Skip to comments.
Military Gay Ban Challenged in the Wake of SCOTUS Sodomy Ruling
Liberation Publication Breaking News ^
| July 7, 2003
| staff report
Posted on 07/08/2003 2:21:21 PM PDT by ewing
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-189 next last
To: ewing
Members of Congress Appeal on Behalf of Gay Veteran
Tuesday, 12 August 1997
WASHINGTON-- . . . 21 members of Congress issued an appeal to Defense Secretary William Cohen last week to reverse the "other than honorable" discharge handed to a decorated 20-year Army veteran for homosexual conduct.
50-Year-old Lt. Col. Steve Loomis was discharged for "conduct unbecoming an officer" one week before he reached his 20-year active-duty career mark. He enlisted in the Army at the height of the Vietnam War in 1967 and received a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars for his service. The discharge disqualified him from full retirement, and he was summarily denied both his pension and benefits.
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.
Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Connie Morella (R-Md.) and 19 other members of Congress signed a letter which said it appeared the Army violated "don't ask, don't tell" regulations in its prosecution of the case. The letter also said that it appeared to the undersigned that Lt. Col. Loomis "has been treated in a grossly unfair and almost vindictive manner."
C. Dixon Osburn of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said that the Army made numerous violations of its own policies in its handling of the Loomis case. Said Osburn, "His command decided for whatever reason that he should be discharged and that he should be slammed hard."
* * * * *
An officer taking kinky photos of a nude enlisted male soldier? Even without the sodomy that would be enough to get the jerk kicked out.
Too bad. So sad. No cookie for Stevie. Good riddance.
To: MineralMan
They could have put him on leave for those 8 days or done something else. This feels like some sort of vindictive act on someone's part.
If he came out eight days before retirement and was not discharged, that would have opened the door for a subsequent claim of selective enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell," by someone else. Actually, I'm inclined to think this was a set-up, with the latter goal in mind. Just my hunch.
To: MineralMan
IF that is what happen, then I agree, it's wrong
But I still would like to here more about the case
23
posted on
07/08/2003 2:37:41 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: ewing
Members of Congress Appeal on Behalf of Gay Veteran
Tuesday, 12 August 1997
WASHINGTON -- The Washington Blade reports 21 members of Congress issued an appeal to Defense Secretary William Cohen last week to reverse the "other than honorable" discharge handed to a decorated 20-year Army veteran for homosexual conduct.
50-Year-old Lt. Col. Steve Loomis was discharged for "conduct unbecoming an officer" one week before he reached his 20-year active-duty career mark. He enlisted in the Army at the height of the Vietnam War in 1967 and received a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars for his service. The discharge disqualified him from full retirement, and he was summarily denied both his pension and benefits.
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.
Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Connie Morella (R-Md.) and 19 other members of Congress signed a letter which said it appeared the Army violated "don't ask, don't tell" regulations in its prosecution of the case. The letter also said that it appeared to the undersigned that Lt. Col. Loomis "has been treated in a grossly unfair and almost vindictive manner."
C. Dixon Osburn of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said that the Army made numerous violations of its own policies in its handling of the Loomis case. Said Osburn, "His command decided for whatever reason that he should be discharged and that he should be slammed hard."
-- C. Barillas, Editor
24
posted on
07/08/2003 2:38:41 PM PDT
by
jimt
To: ewing
The federal anti-sodomy statute will be struck down - justly and rightly so; the ban on openly gay servicemembers will be upheld under the usual judicial deference in military policy affairs. Only strict scrutiny such as applied in cases of racial discrimination would lead the courts to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, and that's not gonna happen..
25
posted on
07/08/2003 2:38:54 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: ewing
26
posted on
07/08/2003 2:39:03 PM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?)
To: Kevin Curry; MineralMan
An officer taking kinky photos of a nude enlisted male soldier? Even without the sodomy that would be enough to get the jerk kicked out.
