Military Gay Ban Challenged in the Wake of SCOTUS Sodomy Ruling

Liberation Publication Breaking News ^ | July 7, 2003 | staff report

[ewing]

Citing the precedent set by the US Supreme Court ruling in the Texas sodomy case, a decorated Vietnam Combat Veteran filed suit late yesterday with the US Court of Federal Claims challenging the constitutionality of the 'don't ask, dont tell' policy.

The challenge filed by LTC Steve Loomis, who was ousted from the Army for being gay just 8 days prior to his 20 year retirement date in 1997, also challenges the federal anti sodomy statute covering the military.

The lawsuit is based on the recent US Supreme Court opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which declared that the Texas Sodomy Statute violated the Consitiution's guarantee of the right to privacy. Loomis suit seeks to reverse the discharge.

The challenge is the first of several likely to be filed in the wake of Lawrence according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

'Lawrence has a direct impact on the federal sodomy statute and the military's gay ban, said SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osbourne.

[AntiGuv]

On your first point, I meant to imply that keep my remarks on this issue at FR as neutral & abstract as possible, in order to avoid personalizing them with my own sentiments. Whatever deeper motivations one may ascribe to my remarks (as has happened on a number of occasions) appear to arise from my avoidance of such qualifications. What is to me an intellectual exercise appears less of one in the remarks of some others, and to whatever extent my stated positions conflict with their own (which has been considerable) a number have inferred motivations which are based more on their perceptions than on anything I've stated.

On your second point, I understand the term "homophobia" as describing an aversion to gays, and "homophobic" as describing one who expresses aversion to gays. What alternative should I substitute? I certainly haven't called anyone else a homophobe since I'm well-aware that many find that offensive. I generally call people by whatever they wish to be called by, just the same as I make a point of calling them gays rather than homosexuals. If they wanted me to call them queers or faggots or even uranians then I would do that as well... I don't go out of my way to insult people unless they're clearly determined to drive me to that....

[Michael.SF.]

he gets the retirement benefits, but just has to wait until he's 60... No one is denying him anything...

Actually, they are denying him the benefits that he would have received between the ages of 50 and 60. For a LCol. that is a substantial amount.

That assumes though that the amount paid is the same (except for inflation)at 60, as it would have been at 50.

[rintense]

It's only going to get worse.

[ewing]

Tell me about it. This guy just sonds like he wants his money now and does want to wait until hes 60..

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, he shouldn't have violated the UCMJ - look at it as a hefty fine in leiu of court-martial...

[Antoninus]

We told you so..... Constitutional Marriage Amendment NOW!

[Antoninus]

To be 8 days shy of his retirement. I have more respect of our men and woman serving our Country than to say,"WOW, your gay, you don't get any benefits."

Wow, you really fell into their trap right quick. Notice, with the homo activists, they always find an initial case where the aggrieved party seems squeaky clean and sympathetic. This is only to create a precedent so that the rest of the filth can come on through the door.

They tried the same cr@p with the boyscouts and fortunately lost. That doesn't mean they won't keep trying until they get their precedent.... Then the boyscouts as we knew it will be dead.

[Antoninus]

In 1997? I doubt it. I don't know many folks who would risk their retirement pay over such a thing.

He would if he's an activist homo. They do it all the time to win court cases to advance the cause of peversion.

I suspect that someone had it in for this guy and forced the issue just before his 20th anniversary.

Doubt it. It smells like a set-up to me....

[Antoninus]

The Washington Post reported in July the troubles of Army Lt. Col. Steve Loomis were just beginning when a soldier burned down his off-base home last year. A fire marshall investigating the ruins found a sexually explicit video cassette featuring Loomis and three other men. Rather than returning the video to Loomis, the marshall passed the information along to Army officials. The fire was set by Army Pvt. Michael Burdette who met Loomis two years ago and had posed for nude photos in Loomis' home. The Post said that Burdette wanted to retrieve the photos, and failing that, burned down the house in an attempt to destroy them. The fire marshall investigating the blaze reportedly took the video from a standing camera in hopes it might provide clues as to the arsonist's identity.

Does this sound like behavior becoming an officer? It was only the timing of the dismissal that was unfortunate, not the dismissal itself. This guy was a creep, a perv, and guilty of gross abuse of authority.

Unless you consider taking photos of a private's privates a perfectly legitimate thing for an officer to do....Of course, that would put you in the same boat as Bwarney Fwank.

[Antoninus]

Apparently he got nothing for his 20 years of service. That's foul, and I predict the military will back down on this one to prevent the case being brought. No harm, no suit.

Oh, he got something, alright. He got a house full of nude photos of enlisted men, apparently. Just imagine for a moment if this Lt. Colonel had a house full of nude pictures of female enlisted personnel in his house. The same people who are backing this guy would be screaming for his head on a plate.

If you still support him now that you know why he was given the heave-ho, you're crackers.

[proud American in Canada]

Well, we knew this was coming, so to speak. I feel bad for this man... but I hate the onslaught of litigation. This is only the first of many.

Here's the article from '97 (CNN) that describes what happened (sorry if this was posted before):

"Army discharges decorated gay officer
July 27, 1997
Web posted at: 9:58 a.m. EDT (1358 GMT)
DALLAS (CNN) -- The Army has dismissed a gay lieutenant colonel one week before he would have qualified for full retirement, saying he had engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer.

An Army board of inquiry concluded that 50-year-old Steve Loomis, a decorated 20-year veteran, had engaged in homosexual acts and used "force, coercion or intimidation."

Loomis learned of his "other than honorable" discharge last week. He claimed he was singled out and victimized because of his sexual orientation.

"In my case, it was private relations with another soldier, off-post, off-duty, not in my chain of command, and they say conduct unbecoming -- read that 'sodomy,'" Loomis said. "But how many single soldiers or married soldiers do exactly the same thing? And how many of them have it held against them?"

Loomis' attorney, David Sheldon, said some evidence used in the case had been improperly obtained after an arsonist torched the officer's home. Civilian authorities confiscated a videotape at the home and turned it over to the Army. That video showed Loomis participating in homosexual acts, Sheldon said.

An Army spokesman said Loomis was not court-martialed because the case was not a criminal matter.

Loomis enlisted as a volunteer in 1967, at the height of the Vietnam War. He received two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart and other honors.

He stayed in the reserve and returned to active duty in the 1980s. "

[Antoninus]

For owning a gay XXX tape?

Featuring enlisted men, potentially under his command. Imagine this guy had a similar tape with enlisted women on it. Would there have been any such outcry over his dismissal?

[proud American in Canada]

"Military retirement is a benefit of service, and is well-deserved, given the low pay in our military. To deprive this guy of it 8 days before eligibility is just plain wrong. He served. He should get his retirement.

I imagine if they just gave it to him, this whole suit would go away. "

I agree. They deserve it. Military families live in difficult conditions... they deserve a lot more than they are getting from our country right now.

Now, this man is being used by the gay agenda. But I dont really blame him. I hope they pay up, and then some.

[Antoninus]

For owning a gay XXX tape?

Featuring enlisted men, potentially under his command. Imagine this guy had a similar tape with enlisted women on it. Would there have been any such outcry over his dismissal?

[Antoninus]

Was Army Pvt. Michael Burdette coerced?

Does that matter? What kind of army would we have if it were considered acceptable behavior for an officer to solicit and/or possess nude photos of enlisted personnel????

This guy is a scum and a crumb and got what he deserved.

[proud American in Canada]

Re #130: "Oh, he got something, alright. He got a house full of nude photos of enlisted men, apparently. Just imagine for a moment if this Lt. Colonel had a house full of nude pictures of female enlisted personnel in his house. The same people who are backing this guy would be screaming for his head on a plate."

How did he get these pictures!? Secret cameras!? (I'm not kidding, this happened to some football players at the U of I)?

[proud American in Canada]

"enlisted men, potentially under his command"

sexual harassment, absolutely.

I need to read the entire thread before I respond... sorry!

[AntiGuv]

Yes, I should've read those details more carefully in my initial glanceover.

[ImphClinton]

I agree. Had these photos been of a young woman and said woman had burned down his home he would have also been kicked out. This was simply conduct unbecoming an officer. The standard is higher in the military and should be.

Considering that this tape solved the case it seems very right the tape was turned over to Army officials.

[ImphClinton]

In the military you can't even date an enlisted person let alone take nude pictures of them. This is the military the rights are very much more restricted than for civilians. What he was convicted of is not illegal for people outside the military. These photos could have damaged the military had they come into enemies hands and that is all that matters.