inquiry fail to establish that Article 125 was constitutionally applied in this case and we will grant relief accordingly.
United States v. Meno: A heterosexual male soldier had his conviction for giving "oral sodomy" to a female tossed out due to the 2003 Lawrence decision by SCOTUS. They did nail him on an Article 134 though.
On 14 May 2003, this court unanimously affirmed the findings of guilty and affirmed only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $670.00 pay per month until the discharge is executed, and reduction to Private E1. United States v. Meno, ARMY 20000733 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 14 May 2003) (unpub.). In the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), appellate defense counsel requested, and our court granted, reconsideration. We find that, under the circumstances of this case, appellant’s consensual sodomy constituted the exercise of a protected liberty interest not punishable under Article 125, UCMJ. And we now agree with appellate defense counsel that the evidence failed to establish that appellant’s other sexual conduct, as explained below, was prejudicial to good order and discipline or ser vice discrediting under Article 134, UCMJ. We also uphold appellant’s conviction for false swearing in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.