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]

The last combat soldiers departed Vietnam in 1973, but Marines protecting U.S. installations as well as U.S. military advisors stayed through 1975. The last Americans to die in the Vietnam War were two Marines killed in a rocket attack at Saigon's Tan Son Nhut airport, on April 30, 1975.

[MineralMan]

"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."

I think he will, and that is not the result most folks want. This is a great case for gays in the military, and a horrible case for the military. As the second story says, several congresscritters supported this guy back in 97, including at least on GOP member.

This is the kind of case that can change things forever. The military will be well-advised to eat this one and get rid of this suit, because they'll lose it, big time.

[adam_az]

1997-20 still equals 1977 to me - 2 years after the last US troops left.

[MineralMan]

"Actually, it doesn't say say how they learned of this news
"

Actually, if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see how they learned of it.

[CyberAnt]

Sooooo ... 8 days prior to retirement - does that mean he lost all his retirement benefits ...??

If so ... I suspect he has a case!

Why not just let the guy retire ...??

[MineralMan]

"The UCMJ apparently does not include your definition of "wrong".
"

It doesn't matter. The suit can still be brought, and in today's judicial climate, this guy will win, and he'll get the retirement that's coming to him. The cause of keeping homosexuals out of the military, though, will lose. It's a bad case for the military.

[MineralMan]

"1997-20 still equals 1977 to me - 2 years after the last US troops left."

Keep reading. He left, then joined up again. There's more.

[Mo1]

Actually, if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see how they learned of it.

I just did .. Saber pointed it to me

Sounds like he may have a case since the fire department went thru his home

[joesnuffy]

I doubt his RVN status...it isnt beyond the pale of liberals to lie

[Mo1]

1997-20 still equals 1977 to me - 2 years after the last US troops left.

It's possible .. My brother who joined in 1972 did retire for about 2/3 years, only to rejoin

He was born to be a Marine

[Sabertooth]

Sounds like he may have a case since the fire department went thru his home

Against the FD, maybe, but not against the military. It doesn't appear they did anything inappropriate to obtain this information.

It's also possible, since this was an arson case involving a uniformed officer, that the video was taken and turned over as evidence of possible motive. Just a thought.

[roderick]

The UCMJ in the military does not matter? Okay, I guess you feeeeeeeel very strongly. He won't win either, unless his command legal officer made a mistake. In case you haven't noticed, pole smokers are not welcome.

Sure, suit can be brought. As the adage goes, you can sue a ham sandwhich . . .

[Mo1]

"It's possible .. My brother who joined in 1972 did retire for about 2/3 years, only to rejoin"

Let me re-phrase that .. He left the Marines for a couple years and then rejoined again before retiring in 96

[VRWC_minion]

Congress can fix this. They can pass a law for this mans circumstances and head off the certain SC ruling. Unfortunately, the Bush haters will use such a bill to say Bush is gay.

[Mo1]

Against the FD, maybe, but not against the military. It doesn't appear they did anything inappropriate to obtain this information

True .. that sounds about right

[DannyTN]

The Slippery Slope of Gay Rights

Funny thing about slippery slopes....you travel down them....and sometimes they turn into an avalanche behind you!

[AntiGuv]

The relevant military policy is Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. At what point, precisely, did LTC Steve Loomis "tell"? Who "asked" or "pursued"?

[AntiGuv]

The relevant military policy is Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. At what point, precisely, did LTC Steve Loomis "tell"? Who 'asked' or 'pursued'?

[VRWC_minion]

I knew I should have read the thread before posting. This creep did deserve to be thrown out.