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.

[George W. Bush]

Glad you see the light.

It's a serious military matter, directly relevant to morale and to the honor of being an American military officer. Families entrust their young people to these officers. We should expect a high standard of conduct.

BTW, I wouldn't greatly care if he had instead taken photos of non-military men. That would be far less serious and could be overlooked. There's no evidence that the Army set any trap for him or was hunting for sodomite officers to fire. What is clear is that his victim, the young recruit, is now undoubtedly a convicted arsonist solely because this officer misused his military authority in fraternizing with the enlisted men and, even worse, by sexually exploiting them. Had he instead taken photos of non-military, it would be far less serious or would be simply be ignored.

This case perfectly illustrates and justifies the need for the military's very generous don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

[codercpc]

but in this case (at least whats written up here), I am with the soldier

As you can see in my #2 post, I said, (at least whats written up here) .

The article you quote wasn't posted until #21.

I do find it extremely disturbing about the taking of pictures of a Private by an officer. But the way the original article was written (and that is why I qualified it that way), this was a man who served his country for 8 days short of 20 years, and now he has his pension taken away? The dishonorable discharge was appropriate, but I question the pension.

Maybe you, or someone else can clarify to me is a Military Pension truly a "benefit"?, or is it more like a retirement fund. My husband was in the Army, but only for one three year enlistment, with no combat experience, so he was not eligible for any pension, so I am somewhat ignorant on this part.

I just think that if someone puts 20 years in the Service, they deserve something. I have not read the entire thread so these questions may have been answered.

[reg45]

That decision, which took effect about a week before Loomis would have been eligible to receive retirement benefits, requires him to wait until he is 60 to begin collecting his pension, officials said.

That seems to indicate that he will get his pension after all.

[Imagine]

Homosexuality:

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.

Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend, such activities often presenting immediate risk to the participants; 2) are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large; 3) are prone to far greater sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, than the (normal) heterosexual population; 4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals; 5) engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event; 6) are engaged in aggressive and widespread efforts to indoctrinate our children by introducing the homosexual lifestyle using public schools as the primary indoctrination “vehicle” and likewise, through the movie/music/TV industry, with the dual goals of gaining school-age acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging sexual activity among children, especially same-sex experimentation; 7) view most everything through a mindset heavily biased in favor of the homosexual lifestyle and culture, which renders them mostly useless when asked to opine on matters that normal heterosexuals better resolve.

The mental deficiencies described herein applying to homosexuals shall not be confused with the deficiencies associated with the left wing democrat/socialist/marxist/ feminist/environmentalist minds, etc., which have their own distinct set of mental disorders.

This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

[Jorge]

There is no "right to privacy" in the military.

Exactly.
Let them sue the military all they want. There's a big difference in saying we are not going to bust down bedroom doors to arrest gays and adulterers and saying open homosexuality must become accepted in the military.

That's absurd.

[Jorge]

This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Actually the Bible doesn't even touch on all the claims you made about homosexuality.

It simply calls it a sin as it does adultery and other acts of sexual immorality.

[Jhoffa_]

But, but.. there's no evidence that SCOTUS is doing anything but putting down an anti-sodomy law.

OF COURSE there will be no unintended consequences from something as begign as finding a Constitutional Right to homosexual sodomy.

(/Sarcasm)

[wcbtinman]

"That's just wrong."

What's wrong is the lie he told when he signed up, and the false oath he swore upon induction.

That he was just 8 days shy of retirement is just too bad.

[af_vet_1981]

So when is President Bush going to find the leadership to speak up about the sodomizing of America ?

[plain talk]

I care. And so do the officers and generals who have lives on the line entrusted to them to fight wars. Soldiers have enough problems without sheep-loving wackos or homo's creating problems in the ranks. Actually these perverts can still stay in the service as long as they don't make "tell". We don't have the facts on what he did to "tell" in order to get the boot.

[Imagine]

"Actually the Bible doesn't even touch on all the claims you made about homosexuality."
So?

[Jorge]

"Actually the Bible doesn't even touch on all the claims you made about homosexuality."

So?

SO......the Bible is not some accessory you can just paste onto the end your personal opinions to add the appearance of God's authority to them.

[wcbtinman]

"It (the Bible) simply calls it a sin as it does adultery and other acts of sexual immorality."

Actually, the Bible treats homosexuality a bit different, describing homos as "worthy of death".

Try Deuteronomy

[Jorge]

Jorge "It (the Bible) simply calls it a sin as it does adultery and other acts of sexual immorality."

Actually, the Bible treats homosexuality a bit different, describing homos as "worthy of death".
Try Deuteronomy

Actually the Bible describes many forms of sexual immorality as worthy of death...NOT JUST homosexuality.

And rather than make you do the research...I can post the scriptures right here;

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:12
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death:

These are just a few examples.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I know of a case where a chief petty officer was drafted in the late 60's into the Navy and on the contract he signed, he indicated that he was homosexual. This was seen as a ruse to get out of being drafted so the Navy ignored it.

After his mandatory 2 year draft, he decided that the Navy was the life for him so he re-enlisted, again indicating that he was a homosexual and again the Navy ignored it. This went on every 4 years, with him never trying to conceal his homosexuality on any document, but living a very discrete private life and never drawing attention to himself.

To make a long story even longer, when he was with a few months of his 20 year retirement, the Navy "discovered" that he was homosexual and tried to (maybe successfully, as I don't know the final disposition) discharged him under less than honorable conditions without his pension.

IMHO, the Navy was trying to screw this guy to save a few lousy bucks out of it's gazillion dollar budget. When they needed warm bodies in wartime, he was good enough and even achieved cpo with consistent high evals, but suddenly he is undesireable?

As Turko would say, "That just ain't right".

[Blood of Tyrants]

Squeaky clean except for the fact that prior to x42, you had to sign a statement at each enlistment swearing that you were not a homosexual. A better case would have been the one I outlined in my post #155. Unfortunately for the gays, it was about 17 years ago.

[wcbtinman]

Actually, try Leviticus.

[First Amendment]

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

I doubt it. Not knowing the particulars - if this is sheer coincidence, as it looks as though it might be, or setup - but he's definitely the poster boy for open homosexuals in the military. If that happens, it's all over.

[First Amendment]

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.

You couldn't find a better illustration of why homosexuals shouldn't be serving in the armed forces.

[jwalsh07]

Pension, this clown should be in Leavenworth. Lt Colonels, in my day, were not allowed to make the enlisted men boy toys.

The UCMJ is quite clear about fraternizing with the enlisted men and women and this case goes beyond fraternising, it involves pornographic pictures of an enlisted man that an Officer had in his possession and refused to return.

Hell, he should still be in Leavenworth.