Yep, good catch. I withdraw my earlier speculation.
To: MineralMan
8 days seems odd. was he outed or was he making a "statement".
He was lying to the US military for 20 years. With 19 years in, was he vested in his retirement. What does he loose with 8 days.
Soldier or not, something stinks in denmark.
To: Mo1
"IF that is what happen, then I agree, it's wrong
But I still would like to here more about the case
"
I imagine more will come out in days to come. The military needs to back up on this one and give the guy his retirement. If they don't and there's a jury trial, they're going to lose big-time. You don't just boot someone after 20 years, just short of retirement. Too many folks have had that happen to them or someone they know.
I'll just bet this was a grudge thing, and the story above seems to bear that out.
29
posted on
07/08/2003 2:41:13 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: longtermmemmory
According to the second story posted:
"The discharge disqualified him from full retirement, and he was summarily denied both his pension and benefits.
"
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.
30
posted on
07/08/2003 2:43:12 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: longtermmemmory; Mo1
See #21 or #24, above.
To: MineralMan
Be careful what you call "wrong". We don't know the circumstances from the article. Was he an activist? Prior to Bent Willie's change in DOD homosexual policy in 1993, homosexuality resulted in discharge. After that, well, as we all know, the military could not ask about such matters, but homosexuality was still a dischargable action.
Yes, getting the boot just 8 days prior sounds like a cheap shot. But was it legal? If so, tough.
32
posted on
07/08/2003 2:44:24 PM PDT
by
roderick
To: ewing
GI's soon will be doing the freaky deaky in showers with the gay boys and lesbians with be muching carpet in the PX. Oh, what the hell, nobody cares. Time to move on. Can't we all just get along anyway? Next thing you know everything will be allowed. Adults will be able to molest their kiddies 'in the privacy of their home.' Even the family dog will be allowed to get into the act. Video at 11:00 PM on your local ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN channel. 'Woof ! Woof !' . . . 'Down rover, bad doggie !'
33
posted on
07/08/2003 2:44:48 PM PDT
by
ex-Texan
(My tag line is broken !)
To: Luis Gonzalez
There is no "right to privacy" in the military.
BINGO
34
posted on
07/08/2003 2:45:37 PM PDT
by
finnman69
(!)
To: PatrioticAmerican
I bet no security clearance can be denied based on this SC ruling.President Clinton lifted the ban on security clearances by executive order issued sometime in his first term, and President Bush retained the executive order.
35
posted on
07/08/2003 2:45:44 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: roderick
"Be careful what you call "wrong". We don't know the circumstances from the article. Was he an activist? Prior to Bent Willie's change in DOD homosexual policy in 1993, homosexuality resulted in discharge. After that, well, as we all know, the military could not ask about such matters, but homosexuality was still a dischargable action.
Yes, getting the boot just 8 days prior sounds like a cheap shot. But was it legal? If so, tough."
As I said earlier, I don't care if the guy had sex with sheep. He served. He had a Purple Heart and a couple of Bronze Stars. What happened to him, explicit video or not, is just plain wrong.
36
posted on
07/08/2003 2:46:34 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: adam_az
That was the first thing I thought of too. We pulled out of Nam in 73. If he was highly decorated, then he had to be in country probably by 72. Something here just doesn't add up.
37
posted on
07/08/2003 2:49:21 PM PDT
by
stoney
To: codercpc
Indeed! If the army was satisfied with his performance for 19 years and 357 days, booting him out 8 days before retirement sounds as if they were planning it well in advance. He'll win.
To: MineralMan
Actually, it doesn't say say how they learned of this news
It could be a grudge .. or something else
39
posted on
07/08/2003 2:50:12 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: MineralMan
Former LCOL Loomis knew the rules. He took his chances. He, not the Army, ruined his career.
The UCMJ apparently does not include your definition of "wrong".
40
posted on
07/08/2003 2:52:56 PM PDT
by
roderick
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-189 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson