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.

[First Amendment]

For owning a gay XXX tape?

For MAKING a homo-porn tape.

[First Amendment]

As much as many will not like it, eventually, the courts will rule that gays can serve (they already do anyway).

Your opinion. You ain't Nostradamus and he wasn't always right either. The recent SCOTUS decision and the homosexual jubilation is going to wake up a lot of folks. I hear it like a fire alarm.

[jwalsh07]

Article 134 of the UCMJ (fraternization)

Maximum punishment. Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

[jwalsh07]

But for the record, there are any number of articles that this clown violated.

[First Amendment]

It will be interesting (to say the least) what happens with this case. If the SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional to ban homosexuals from the military, I can't even imagine how fast our country is going to deteriorate. I hope to God they don't decide that.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[Imagine]

I fail to understand your point. I didn't attach my reference to the bible to "add authority" to my previous comments -- as a matter of fact, I specifically stated that my comments do NOT deal with biblical comments about homosexuality. There are enough freepers that have posted scripture here about the evils of homosexuality. My text simply summarized the obvious commonalities of homosexuals. These are just a few of the facts that homosexuals refuse to admit. That's all.

[VRWC_minion]

Without taking a position on accuracy, when I read "gay blinders," I took that to mean a certain sort of tunnel vision with regard to gay issues, not an insinuation that you are gay and blind because you are gay. That's how it looked to me; anyway, I could be wrong.

Exactly.

[VRWC_minion]

If I were discussing my personal feelings, I would note that I find homosexuals disturb my mental equilibrium & I do have a reflexive aversion to homosexuality

And if i were discussing mine, I would emphatize thouroughly with gays because I had a best friend who was gay during my early 20's as well as spending significant time with his gay friends. I even was present at a dinner, as moral support, where one of the guys explained to his archie bunker type father and mother he was gay. So, no I don't share your dis"ease" on homophobia.

As for blinders, my blinders are military guys. I want to support them regardless and my intitial post here was that congress should reinstate his pension, before I heard the facts. After I heard the facts, its apparent this guys sexual orientation only scratches the surface for his dishonorable conduct.

I would be suprised that the report regarding his discharge only cited his homosexuality as the reasons leading up to his discharge.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

My perception is that you took up the cause of the gay guy despite the facts and strong language was required for you to begin to notice your personal bias. Its obvious to me reading this you took your posistion first and then looked for support not the reverse that an "intellectual excercise" requires. I did the same bias jump when I took the side of the same man because of his service to the military.

It is helpfull to know our personal biases in issues so we don't make the mistake of looking at things logically.

[VRWC_minion]

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

All sins are worthy of death....try Jesus.

[The Old Hoosier]

There will be soon.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I knew the Pandoras box had been opened, but in this case (at least whats written up here), I am with the soldier.

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."

I remember reading about this loser. He was found out, after an 18 year old private that he paid to pose nude had remorse and broke into his house to find the pics. This guy is scum, who preyed the people under him.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I don't care if he's gay or straight or likes sheep. That's just wrong.

I've read about this guy before. He is major scum. He preyed upon the soldiers under him. He was caught after a young private broke into his home to find the porno Pics that the guy took of him. The ltc was paying soldiers to pose nude. He's not some harmless old queer that was caught holding hands with the wrong person.

Do you really think that the miltary would go through the trouble of a discharge, without there being more to the story? It would have been far easier to just let him retire.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I remember reading about a ltc who was discharged 8 days before retirement. (I assume this is the man.) The ltc was preying on the soldiers under him. He was found out, when a young private broke into his house to recover some porno pics that the ltc took of him. The ltc was paying soldiers to pose. (I'm shocked that the Army would have a problem with that, arn't you?)

[Kelly4023]

From What Sources did you get your "evidence"?

[Kelly4023]

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.

From What Sources did you get your "evidence"?

[Kelly4023]

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.

'Dubya;
two things: 1) Loomis will probably not have it his way, and have to wait until 60. He'll be OK, in my opinion.
2) Your comment about non-military personnel I find a little callous. Loomis is a 50 year old man. His taking advantage of any inexperienced (young) people is wrong. In or out of the military, older people should set some sort of example for younger ones. Too many of our young and old kids continue to get exploited, too many of our older people bend the rules to suit themselves. I feel his exploitation of this or any young person cheapens his community standing, and reflects on those of us trying to do the right thing . Based on that, I think he should just quietly retire.
(The flip side is the private made a choice, and didn't like where it left him.)

[AntiGuv]

I interpreted your "gay blinders" remark in the way I would've meant that same phrasing; clearly, this was incorrect and you have my apologies for that. Otherwise, I suppose I'm somewhat defensive at FR after having been routinely attacked in a variety of ways - including that one - since about as long as I've been here..

[Sabertooth]

Hey, if you guys are gonna kiss and make up, take it someplace private.