Skip to comments.Court Cases Reveal the Destructive Effects of Homosexual Misconduct (SHOCKING)
Posted on 10/15/2010 2:14:49 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Criminal cases for homosexual misconduct in the military which reach military courts of appeals have resulted in publicly reported decisions which illustrate the serious consequences of homosexual misconduct in the military. Although these cases are part of the public record, they are rarely reported on by the mediain contrast to cases of heterosexual assault, such as the infamous Tailhook scandal.
These case records show that homosexuality poses a threat to good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion in the military even when the conduct in question is consensual.
Sodomy in the next bunnk?
For example, a military court described the case against Navy submariner Benjamin H. Hartman:
The appellant was originally charged with forcible sodomy committed aboard the Naval Submarine Base in Kings Bay, Georgia. In accordance with a pretrial agreement he entered a guilty plea to, and was found guilty of, the lesser offense of consensual sodomy. The appellant was attached to a fast-attack submarine that was in Georgia for some routine work, and he was staying in a room in the base's transient visitors' quarters that another Sailor from his submarine had procured. According to his responses during the plea colloquy, the appellant awoke to find another male Sailor fondling his p---s. The appellant eventually assisted the other Sailor in penetrating the appellant's a--s. This activity all occurred while a third occupant of the room, a petty officer also attached to the submarine, slept in one of the two beds in the room.30
Consensual sex in the barracks leads to violence In the case against Marine Private Paul S. Barrera, a majority of the court ruled that repeated acts of consensual sodomy in the barracks, but behind locked doors, were private conduct. Nonetheless, it violated a standing order and the relationship led to violence, which was disruptive to their unit:
On two separate occasions, the appellant and another Marine from his unit, Private First Class (PFC) HernandezDiaz, engaged in consensual a--l sodomy in the latter's first floor barracks room aboard Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa, Japan. . . . Both sodomy incidents occurred either late in the evening or early in the morning, and each time the doors to the room were locked. The room shared a common restroom with another barracks room, and there were approximately 100 other Marines living on that floor. A written standing order prohibited sexual activity of any kind in the barracks.
. . . [T]he appellant admitted that his acts of sodomy were prejudicial to good order and discipline. We agree with that assessment, and note that the danger to unit cohesion and morale posed by such sexual activity between members of the same unit in a military barracks is arguably even more pronounced where the unit is stationed overseas in a foreign country, away from families and friends and in relative isolation. Moreover, the danger to good order and discipline was borne out in this case by the rumors that circulated within the unit, and the tension leading up to the appellant's later offenses of assault and communication of a threat.
Second, the record demonstrates that all sexual activity was specifically prohibited in the barracks, and that fact underscores the harm to good order and discipline posed by the conduct at issue.
One of the other judges detailed how this relationship led to violence:
The record indicates that the appellant confronted Private First Class (PFC) HernandezDiaz and threatened to "burn him" for disclosing their relationship to others. Appellant then apologized to PFC HernandezDiaz, at which point he attempted to kiss him. Out of rage, appellant then slapped and choked PFC HernandezDiaz. . . . The appellant admitted on the record that he physically assaulted PFC HernandezDiaz. The assault directly resulted from the sexual relationship between the appellant and PFC HernandezDiaz. As I stated, he struck PFC HernandezDiaz out of rage for disclosing their relationship to third parties. The Government retains an interest in preventing disruptions within the ranks.31
Exploiting Rank and Using Alcohol and Homosexual Pornography to Manipulate Victim
In some of the reported cases, servicemembers have taken advantage of their relationship with those of lower rank, and also plied their victims with alcohol to make them vulnerable. Such was the case against Marine Sgt. Sean D. Habian:
Lance Corporal (LCpl) L, a 21-year-old radio repairman with less than 2 years experience in the Marine Corps, was sent by his unit to augment Military Police Company as a day-shift clerk at the base pass office. The appellant, a 36-year-old sergeant with over 8 years' experience in the Marine Corps, also worked in the pass office, on the night shift. . . . [T]he appellant . . . asked LCpl L if he would be interested in coming over to the appellant's house to "hang out." LCpl L agreed . . . . LCpl L arrived at the appellant's on-base quarters, and the appellant encouraged him, over LCpl L's initial protest, to drink alcoholic beverages. . . . LCpl L testified that he became extremely intoxicated, and could not recall anything that happened after he sat down on the downstairs sofa around 0300.
When LCpl L awoke, he was in the appellant's upstairs bedroom, and could feel a hand rubbing his a--s and digitally penetrating it. He felt a second hand reaching for his genital area. He still felt intoxicated, but attempted to push his elbow back to stop the person touching him. The touching was repeated, with a hand rubbing his a--s and a finger penetrating it "every once in awhile." He heard the person saying "one more time. One more time." After LCpl L again pushed back with his elbows, the appellant got off the bed, slapped LCpl L on the buttocks and yelled at him to get out of bed and leave the house. LCpl L was groggy, and the appellant slapped him two more times, a few minutes apart, before LCpl finally got up off the bed. Realizing he was naked, LCpl L had a heated conversation with the appellant, asking the latter what had taken place and the location of his clothes. . . .
While discussing the incident [later] with [Special Agent] Ryan, LCpl L vaguely recalled an additional incident in which he woke up during the night and saw gay pornography on the television. He remembered waking up yet again due to a lack of air, with the appellant's groin area in his face and neck area. He could also feel the appellant s---ing on his p---s. LCpl L did not remember having any clothing on at this time, although he had been fully clothed when he sat down on the couch at approximately 0300. As LCpl L attempted to move his head to catch his breath, he opened his eyes and saw the television screen, on which he saw a man performing oral sex on another man. . . . The day before he invited LCpl L to his house, the appellant went to an adult store and purchased a transsexual inflatable doll kit. The doll had both an a--l and oral orifice, but no v-----l orifice. The appellant also purchased a videotape, entitled "Transsexual Streetwalkers," depicting homosexual sexual activity. After the incident, agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service found the doll, inflated, in the appellant's closet. . . . A homosexual video was found in the appellant's VCR, attached to his television set.
. . . He was . . . convicted of fraternization with LCpl L, and with an indecent acts offense for rubbing LCpl L's a--s, fondling LCpl L's p---s and t-------s, and penetrating LCpl L's a--s with his fingers. . . . [T]he appellant argues that the appellant's acts in rubbing LCpl L's private parts and digitally penetrating his a--s were simply "homosexual foreplay" and cannot be found indecent . . . . We disagree. . . . [T]he indecent acts of which the appellant was convicted involved actions . . . as LCpl L was just awakening and trying to shake off an intoxicated stupor. . . . LCpl L's vulnerable condition and the lack of any express consent render the indecent acts of which the appellant was convicted coercive in nature.32
Instructor Uses Alcohol to Identify Victims, Exploit Students
The case against Marine Sgt. Steven G. Carlson also illustrates an individual exploiting his superior rank, socializing with others to find victims, and using alcohol to make victims more vulnerable:
The appellant was stationed at the Marine Corps Detachment, Fort McClellan, Alabama, where he instructed Marines attending military police military occupational specialty training. While in that position, the appellant transported students in his private vehicle, provided them alcohol, consumed alcohol with them, and socialized with them, in violation of Navy Regulations, an installation general order, and a Marine Detachment order. The appellant used these social interactions to determine if a student would be receptive to homosexual activity with him. This determination was made by plying students with alcohol and then discussing topics such as masturbation, p---s size, oral sex, and "playing truth or dare." During truth or dare, the appellant would ask students if they had ever thought of having sodomy with a man or kissing a man, or he would dare them to expose themselves in public or to get naked in private. These interactions came to light when a student reported that the appellant had sodomized him. . . . The appellant was charged with, among other things, multiple indecent assaults of a homosexual nature. . . .
. . . [A]t Fort McClellan, Alabama, the appellant invited Private First Class (PFC) M into the woods where he pulled PFC M's pants and his own pants down and began fondling PFC M's p---s. The appellant then put PFC M's hand on the appellant's p---s and pulled PFC M toward him and kissed him. The appellant asked PFC M to perform oral sodomy on him and when PFC M refused, the appellant performed oral sodomy on PFC M. PFC M testified that the appellant's acts shocked him, he froze, and was scared.33 Do we really need more homosexual linguists?
Advocates for allowing homosexuality in the military argue that we cannot afford to lose the talents and skills of the homosexuals who have been discharged or denied enlistment. In particular, they are fond of citing the cases of homosexual linguists or translators, a skill much in need because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, it is ironic that one of the most important cases of homosexual assault (which set a precedent for how the Supreme Courts 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision legalizing homosexual sodomy does and does not apply to the military) involved Air Force Sgt. Eric P. Marcuma Persian-Farsi linguist: Appellant, a cryptologic linguist, technical sergeant (E-6), and the supervising noncommissioned officer in a flight of Persian-Farsi speaking intelligence analysts, was stationed at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. His duties included training and supervising airmen newly assigned to the Operations Training Flight.
