No it doesn't criminalize being gay. It criminalizes breaking the military code of conduct which is a completely voluntary engagement since we don't have forced military service. And even then, it doesn't even require that you abstain from the act, only that you keep it discreet and not mix it with your military life.
Can you point to any examples of DADT resulting in prosecution? It was my understanding that it simply led to administrative discharge. And that's only when it's actually used.
Your interpretation would make sense. . . however . . .
If someone sees you - off duty - in another town - on a date with your gay partner and kissing - and they take a photo and proove it - you can get booted for that.
It doesn't have to be *on duty* - it doesn't have to be *on base* - it doesn't have to even be *in uniform* or anything.
If you - at any time - are discovered to be 'doing something gay' - you can get the boot.
You can get the boot for what you did BEFORE you joined, as well.
Very FEW people actually *violated* DADT's code - some people are "discovered" through some nosy **** ONLINE or - or as is the example I gave: on the weekend OUT OF TOWN and no where near 'duty' at all. So - the act *says* "Don't ASK Don't TELL" - but you don't need to be asked and you don't need to tell . . . you just need to be discovered, spied or snooped on.
If person A is in the military - and person B is not in the military.
Person A doesn't tell or is never discovered - but someone who knows person B (at their school, for example) figures out that person B is involved with military person A - then the person who makes that discovery/connection can anonymously turn in person A without *ever* even meeting them.
And person A can get the boot.
So DADT is misleading title.
The entire act is frequently abused and a bunch of bull**** - a great way for non-military homophobes to exact some sort of personal deviant revenge on hard working citizens.
It's twisted and wrong.
Now - if these situations I've mentioned *didn't actually EVER* happen - then it would be a different story and your view of it would be more on target.
But you're way off base with how you think it really pans out.