State Lawyer Assails Gays in Defending Soldier’s Discharge

A state lawyer defending the discharge of a gay man from the California National Guard has filed legal papers that refer to gays’ “nasty habits” and appear to compare them to criminals.

“Undisputably homosexual acts are despised by a great proportion of the voters. And those voters have acted through their President and their Congress to rid themselves of those acts,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Andrew Loomis said in papers submitted to a federal judge.

“In truth, there is no further justification for most chapters of the criminal law. And therefore,” Loomis added in a footnote, “it is still OK to be ‘prejudiced’ or ‘biased’ against criminals, such as molesters and pederasts, and to fire them for it.”

The brief, filed June 29 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, was one of a series of arguments submitted by Loomis seeking dismissal of a suit by former 1st Lt. Andrew Holmes of Sacramento, who was discharged after disclosing his sexual orientation to his commanding officer in June, 1993.

Holmes contends that his discharge, under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, violated the U.S. Constitution and California laws forbidding job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although the National Guard argues that it is governed by federal law, Holmes’ suit says the Guard is a state agency covered by state law.

In a reference to the claim of a constitutional privacy violation, Loomis wrote May 18, “Holmes is irked that the Constitution does not recognize anything special about his own favorite nasty habits.”

Dave Puglia, spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said that although briefs are customarily reviewed by a supervisor before they are filed, it was unclear if that occurred in this case.

He added that state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren had not seen the filings. “Some of the language used in that brief was not of the attorney general’s choosing. He had not seen the brief and would have not used that language . . . had he been the author of the brief.”

Puglia said a supervisor has since spoken to Loomis about the wording, but Puglia declined to elaborate.

Paul Wotman, Holmes’ attorney, called Loomis’ statements “outrageous” and added, “To insert his personal homophobic views into a court brief demonstrates exactly the prejudice that the policy is really based on.”

Loomis said Holmes, in declaring his homosexuality and refusing to promise to be celibate, has shown he is “unable to give up his self-indulgence in forbidden acts” and overlooked the fact that “all of civilization is built on self-control.”

“Homosexual sex is not protected activity under federal law,” Loomis wrote. “Soldiers are still entitled to despise it as they choose, and commanders are entitled to know that.”