Military Court Says It's Okay That Marine Wore His Uniform in Gay Porn Shoot

A military court ruled this week that it's okay a Marine wore parts of his official uniform while shooting gay porn videos -- because he never appeared on camera wearing the full thing.

According to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Marine Corps Sgt. Matthew W. Simmons was an active-duty member of the Marine Corps band when he took leave to appear in several pornographic videos that "involved sodomy with numerous other men."

In some of the clips, he was shown wearing his Marine dress blue coat, complete with decorations and rank insignia; others showed him wearing a Marine physical training jacket. At one point he mentioned on-camera that he was a Marine, and still shots from the videos were used for online advertising, McClatchy reported.

According to the Marine Corps Times, Simmons -- who used the name "Christian Jade" on the military pornography site "Active Duty"-- first came under investigation in 2010 when photos and videos surfaced of him having sex with other men.

He pleaded guilty to charges of misusing his uniform, but in its ruling the court set aside part of those convictions: Because Simmons never wore the complete uniform, there was no "visual evidence" for the general public of his government authority, and even though he identified himself as a Marine, he didn't say they supported his behavior.

The court held:

"We are also not satisfied, on the basis of this record, that the appellant's statements or wear of uniform items may create an inference of service endorsement of the activities depicted. The appellant never wore a complete 'uniform,' so the general public could never receive 'visual evidence of the authority and responsibility vested in the individual by the United States Government.' He did not voice any Marine support for what he was doing or any service views on the propriety or impropriety of his conduct.

Because Simmons' actions couldn't be considered using the uniform for "commercial" purposes, there was no misuse involved. The court instead ordered he be resentenced under the charge of "general neglect or disorder."

(h/t Gawker)