Political & Elections

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

For those who want the military to repeal DADT, why aren't you screaming at the top of your lungs about getting your state or the federal govt to recognize homosexual marriage?

We are. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

zoosermom · Senior Member

As a republican, I encourage my elected representatives to support the repeal of DADT. It's simply not useful in the twenty-first century and it's time to step up.

pima · Guru

Diplomats are not military members. They do not have the same benefits that the military has, additionally they are not tethered to the govt like a military member.

Diplomats can be employed as openly gay.

Diplomats can quit tomorrow with 2 week notice.

Diplomats do not need to meet medical qualifications for the most part.

Military members do not have these luxuries.

JAM,

The military does not ask for FEDERAL documentation regarding marriage, it is STATE and state only. If the HOR says that according their state they are married, than they are married.

I am not homosexual, and I cannot answer if the state that recognizes homosexual unions allows them to file state tax returns as married.

I also don't know what the reqs are for the DOS regarding dependents, but for DOD they must show a valid certificate. The DOD can follow the footsteps of DOS, but then again there will be a firestorm if they don't.

To me the right thing is to repeal it, yet, what I really want is our govt to give every American equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. I think people would do better by fighting that than the repeal of DADT. Sorry, I don't get how CA one of, if not. the most liberal state in the Union can't get people to support homosexual marriage.

I have said this multiple times, I am a practicing Catholic and a happily married heterosexual, yet, I don't get how society shuns homosexuality. Does anyone believe they opted to fight society? Does anyone believe they wanted to be teased or taunted? My SIL's brother has been HIV since 1993, my In Laws still to this date have no clue because she fears that my in-laws would play havoc on her children seeing them. That is too sad to me.

For those who want the military to repeal DADT, why aren't you screaming at the top of your lungs about getting your state or the federal govt to recognize homosexual marriage? Why do you give 2 flipping figs about a small % of our citizens? What is the amount 5% at best?

If you give a crap about homosexual rights than VOTE! Vote for a candidate that will give all rights to every homosexual American. All this is about is using the military as guinea pigs to support your premise.

Don't condemn me when I point out the fact that federal has no impact on the DD1173. The fact is DD 1173 is processed because of state not federal. That is how it works in the military.

Cardinal I saw your link, but again this was not about the military. We are not talking green card, we are talking US citizens.

Apples with apples

I am really floored at the fact that people don't get that we need to fight hard for equality.
-- Edited by pima on Monday 22nd of November 2010 01:00:47 PM

-- Edited by pima on Monday 22nd of November 2010 01:05:09 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

A gay or lesbian American citizen cannot get a visa for his or her non-citizen spouse. American gays and lesbians with valid marriages, either valid foreign marriages or marriages in Iowa or Massachusetts, do not have the same immigration rights that straights have. So the US government is within its rights to deport the non-citizen husband or wife of a homosexual, and the government has been exercising that right.

On edit: I think we have a misunderstanding. I said: An American citizen cannot sponsor his husband for a visa. Similarly, an American citizen cannot sponsor her wife for a visa. Obviously, men with husbands and women with wives are in same-sex marriages. Of course Americans married to non-citizens of the opposite sex can sponsor their spouses.

-- Edited by Cardinal Fang on Monday 22nd of November 2010 12:18:57 PM

justamomof4 · Veteran Member

Pima - I really do not get what you are saying. Either you are married or you are not and the Federal Govt does not consider married gay couples to be married.
I believe this is true even for those federal workers who marry and live in Iowa where gay marriage is legal.
The benefits and pay for military members come from the Federal Government. Federal rules on eligibility apply. Yes, you get a marriage certificate from a State but the Federal Government only recognizes this if it's between a man and a woman.

Now, I don't know all the details and can't look it up right now but IIRC some State Dept employees who are gay have some benefits for their partners - they have allowed them to live overseas.
It's possible that the military impose some new rules/benefits pertaining to partners when a servicemember is transferred abroad to be in line with the state department.

Here it is from 2009 - US Gay Diplomats receive benefits for their partners:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/23/gay-us-diplomats-to-recei_n_207116.html

Of course, we are talking much smaller numbers in the Diplomatic Corps than in the Military as a whole.

pima · Guru

An American citizen can't sponsor his husband for immigration.

Oh yes they can! Green Card mean anything? Why do we have laws regarding how long they are married and put through rigors to prove that the marriage is legit?

I have met a ton of Brit wives who immediately became military dependents just like me as soon as the military member presented a valid marriage certificate to MPC.

Do you even realize how many military members marry foreigners? Yet, all they have to do is have their state recognize the marriage and they are could to go. Of course, it is no biggie for state recognization since it is heterosexual.

The military is not an administrative agency or bureau.

When you join the military you lose rights. You can not strike, you cannot protest, you can't just quit. A federal employee can go to a political rally, the military member cannot speak out.

The military member does not have the rights that the avg citizen has.

Yes, a same-sex marriage is valid for state purposes. But it is not valid for any federal purpose

Let me say this again for the umpteenth time, the current way the military works is state law takes precedent regarding benefits since DADT exists. The minute you repeal DADT the military will acknowledge homosexual unions because that is the current system since FEDERAL law is not a player in their current system, STATE is.

You need to accept that federal has no impact on the military regarding dependents. Stop with the federal already!

Just accept that and then you can see why people are saying that the repeal needs to occur, but it is a dynamic situation.

-- Edited by pima on Monday 22nd of November 2010 11:42:38 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Let me post this again:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

We don't have state armies. We have one federal army. The Department of Defense is an administrative bureau or agency of the United States. For that reason, for DoD purposes, marriage refers to the union of one man and one woman. Therefore, when someone in the military looks at a marriage license for two men or two women, that will not count as a valid license for DoD purposes.

Yes, a same-sex marriage is valid for state purposes. But it is not valid for any federal purpose. An American citizen can't sponsor his husband for immigration. A woman can't get her wife's Social Security benefits. And a gay or lesbian spouse won't be able to get military benefits because his husband or her wife is in the military.

pima · Guru

You are still missing the point, the FEDERAL GOVT has no impact. It is the actual state. If the state allows homosexual unions, than they are good to go. All you need is a valid marriage certificate, that is it! Currently, the military has never had to deal with state v federal, the DOMA is not part of the equation because they do not allow homosexuals to serve openly.

Remember you can serve as a homosexual.

People tend to believe that the military is in lock step with the federal employee programs, but they aren't! They are the DOD.

That means DOMA will now be in the equation. Again, Federal has never been an issue, the military respects the states POV. For example, the military member with an HOR from AK or FL pays no state tax because they are a resident of FL or AK. Retirees plot and plan where they retire because certain states see their retirement pay as taxable and other states don't.

Now you are saying, that HOR means squat or that the Fed takes precedent regarding the rights of the residents.

Just because you serve the nation as a military member does not mean you lose your rights as a resident.

Start playing this game out to larger levels, should the military member lose the tax advantage of residency? Should the homosexual member lose the benefit of gay marriage that their state recognizes?

I don't know about you, but we file 2 tax forms...STATE and FEDERAL.

The military doesn't give a military i.d. based on your Federal 1040, they give it based on your State marriage certificate.

Apples with apples.

In the end, you keep bringing up Federal, and refuse to understand that the military goes by state. The military can repeal DADT tomorrow, but that doesn't stop the fact that states recognize homosexual unions and there will be lawsuits if they play the DOMA game since the heterosexual community only has to show a STATE marriage license to get a dependent i.d. they don't show anything on a FEDERAL level. Nothing, nada, zip.

We are a litigitius society, there will be a lawsuit minute one.

-- Edited by pima on Monday 22nd of November 2010 10:35:14 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

All you have to do to get your spouse on the rolls is to show a valid marriage certificate from you Home of Record (HOR)....DOMA has absolutely nothing to do with this scenario from a military position.

And a marriage license to a person of the same sex won't be a valid license, because the federal government by DOMA doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. Sucks for gay people and their families, I know, but at least the gay servicemember will be able to stay in the service.

Here's the relevant part of the Defense of Marriage Act:

Section 3. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

So GI Joe walks into the benefits office and hands the sergeant his marriage license, a valid marriage license for a marriage between him and Andrew Loveshim. And the sergeant says, "Sorry, son, that doesn't count here." End of story.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

When my son had to complete his DODMERB physical, we were sweating it out, wondering if they would uncover any disqualifying conditions. This kid had a heart condition as a baby. Even with a clean bill of health for more than 15 years, he was concerned. They gave him an EKG and even though he has had a dozen or more since he was a toddler, we were both worried. Even the slightest quirky behavior on that EKG would have booted him from contention.

He had the random ear infections, brochial infections and strep, but no major ongoing health issues. If he had, he wouldn't have been able to continue with the ROTC scholarship application process.

pima · Guru

So if a gay or lesbian goes into the service and is killed, their partner doesn't get the same benefits a straight spouse would get. And if a gay or lesbian not in the service dies, their partner also does not get the same benefits a straight spouse would get.

So, to recap: If we get rid of DADT, gays and lesbians gain the right to be in the military if they otherwise are acceptable, and they lose no rights they already had. Same-sex spouses won't get any federal marriage benefits-- for which they already are ineligible, due to the federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Any possible lawsuits will quickly founder on the clear language of DOMA. So what's the problem?

The way the military works is different than even the federal side. All you have to do to get your spouse on the rolls is to show a valid marriage certificate from you Home of Record (HOR). They do not require tax forms, just a marriage certificate. SHow that certificate and you are now eligible for base housing, dependent health care, death benefits, PCS, TLA, etc, etc, etc.

You need to understand that is how the system works for bennies. Thus, if a gay military member who has their marriage legally recognized from their HOR is eligible for every benefit that a heterosexual couple is entitled to. DOMA has absolutely nothing to do with this scenario from a military position. The only thing the military could do is changed the reg on the requirements for a DD1173 (military i.d.).

We were married in NJ, all Bullet had to do was show our marriage certificate to get me on as a dependent. Our 1st 2 children were born in the UK, all we had to do was show a valid birth certificate, regardless that it was British, they still were enrolled. Our 3rd was born in NC, same was true for him there. We never had to show proof from a federal stance.

The military actually follows the laws of the state, not the fed. If the state says they are legally married, than the military recognizes that fact. That is where the problem lies. If the federal govt will not recognize every homosexual marriage, than you will see certain homosexual members gain more benefits than other homosexuals.

The military will need to address this, and the problem is they will now be caught up in a ball of wax. If they decide to follow DOMA, a member from a state that recognizes homosexual unions can cry foul. If they don't follow DOMA, a member from a state that doesn't recognize homosexual unions will cry foul.

-- Edited by pima on Monday 22nd of November 2010 07:34:51 AM

berurah · Senior Member

^^Excellent explanation, justamom. Thanks.

justamomof4 · Veteran Member

I *love* Admiral Mullen. I rue the day he retires. I have followed him for a long time as Chairman of the JCS and he is a brilliant man of character and integrity and a great leader.

Cardinal Fang - In the military, benefits are for spouses. If you are not married you do not get them. This is true even if you are straight. This is why so many servicemembers tie the knot just prior to deployment.
Since the Federal Government only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman - there is not a mechanism for gay servicemembers to be married.

Donna - about transgendered.....
I am going to try and explain it as objectively as possible. I don't carry any personal prejudice on this issue but am going to explain what I think is the military's point of view:

The military exists to provide a ready source of trained troops to defend our nation in the time of a national emergency (war). Troops who enter the military, both enlisted and officers - must submit to an extensive medical exam and history. Each servicemember submits to the same medical criteria regardless of their job. So, therefore, the infantry enlisted private is as 'medically qualified' as the private who opens doors for a general.
Most medical conditions that require continual medical care and or routine medicine are disqualifying. You can't have asthma, rely on medicine and/or an inhaler and serve - regardless of your position. Even bad eyesight is a disqualifyer. Anything that would put you or your health in jeopardy during time in combat or out on the ocean (with limited medical care) will disqualify you. If you are transgendered and taking medication (hormones) - this will be a valid medical dq in the eyes of the military. So, it's not the surgery - per se - nor the "condition" of being transgendered but the need for medical followup and use of medication.
I hope this makes some sense to you.

