« The Political Landscape Sees Three Decades of Growth for Evangelical Interest Groups | Main | Obama, Clinton Elevate LGBT Issues in U.S. Foreign Policy »

December 8, 2011

FRC, PETA Call for Continuing an Explicit Military Ban on Bestiality

In an unlikely alliance, the Family Research Council (FRC) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have found a common cause: the criminalization of bestiality in the military. Both groups are calling for keeping an explicit ban on sex with animals in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that may be eliminated by the Defense Authorization Act.

One of the many changes in the act included the removal of the sodomy section of the code after the removal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ban. Few realized that the UCMJ defines sodomy either as homosexual relations or as sex with an animal. By striking out the entire sodomy provision, Congress may have decriminalized bestiality.

When the Senate passed the bill last week (93 yeas, 7 nays), FRC said the new rule put the ban on bestiality in doubt. According to the FRC, removing the entire sodomy section from the UCMJ “may have inadvertently opened the door to even more perversion.” FRC told CT that its legal experts said that “by eliminating Article 125, the Senate would be creating a legal argument for bestiality.” FRC president Tony Perkins said the bestiality change was likely unintentional. However, he also suggested that the provision may be part of what the FRC sees as President Obama's attempt to shape the culture through the military. 

“While we'd like to believe this is an oversight on their part, it does point to the administration's pattern of undermining the environment that the military code was intended to create,” Perkins said. “This may not have been deliberate, but it's certainly conceivable from leaders who pay so little attention to the consequences of their extreme social agenda.”

In another statement, Perkins described “Obama's military” as being “where bestiality is embraced and Bibles are banned.”

The issue gained some national attention when World Net Daily's Lester Kinsolving broached the issue during Monday's White House press briefing, where both the press and the press secretary made light of the issue.  In response, PETA sent White House press secretary Jay Carney a letter saying the issue was serious and not something to kid about.

"Animal abuse is an issue of community safety that should be taken seriously by all government staff,” PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said. “We hope that the public outcry against this inadvertent lapse will inspire the military to take action to make sure that it will be able to fully and appropriately serve and protect all Americans—human and nonhuman alike."

FRC and PETA make unlikely allies. Earlier this year, FRC's Robert Morrison criticized PETA's efforts to translate eliminate the pronoun “it” when referring to an animal in the Bible. PETA advocates using “he” or “she” instead. Morrison said, “PETA folks get this one wrong, too, as they get most things wrong.”

The provision may still be amended. A conference committee must reconcile the House version of the bill passed in May. While both the House and Senate versions of the bill eliminate the entire sodomy article, the final compromise could still alter the language to keep bestiality explicitly prohibited.

Editor's note: This post has been updated.


Another very easy to resolve issue/problem.

Just bring back the Draft.

The Draft is the ONLY way to provide the ARMY with all the necessary numbers needed. Enabling them to sift out all of the Perverts that are now finding refuge in the Armed Forces.

Simple 3rd grade arithmetics. For every pervert Expelled and Rejected, the Draft can find 7 or 8 able-bodied.

Other organizations and the other military branches will benefit as well. Just as they did back in the days.

Anyone not wanting to be Drafted in the ARMY can Join the Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or Navy. Just like they did by the hundreds of thousands in the past.

Or they can go to Med. School, Seminary, the Missionary field, join the Police, the Fire Dept and many, many others that right now escape my memory.


Tony Perkins continues to appall. The statement that "Obama's military" is one "...where bestiality is embraced and Bibles are banned..." is unconscionable. Such unscrupulous hyperbole truly blurs the line between honest opinion and false witness. How much more malicious can he be with this kind of disgusting vitriol against the President? Unwittingly, he reveals a lot more about the unsound state of his own mind than he does about the current state of the military.

The comments regarding banning the bible are true. You can continue putting your head in the sand but this president has created an environment that is hostile to Christianity. Here is the story on the bibles http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/the-genesis-of-the-bibles-exodus-from-troop-hospitals

And what is the source to which you refer me, Lawana? Tony Perkins own organization. I'm afraid that's not very convincing. I read other reports on the story from other more objective sources,at least in my opinion. Yes, they made an error in judgement at the military, but I don't believe that it was meant to be hostile.

Velma - PETA was also protesting, or did you not notice that?

Some liberals who accuse conservatives of seeing just one side of the news, themselves see only one side. I know that my conservative friends and I take the time to research what we read, we read information on both sides of the aisle, and we're well-informed. Something like bestiality doesn't just "slip" onto a bill, that is something purposefully inserted. When the spokesman for the white house was asked about bestiality being in the bill, he called it a "silly" question and refused to answer. No, it isn't "silly", and if it is so "silly" then let's make sure it's removed. This administration brings us lower and lower into the abyss.