While off-duty Appellant socialized with airmen from his flight at parties. According to the testimony of multiple members of his unit, airmen "often" spent the night at Appellant's off-base home following these parties. The charges in this case resulted from allegations by some of these subordinate airmen that Appellant engaged in consensual and nonconsensual sexual activity with them.
Among other offenses, Appellant was charged with the forcible sodomy of Senior Airman (SrA) Harrison (E-4). . . . With regard to the charged offense, SrA Harrison testified that after a night of drinking with Appellant he stayed at Appellant's apartment and slept on the couch. SrA Harrison further testified that at some point he woke up to find Appellant orally sodomizing him. Although Appellant testified that he "did not perform oral sex on [SrA Harrison] at all," he testified to "kissing [SrA Harrison's] p---s twice." . . . SrA Harrison also testified that Appellant's actions made him scared, angry, and uncomfortable.34
Air Force Major Grooms Child for Sexual Abuse One of the most shocking cases did not involve a servicemember as victim, but a civilian minor. Air Force Major Rickie J. Bellanger was charged with sexually abusing two minor boysone of whom had begun corresponding with Maj. Bellanger when he was in the fifth grade:
Appellant was deployed to support Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. During that time he answered a letter from JB, a fifth grader who lived in Texas. They continued corresponding. Upon his return from overseas, appellant met JB and his family and attended a school function. A friendship developed which included letters and phone calls as well as visits.
In May 1994, JB visited appellant in Florida for approximately one month. JB was almost 15 years old. One night JB and appellant drank alcohol while watching television. JB testified that he drank 12 Zimas, a malt liquor beverage. JB became intoxicated and threw up. Appellant helped him to bed. Later JB awakened and realized that appellant was orally sodomizing him. Appellant then rubbed his p---s against JB's lips. . . . On May 30, 1995, JB's mother became aware of an incident several years earlier when another individual had forcibly sodomized JB. JB admitted this incident when questioned by his mother. Under further questioning, he also alleged that appellant had sodomized him. The investigation against appellant was reopened. Several months later during the course of this second investigation another youth, EM . . . claimed that appellant made sexual advances towards him. Appellant was subsequently charged with offenses involving these two individuals. . . . In the computer correspondence, appellant admitted to prior acts of sodomy and expressed a desire to commit both oral and a--l sodomy with the individual to whom he was writing. Additionally, the graphical images files contained sexually explicit pictures of what appear to be young boys, some of whom are engaging in oral sodomy. . . . In one instance appellant allegedly rubbed his p---s over JB's lips. In the other instance, he told MR he wanted to "s--k his d--k." . . . Appellant was convicted of violating his commander's order not to have private contact with any person under the age of 18.35
Could it just be that the left views the issue, not as one of fairness or tolerance, as they always claim, but as way to undermine our military from within?
...Guess you could say this is how the Left is trying to screw over the Military.
Imagine having the blood of one of these deviants splattered on you in combat?
The degeneracy sounds about right for the degenerate democrap party. After all, Blarney Fwank is a heroof this scum party. And what does it say about the people who vote this scum into office and keep them there?!
Let’s not exaggerate. This is normal behavior. What if these were women instead of subordinate males and children? Where would the media be then?
This is truly disgusting. It needs to be reported and publicly so.
Ping to self
Why didn't someone tell me this would be on? </s>
Absolutely. Leftists loathe the military.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
More info about the real nature of the "gay" life - it ain't gay [happy and carefree] and it's not normal, natural, or healthy. In fact, the pushers of the homosexual agenda have from the beginning specifcally said to hide what they do, and present themselves as innocent, clean cut victims. Since there is no such thing as a carved-in-stone "gay identity" - the only thing that makes a homosexual different from anyone else is what they DO - they want to hide what they actually do.
But what they do is so depraved and causes such a vast number and range of horrible health problems, this NEEDS to be publicized.
I think one more. When people read these articles, all the facts show that homosexuals should be kicked out of the military and they SHOULD be asked and they SHOULD tell. And if the answer is wrong, out the door with a DISHONORABLE discharge.