ELY · In exile

From ABC's Sunday morning "This Week" interview between Amanpour & General Mullen ( this am.):

***

AMANPOUR: You support it, though, repealing "don't ask/don't tell"?

MULLEN: From my personal perspective, absolutely.

AMANPOUR: Because?

MULLEN: Because I think it -- it belies us as an institution. We value integrity as an institution.

AMANPOUR: You mean forcing them to lie about what they are?

MULLEN: And then -- and then asking individuals to come in and lie about who they are every day goes counter to who we are as an institution.

AMANPOUR: Apart from the integrity issue, many of your allies -- whether it be England or Canada or France or Australia, the Israeli army -- they have openly gay servicemembers in their military with no adverse effects.

MULLEN: Certainly. I've seen that,

***

This is the first time I've heard the integrity issue addressed by a member of the military command.

-- Edited by ELY on Sunday 21st of November 2010 07:48:04 AM

-- Edited by ELY on Sunday 21st of November 2010 08:01:32 AM

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:

I guess in Soccerguy's universe, Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Powell don't count as "military brass".

I didn't hear about Patraeus, so thank you. Powell is not military brass though, yes? Isn't he like 70 years old? And isn't there a mandatory retirement age in the military?
also, if they are worried about the filibuster, they should bring it up for a vote anyway, and let the Republicans filibuster. Then everyone will know who the bad guys are on this issue. Just IMO.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Friday 19th of November 2010 10:18:13 PM

Many of the pro-DADT military are retirees as well. Didn't John McCain cite the testimony of some general who'd been out of commission for decades as proof that DADT needed to stay?

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Sunday 21st of November 2010 12:54:08 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

If Bullet was sent to Iraq and killed I would receive not only SS, but the death benefits, including medical, base privileges, etc. That would not be true for the homosexual.

So if a gay or lesbian goes into the service and is killed, their partner doesn't get the same benefits a straight spouse would get. And if a gay or lesbian not in the service dies, their partner also does not get the same benefits a straight spouse would get.

So, to recap: If we get rid of DADT, gays and lesbians gain the right to be in the military if they otherwise are acceptable, and they lose no rights they already had. Same-sex spouses won't get any federal marriage benefits-- for which they already are ineligible, due to the federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Any possible lawsuits will quickly founder on the clear language of DOMA. So what's the problem?

-- Edited by Cardinal Fang on Saturday 20th of November 2010 11:22:30 AM

pima · Guru

Donna, by needing that 45 minutes once week is where the issue becomes an issue. Military members must be deployable. I have known people to be medically dq from the Army for getting heat stroke in Iraq (gee what a surprise, 120 degree heat and wearing flak jackets plus ruck sacks of 70 lbs made him faint).

It is not only a war time issue, but also a military move issue. I know of an AF family who were medically dq to take a tour in Turkey because their child had a previous heart issue, which according to docs was corrected (ASD ---no surgery).

The military is very concerned about medical care not only for the member, but their dependents too. Obviously the AD member is the one they care most about, and if you can't get deployed they are not going to let you join.

Transgender is not going to be an issue for a long time, until the medical process becomes more effective to not have high risks even from an operational standpoint.

Again JAM said before she believes it is an excuse about the pay and the bennies. I accept and respect that, but here is where I think the point is being missed:

Our society is a litigitous society, after DADT was put into place discrimination lawsuits popped up on day one. I believe because of the fact that the military pay is tied to dependents you will find the same thing occur and where does that leave us? It leaves us in another ball of crap trying to sort out how to effectively handle this issue.