The Family Research Council was right to protest, along with PETA, and Joe Carney's defensive objection of a "silly question" was wrong. However, I do not recall reading anywhere of PETA accusing the military of intentionally promoting bestiality. And by the way, I am a very conservative Christian re. sexuality. My issue here is not with conservative Christian values re. sexuality but with paranoid reactions. Although it is true, as the saying goes, that "just because you're paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you", it is even more true that Jesus mandates His disciples to resist returning evil for evil. Blatantly maligning the inner motives of others without careful, prayerful investigation and evidence is sinful. Christians should be even more "conservative" about accusing other people of evil motives than our secular courts of law. Let us remember that "We wrestle not against flesh and blood..." (Ephesians 6: 12-13).

Please explain how bestiality could be unintentionally included.

To Carol:
Good question. Perhaps the person responsible for revising the document had a 'senior moment' or other momentary lapse of judgement? Or perhaps he/she did not really know the meaning of the word 'bestiality' (many people don't)and did not bother to look it up? Or perhaps he/she really was deliberate in the act; but even if so, does that mean everyone associated with him/her is automatically guilty of evil intent as well? This is what I mean by careful, prayerful investigation.

A point of information re: "Something like bestiality doesn't just "slip" onto a bill, that is something purposefully inserted." As the article says, the error that needs to be corrected (ratified by 48 Democratic and 44 Republican Senators) was *removing* an entire section from the code, not *inserting* anything new. And Tony Perkins (only the choir is listening anymore - too much crying wolf) comment about the President embracing bestiality in the military is a lie (or a condemnation of all those Senators of both parties).

Thanks, Russ, for the clarification. We waste so much spiritual and emotional energy overreacting to information that very often turns out to be little more than MIS-information.

Before we rejoice, let's see if it is removed. And yes, everyone on both sets of the aisle who would vote to allow bestiality should be voted out. I find it incredible to believe that someone writing laws would not know what the word means. Let's see if it gets removed. I don't consider it "silly" like the white house spokesman does. Since it was enacted as is, I doubt it.

Kathy/Carol -- The entire text of the provision (from S. 1867) is this:

"Repeal of Sodomy Article- Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed."

The text is available at thomas.gov (website of the Library of Congress)

It's also not a matter of the person drafting the provision "not know[ing] what the word [beastiality]means" since the word "beastiality" isn't in the UCMJ in the first place. Rather, the section of the UCMJ that would be eliminated contains a definition of "sodomy," which, unlike most statutory definitions of "sodomy," includes sexual acts with an animal.

Moreover, even without the section that would be repealed, I'm quite certain that the UCMJ would still allow prosecution for sexual acts with an animal under the "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen" section or under the General Article (for enlisted personnel). The idea that this repeal means that the Obama Administration is somehow "embracing beastiality" is ludicrous. There is nothing that needs "to be removed" as Carol claims. Rather, some minor clarifying language will certainly get included in the final version of the bill. Please, please -- take a deep breath.

The question about bestiality is a valid one. Why? Because where is the line? How far away from Scripture are we going to get...before we can AGREE on something!!!! It's an important question, for an administration that is actively pro-abortion, anti-Israel, pro-homosexual, anti-Constitution, anti-freedom (anti-free market), has derided the Bible and christians in the past, has supported the Cordoba House (victory mosque) in the past, etc. etc. etc. We're just looking for ANY point of agreement, at this point! Does the Obama administration stand together with conservative christians on ANYTHING? Finally. We're both against bestiality. Great! At least I agree with PETA on one thing!

E. Harris you are wrong in just about all of your allegations. Unlike 'Christian Lawyer' above, I'm sorry I cannot lay it out for you point-by-point in painstaking detail all the many ways in which you are factually wrong. However, I will give you one example, however inadequate: Just yesterday I saw and heard an authoritative source on a reputable news program state that no less than 75% of Israelis believe that President Obama is the most pro-Israel American president in a long time. I was very surprised to hear that. When he was first elected they were, not surprisngly, very worried. But having observed him for three years, even with a few still ongoing disagreements, they now applaud him for the courageous stand he took recently with the UN re.the establishment of a Palestinian state (he objected to the timing and the manner in which they wanted to push it through, while in no way abandonning the overall principle of a separate state). The Israelis were pleasantly surprised. In contrast to that, most of them are rolling their eyes at Newt Gingrinch calling the Palestinians "an invented people". If you are as quick to dismiss the "lame-stream media" from which I get most of my information as I am to dismiss WorldNet, Fox News and other right-wing sources of information, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. You should know though, that the results of a national independent survey taken recently show that those who subscribe to very right-wing sources of info are less factually informed re. current events than those who hardly ever pay any attention at all to the news.