White House Press Secretary Jay Carney got himself in a heap of trouble with animal rights group PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. How did the press secretary get in hot water?
According to the Code of Military Justice, the following regulations have been repealed:
(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.
During a White House press briefing, World Net Daily reporter Lester Kinsolving threw Jay Carney a real curve ball. Kinsolving is known for asking ridiculous, outlandish questions.
KINSOLVING: The Family Research Council and CNS News both reported a 93-to-7 U.S. Senate vote to approve a defense authorization bill that, quote, “includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals, or bestiality.”
Does the commander-in-chief approve or disapprove of bestiality in our armed forces?
CARNEY: I don’t have any comment on–I don’t have any comment on that. Let me go to another question.
KINSOLVING: Does the President believe this will be approved by all animal support groups, such as –
CARNEY: Let’s get to something more serious.
It must have been that S-word, serious, that set PETA off. Not to be outdone in the outlandish department:
PETA’s letter to Press Secretary Jay Carney follows.
December 6, 2011
Mr. Jay Carney
Press Secretary to the President
The White House
Dear Mr. Carney:
In watching last night’s news briefing, we were upset to note that you flippantly addressed the recently approved repeal of the military ban on bestiality. With respect, this is no laughing matter. Our office has been flooded with calls from Americans who are upset that this ban has been repealed—and for good reason. As we outlined in the attached letter sent yesterday to the secretary of defense, animal abuse does not affect animals only—it is also a matter of public safety, as people who abuse animals very often go on to abuse human beings.
I hope that in the future, you will address important issues with sensitivity and not dismiss them with a joke.
Very truly yours,
Colleen O’Brien
Director of Communications
How many people have been punished or dishonorably discharged because of human relations that involved consensual sex practices? The military has undergone a much needed make-over in this department. I resent Worldnet and PETA attempting to take the focus off of the human beings. PETA has done some good things with animal rights. They anger me when they forget the big picture and go into the absurd.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last person in the military convicted of bestialty? Perhaps this is a question for Colonel Morris Davis.
Well that certainly legalizes a bunch of things that have been going on for years–except maybe for the animal part–not too many sheep at sea. What does this do to the good old “Missionary Position”?
Sheep at sea indeed! Maybe the manatees should be afraid!
Probably the one case every military lawyer knows by name is United States v. Sanchez, a published decision by the Court of Military Appeals in 1960. Sanchez was convicted in a court-martial for committing anal sodomy on a chicken. His roommate noticed when Sanchez entered their dorm room that he was scratched up and had feathers on him, and a dead chicken was found near the barracks. It was a fowl case. In my 25 years of service there were lots of cases related to GIs and sex in about every shape, form or fashion you can imagine, but never one involving an animal.
Thank you for your input, Colonel Davis.
Now, are you kidding about US v. Sanchez? How is that even possible? You are joking aren’t you?
I understand the repeal on sodomy for the obvious reasons I am not going to write here. But the other part…some dummy did a lousy job of “cut and paste” without reading the complete line. Ah, automation…you got to love it as it removes the requirement to actually think about what is being typed.
Since this is associated with the repeal of DADT, intended to ensure that it’s OK to be homosexual, and engage in homosexual sex, wouldn’t this be classified as an “unintended consequence”? It is not my intention to go back and redebate what is done. I am speaking to the broader point (mentioned by Ray, above) that often in our rush to legislatively address some real or percieved social inequality, there are often unintended consequences. I am pretty sure that had the founding fathers understood that the 3/5ths compromise, and later legislators understood the Missouri Compromise would both lead directly to the American Civil War, they might have chosen different courses of action. The repeal of DADT is done. As the US military moves forward in implementing the new law, I am sure there will be other unintended consequences that arise.
Leave it to World Nut Daily and PETA to give the fear-mongers their newest cause celebre. A simple c&p error will have people lining up yowling about the slippery slope of madness as folks think they’re free to marry their sheep, multiple sheep, and their mothers and cousins.
@Steve Thomas
Wow, never say in perhaps a dozen words what you can say in nearly150! Someone made a dumbshit mistake-it will get fixed. This is much ado about nothing.
My favorite line: penetration…however slight. That’s an awesome defense. I just stuck a little in. That’s awesome.
@pokie (and you need a new name on that note)
It depends on whether you are looking at it from the point of view of the sticker or the stickee.
Here are the elements of the offense:
(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.
My question: How would you determine if the sheep consented or not?
Am not sure this was a good lead: “Jay Carney blows off bestialty”.
@George S. Harris
You beat me to it.
As for the consent of the sheep….if they baaaaa-ck off, they’re not consenting.
And also….never mind….I’ll leave the readers to go find their own “sheep” jokes……
I think that this demonstrates NON-consent. The vid states Sheep vs Marines but those are soldiers, not Marines. The shoulder patch at 21 seconds is, I think, 3rd Infantry.
If it had been a Marine….they would have been able to tell a ram from a ewe.
Or they would be ramming ewe….marine expert. MWC during the Vietnam War.
Ahhhh…forgot the link.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/689017/sheep_vs_marine/