Bullet works for the govt., we do not receive a Housing allowance, nor do they dictate where he can or cannot live. For our youngest soldiers (enlisted) they can dictate that, especially overseas... not married as the military sees it and you live in the dorms. As a govt employee spouse I do not get job preference like I did as a military spouse...that's a big deal, bigger if you are overseas. If Bullet was sent to Iraq and killed I would receive not only SS, but the death benefits, including medical, base privileges, etc. That would not be true for the homosexual...heck they wouldn't even be deemed the next of kin, and if the AD member's parents opposed his sexuality they could keep their partner out of the loop regarding everything and anything, except for the life insurance.

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:

I guess in Soccerguy's universe, Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Powell don't count as "military brass".

I didn't hear about Patraeus, so thank you. Powell is not military brass though, yes? Isn't he like 70 years old? And isn't there a mandatory retirement age in the military?

also, if they are worried about the filibuster, they should bring it up for a vote anyway, and let the Republicans filibuster. Then everyone will know who the bad guys are on this issue. Just IMO.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Friday 19th of November 2010 10:18:13 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"(The psychiatric interview I had to go through in order to get approved for surgery was quite funny, in a sad way. Full of questions like "do you ever feel the urge to kill people?"). Maybe I should put those attestations up on my office wall instead of my diplomas.

I hope you didn't answer that question by saying, "Not until now!" Though it would be extremely tempting!

Actually, an attestation of sanity might be more appreciated by the clients over what school someone attended.

DonnaL · Senior Member

You could certainly be right; I'm no expert. You mean, you can't be (or stay) in the military if you've had major surgery, even if you've completely recovered? Haven't people who were seriously wounded returned after recovering?

As far as continuing care goes, well, without getting too graphic (since I don't know yet what the rules are here!), at this point, a year and four months after my surgery, all I have to do is spend about half an hour or 45 minutes, once a week, with what's called a "dilator," to make sure everything stays the way it's supposed to.

Either that, or have sexual intercourse once a week. (Presumably for the same amount of time!)

Those are the options. I won't say which one I've been pursuing.

Would that necessarily preclude military service?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

When I said I thought transsexuals who had had sexual reassignment surgery would be rejected for medical reasons, I meant physical medical reasons. I'm not an expert either on sexual reassignment surgery or medical reasons for rejection from the military, so those who are should correct me, but I had the impression that sexual reassignment surgery was a major, serious sort of surgery that required some continuing treatment afterwards. People who have had major, serious surgery (even if completely uncontroversial) usually are not accepted into the military, I thought.

DonnaL · Senior Member

As others have said, the repeal of DADT, by itself, would have no effect on the inability of trans people to serve openly in the military -- except that gender non-conforming behavior would no longer be used as "evidence" that someone is gay or lesbian.

http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/11/dadt-repeal-efforts-ignore-transgender-servicemembers-and-veterans.php

"Transgender people can be discharged under military policy as medically unfit if they have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder or if they have had genital surgery [PDF]. There are also military regulations that consider gender non-conformity as "conduct unbecoming" or "conduct prejudicial to good order or discipline." Wardrobe considered "cross-dressing" can also be considered a violation of uniform policies; this has been applied to servicemembers' dress on or off base."

But I guess it's OK for women to wear pants?

In any event, I know that there are transitioned trans people serving in the UK military, and it's caused no problems whatsoever. Having gender dysphoria, by itself (or having had it in the past) hardly makes one "mentally ill," and, in any event, I don't think it has any bearing (in and of itself) to one's ability to serve. I know that I have multiple certificates attesting to my sanity. (The psychiatric interview I had to go through in order to get approved for surgery was quite funny, in a sad way. Full of questions like "do you ever feel the urge to kill people?"). Maybe I should put those attestations up on my office wall instead of my diplomas.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 19th of November 2010 10:18:47 AM

Woodwork · Senior Member

Thanks for your quick responses. Good points, too.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Transgendered people can be gay or straight, but I think otherwise Cartera is right that they will still not be allowed into the services after DADT is repealed. Those transsexuals who have had surgery probably would be rejected for standard medical reasons in any case.

