Military Gay Ban Challenged in the Wake of SCOTUS Sodomy Ruling

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

[AntiGuv]

This creep did deserve to be thrown out.

For owning a gay XXX tape? That appears to have been the basis for his discharge..

[VRWC_minion]

Rather than returning the video to Loomis, the marshall passed the information along to Army officials.

How does one ignore evidence handed to you.

Also, such behavior ie not taping someone in sex act and then keeping copies is actionable as far as I'm concerned. Its certainly a dishonorable act.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

[joesnuffy]

wasnt able to read the article in its entirety...got 404'd
He broke faith with his fellow soldiers imo
I dont care if he was awarded the MOH
Im glad I never had to serve with him....

[navygal]

He might have broken service,which means he probably got out for a few years then some how got back in.

[AntiGuv]

How does one ignore evidence handed to you.

It's called Don't Pursue. Also, in this circumstance, one may wait 8 days and the issue goes away....

Also, such behavior ie not taping someone in sex act and then keeping copies is actionable as far as I'm concerned.

There's no doubt that would be actionable under the federal anti-sodomy statute; I'm uncertain that it would be actionable under any other (or whether it was acted upon under any other). If the federal anti-sodomy statute is struck down (which seems probable, but not assured) then it's not actionable under that.

[AntiGuv]

The fire was set by Army Pvt. Michael Burdette who met Loomis two years ago and had posed for nude photos in Loomis' home.

To my knowledge, taking nude photos for whatever private purpose is not cause for discharge (unless the photographed individual is a minor). Again, I'm not altogether certain whether this may be actionable under some vague, indirect provision.

Was Army Pvt. Michael Burdette coerced?

[Michael.SF.]

Quoting from the article: 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"

If the enlisted soldier had been female would the same code of conduct been applied in the same manner?

Was he discharged simply because he was gay or because he was having sex with enlisted personnel?

If the Army can cite cases similar to this, where an officer received similar punishment after sex with an enlisted woman, then they may have a case.

My guess is that if this had been between a man and a woman, then they would have allowed him to keep his pension. As much as many will not like it, eventually, the courts will rule that gays can serve (they already do anyway).

[Sabertooth]

Did you see posts #21 and #24 on this thread? It seems to me at the point that the homoerotic video turned up, "don't ask don't tell," becomes inoperative.

Looks like the arson fire took place in July of 1996, and the Marines were given the video shortly thereafter, at which point an investigateion would appropriately ensue. Here's some more info...

Meanwhile, a video found at the scene of an arson at the home of Lt. Col. Loren Stephen, a decorated Fort Hood Army lieutenant colonel, caused the military to discharge Stephen just one week shy of his retirement. An Army private "later would plead guilty to setting the empty house on fire in an attempt to destroy - or perhaps call attention to - the lewd tape," the Houston Chronicle said. The paper also reported: "Like some recent military sex scandals, the dispute at Fort Hood involved contact between an enlisted person and an officer. But this case has prompted new questions about the military's 'don't ask, don't tell policy on homosexuality. ... In recent months, the arsonist and the officer were drummed out of the Army. Both men left Texas and now claim they were victimized, though for vastly different reasons. The arsonist, former Pvt. Michael Burdette Jr., 20, served 90 days in jail, was given a 10-year, probated sentence last November by a court in Coryell County and was ordered to pay $68,445 in restitution. ... [The] felony conviction got him kicked out of the Army. ... Lt. Col. Loren Stephen Loomis, 50, received a 'less than honorable' discharge for 'behavior unbecoming an officer' after an Army board ruled he had engaged in homosexual conduct. ... Loomis is preparing to take his protest to the Board for Correction of Military Records in Washington, D.C., because Secretary of the Army Togo West has refused to reverse the July 14 ruling at Fort Hood. 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."
LINK

[johnb838]

This creep did deserve to be thrown out.

No doubt! He was fart-knockin' and ridin the hershey highway and generally livin the life. And then the pictures came out. He was probably blackmailing the private, that's why he burned his house down. THis isn't some victimless crime, IMO. I bet the army realized if they didn't move fast, in one week he'd be able to retire and collect so they slammed the door in the sodomite's face. Good for them. This is creepy, creepy, creepy.

[VRWC_minion]

I think you have your gay blinders on.

If any officer had nude pictures of any subordinate and refused to return them or destroy them upon request that would be, in my mind, a dishonorable act.

If you cannot see the possibilities of the threat, embarrasement and potential harrassment just possessing those photos by this creep could be to the private then you need to refocuse your glasses from the gay issues because they are blinding you. Could the man have worried that once the guy retired he would blackmail him with the photo's ? Put yourself inthe guys shoes a minute and ask yourself how you would feel.

Then imagine the same circumstances and the superior officer is a male and the PVT is a female.

Do we want to send a signal to the troops that is OK for a superior officer to have naked pictures of his subordinates when the sunbordiantes requested their return ?

[roderick]

Like it or not, relevant military judicial policy since the late 1940s is in the UCMJ. Media hype embodied in don't ask, don't tell, don't whatever is just that. Command legal officers base action on the UCMJ, and don't at their peril. Is that so hard to understand?

Who asked, pursued or chased does not matter.

[VRWC_minion]

There's no doubt that would be actionable under the federal anti-sodomy statute

Its called harrassment.

[Sabertooth]

For owning a gay XXX tape? That appears to have been the basis for his discharge..

A tape of himself, two other men, and an enlisted man. He's got more than one strike against him in this discharge.

[johnb838]

one may wait 8 days and the issue goes away....

NO! Wait 8 days and the treacherous, honor-less sodomite collects a fat one from the US govt. I expect it was purely intentional. I hope they don't give in either.

[AntiGuv]

I think you have your gay blinders on.

I have my legal blinders on, as I usually do in such discussion. I'm altogether disinterested in prurient details or emotionalized fixations.. My only interest is in how this case stands or falls on the legal merits.

[VRWC_minion]

My guess is that if this had been between a man and a woman, then they would have allowed him to keep his pension

I disagree completely. Keeping those photo's was harrasment and should not be tolerated by whoever did it.

[AntiGuv]

Yes, I missed the details of the tape when I first scanned the passage...

[VRWC_minion]

If you have your legal blinders on then you should easily see the tactic of changing the subject. The issue is dishonrable conduct. Is the holding of naked pictures of a sub that can be used as blackmail honorable conduct in your legal mind ?

[AntiGuv]

Who was allegedly harrassed?