Acting in homosexual porn movies in military uniform is deemed compatible with military service.

Hell, EVERYTHING is compatible with military service now, except defending the United States.

One of my many undone projects is to compile a list of the possible logical consequences of allowing homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. But here’s one consequence I wouldn’t have thought of, from an article in The Blaze sent by Gretchen D.:

Military Court Says It’s Okay That Marine Wore His Uniform in Gay Porn Shoot
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 8:20am by Madeleine Morgenstern

A military court ruled this week that it’s okay a Marine wore parts of his official uniform while shooting gay porn videos—because he never appeared on camera wearing the full thing.

According to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Marine Corps Sgt. Matthew W. Simmons was an active-duty member of the Marine Corps band when he took leave to appear in several pornographic videos that “involved sodomy with numerous other men.”

In some of the clips, he was shown wearing his Marine dress blue coat, complete with decorations and rank insignia; others showed him wearing a Marine physical training jacket. At one point he mentioned on-camera that he was a Marine, and still shots from the videos were used for online advertising, McClatchy reported.

According to the Marine Corps Times, Simmons—who used the name “Christian Jade” on the military pornography site “Active Duty”– first came under investigation in 2010 when photos and videos surfaced of him having sex with other men.

He pleaded guilty to charges of misusing his uniform, but in its ruling the court set aside part of those convictions: Because Simmons never wore the complete uniform, there was no “visual evidence” for the general public of his government authority, and even though he identified himself as a Marine, he didn’t say they supported his behavior.

The court held:

“We are also not satisfied, on the basis of this record, that the appellant’s statements or wear of uniform items may create an inference of service endorsement of the activities depicted. The appellant never wore a complete ‘uniform,’ so the general public could never receive ‘visual evidence of the authority and responsibility vested in the individual by the United States Government.’ He did not voice any Marine support for what he was doing or any service views on the propriety or impropriety of his conduct.

Because Simmons’ actions couldn’t be considered using the uniform for “commercial” purposes, there was no misuse involved. The court instead ordered he be resentenced under the charge of “general neglect or disorder.”

- end of initial entry -

JC in Houston writes:

Whatever happened to the Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prescribes sanctions for conduct “of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed services” ? Apparently in today’s sorry excuse of a military that doesn’t include this sickening type of behavior.

Doug H. writes:

I saw this article a couple of days ago. I can’t express the disgust I feel towards our military leadership and the leadership of the country at large. It reminds me of something I heard a TV preacher say many years ago when I was very young. Sin is like water behind a dam. The little seep coming through erodes the structure and the whole system eventually fails. Despite this, I have hope even though we may see much more darkness before the light.

Gene S. writes:

Exactly what is the problem here? I don’t see a problem. A soldier on his own time acted in a film. How does this affect the war in Afghanistan? How does this impact the security situation between Israel and Gaza? Does this render our missiles any less effective? I’m trying very hard to see what in particular the military problem is with this situation. Can you detail this out a little more, thanks?

Josh W. writes:

I’d like to reply to Gene S.’s comment:

There are quite a few things wrong with a military service member making pornography. Some of them are specific to doing so in uniform; others are not.

First, the discipline required to compartmentalize public and private life is critical to military service. If a soldier or marine has respect for his organization, he will proudly maintain his portrayal of that organization rather than dilute it with individualism. For this reason, participating in the filming of pornography, whether in uniform or otherwise, is not appropriate for service members.

Secondly, even if you disagree with my thesis that the segregation between public and private life is important to maintain, you must concede that this “Marine” will no longer have the respect of his superiors, peers, or subordinates; if he ever had it in the first place. How you judge the judgment of his fellow service members is irrelevant. Many people in the military will simply not respect this man’s authority any longer. I don’t think I need to go into the details of why it is important for junior enlisted marines to respect their NCOs.

Thirdly, I support (or at least supported) the repeal of DADT, but I am opposed to the “homosexualization” of the military. I have maintained that these two positions are not mutually exclusive but this event is making me rethink things. The military’s core duty is to kill people and destroy things when it serves the interests of our nation; a decidedly masculine responsibility. The framework of the military—social, administrative, technological, tactical—must always support this end. Allowing public gay sex between men in uniform contradicts the military social order and profoundly changes what it means to be a soldier, marine, sailor, or airman. The fact that he was wearing the uniform is critical to this point because I am referring to the military as an institution rather than specifically to the people who will interact directly with the marine in question. If gays can fit into this framework and perform competently, fine. But mutating the framework to allow for alternative lifestyles is to make an abomination of the military.

Lastly, I’ll address the “what are the effects?” issue. In civil society, we typically place personal freedoms on a higher pedestal than the preservation of culture, although traditionalists typically argue against doing so. In the military, however, it is the mission which is the universally highest priority. This supersedes the individual rights of service members at all times. It is not necessary to demonstrate a direct and immediate link between a certain type of behavior and harm to a particular individual in order to prohibit said activity on the grounds that it compromises mission readiness. If you disagree with this, then you must take this line of thinking to all its logical conclusions. One of which is that the military should not regulate the wear of the uniform at all, even while on duty, because after all—who does it harm directly?

Gene S. replies:

I respect Josh W.’s well thought out, well articulated reply.

I have an additional question. This soldier’s conduct was reviewed by military authorities. Does the military itself share Josh W.’s points?

Matthew H. writes:

America is spiritually dead.

A nation that tolerates such an abomination in the ranks of its most respected branch is not worth defending.

The military group that permits its uniform to be soiled in this way is no longer worthy of respect.

Shame, shame, shame.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2011 03:50 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):