ELY · In exile

Since the discussion is back to McCain & his perplexing DADT stance(s), I'm attempting to post this The Daily Show video:

[video=

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

It Gets Worse PSA

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

]

ELY · In exile

I'm trying again to post this video link since discussion is back to McCain and his perplexing DADT stances::

[video=

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

It Gets Worse PSA

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

]

justamomof4 · Veteran Member

cartera - you could be right. McCain puzzles me and I think this explains it. He has outlived his usefulness, IMO.

woodwork - I don't think so. transgender is far more complicated and may very well not fit in with the medical qualifications of military service.

Cartera · Guru

Of course, transgendered people are not gay to start with, so it shouldn't apply. However, my understanding is that, even if DADT is repealed, transgendered people will not be protected. An acquaintance of mine believes that they would be asked to leave based on either a diagnosis of gender identity disorder or the surgery itself would be a basis. He said for the transgendered, DADT means "Don't ask, Don't transgender."

Woodwork · Senior Member

I really know nothing at all about this subject; however, it occurs to me that for the first time I see that the acronym being used in this debate is LGB, not LGBT, as is more common. Is there no push for transgender rights in DADT?

Cartera · Guru

If he can't - it's another fail for him.

This and only this explains the views of many on DADT. Even if they support the idea, they want so badly for President Obama to fail that they will sacrifice others to see it. Turncoat McCain falls into this category.

justamomof4 · Veteran Member

The concern of many, not just Republicans, is about military cohesiveness.
Actually, this is a "made-up" concern - not based on any fact or research.

A little history here - back in the day homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder and disqualifying for military service as such.
When the 'diagnosis' was removed and it was no longer seen as a psychiatric disorder the military was in a quandry. So they made up DADT, along with the excuse that it was important to retain military cohesiveness etc etc.

In July 1993, Rand Corp issued an independent report that found no justification for the military to ban LGB's. This report was ignored by Congress and the military - largely due to their own personal prejudices.

Also, I don't think the military brass has come out in support of the removal of DADT. The only person I know who did is Gates, and he is a politician.
Incorrect. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the JCS is absolutely in favor of removal of DADT. In fact, the only "Military brass" that I know of who is opposed is General Amos - Commandant of the Marine Corps. He was recently smackdown by Admiral Mullen for stating his views in public before discussing them with his boss.

The benefit issue is where Pima and I depart ways. Most people who bring this up are using it as an excuse, IMO. For now, there is no reason to offer military personnel the same benefit definitions as other federal employees. Treat them the same way we treat civilian state department employees.

This would be a big historical and political win for Obama if he can pull people together and get a Senate "Yes" vote on this issue before Christmas. If he can't - it's another fail for him.

pima · Guru

It may be right or wrong, but the fact is the military pay system is tied to dependents. By telling one gay member they can get every benefit because their state recognizes the marriage and another they can't will cause disruption.

You must see the big picture especially for young enlisted members. Below a certain rank, especially overseas, they may be forced to live in dorms unless they are married. Right there on that fact alone you will have disgruntled members. That is before we even discuss job preference for spouses, tuition assistance for spouses, medical, dental, support groups, etc.

In a big picture it would be naive to believe that lawsuits won't come down minute one on day one demanding spousal benefits for those who have their residency from a state that doesn't recognize homosexual unions.

The military needs to get this one right otherwise they will be in a quagmire for yrs until it is settled from a federal level.

These aspects need to be addressed first. Homosexuals can serve in the military, but not openly...did any of you think that the reason why may come down to the aspect I am discussing.

Benefits such as medical, housing, moving allowances, etc add up to a pretty penny. Try living overseas on the economy, even in the heterosexual world military members are jealous of the ones that can live on base housing...traditionally there is a 1-2 yr wait to get into one. Now be that homosexual in a committed relationship who was forced to go by themselves to a foreign country and live in a dorm because their state doesn't recognize their committment, thus, the military would not pay for them to accompany them, but the other homosexual in your squadron/plattoon is living with their mate in a 3 bdrm house since their state does recognize their union. Are you saying you wouldn't be ticked? I sure as heck would be!

The same is true for survivor benefits. This is war time. The homosexual couple that is recognized will be able to collect death benefits to the tune of a couple thousand a month on top of the 400K life insurance. The one that is not recognized will receive nothing, unless they left them as the beneficiary for the life insurance.

Bennies are a huge issue when it comes to the military, it is not a drop in the bucket.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Also, anyone find it just so sweet that Murkowski could be one of the key figures in getting DADT repealed?

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:

Cardinal Fang wrote:

I don't understand this objection, pima. The proposal is to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, not to allow gay marriage in the military. And remember, the military brass have endorsed repealing DADT now.

Many of the bennies are tied to dependents. OK. What does the military do with straight partners of military members other than spouses? Do the same thing for gay partners. What does the military do with children, born to the military member or adopted? Do the same thing whether the member is straight or gay-- which I assume already happens.

Because of the despicable Defense of Marriage Act, right now the military can't recognize gay marriages, just as other federal institutions can't. That's sad.
I would love it if we recognized gay marriage at the same time, but we can't let the good be the enemy of the best. At least we can stop throwing people out of the military for being gay.

I don't think the military can legally give spousal benefits to someone who is not recognized as a spouse though. That is the problem.
Also, I don't think the military brass has come out in support of the removal of DADT. The only person I know who did is Gates, and he is a politician.

I guess in Soccerguy's universe, Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Powell don't count as "military brass".

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Excuse me, soccerguy, but did no one tell you about the filibuster? Having a majority in the Senate is not enough. There were never sixty Democrats in the Senate, and there were 58+Lieberman+Sanders for only about six months. I blame turncoat Democrats, but I blame Republicans more. No Republicans would vote to end DADT.

That's changing, though. Senator Murkowski just came out in favor of repeal, and so did one of the Maine Senators (can't remember whether it was Collins or Snowe, but where one leads, the other will follow). And I think maybe a male Republican came around too. Hurray!

-- Edited by Cardinal Fang on Thursday 18th of November 2010 11:19:43 PM

-- Edited by Cardinal Fang on Thursday 18th of November 2010 11:23:58 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"The democrats have both houses and the presidency... they are the ones who deserve your anger. They aren't going to push it, because they don't actually care about gay rights. They just pretend, every election season."

Good observation. Why don't they take care of it, that is, if they really care? As I remember most recently....the only serious presidential/vp candidate in the recent past who has been pro gay marriage has been Dick Cheney. Oh, that evil, evil man.

"If my son calls a woman of higher rank, "sir", he will be doing drill and grunt work until he gets his commission."

I've been called "sir" a number of times both in the military and out, sometimes on the radio and less often in person. Which completely embarrasses the person who says it....as I have a fairly high pitched voice, and there is no mistaking I'm a woman. It is merely force of habit, nothing else. And I let them off the hook by saying, "Hey, you'd think the long hair and the boobs would be a dead giveaway...but then again, you never know". Which always seems to get a laugh and take the humiliation away. Nobody means to offend.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Cardinal Fang wrote:

We're NOT going to recognize gay marriage nationally any time soon. That will not happen.

So saying we have to wait to get rid of DADT until gay marriage is legal is the same as saying we're going to keep gays out of the military for the next ten or twenty years. It's just another excuse. We need to stop giving excuses, and get rid of DADT right now.

The democrats have both houses and the presidency... they are the ones who deserve your anger. They aren't going to push it, because they don't actually care about gay rights. They just pretend, every election season.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Cardinal Fang wrote:

I don't understand this objection, pima. The proposal is to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, not to allow gay marriage in the military. And remember, the military brass have endorsed repealing DADT now.

Many of the bennies are tied to dependents. OK. What does the military do with straight partners of military members other than spouses? Do the same thing for gay partners. What does the military do with children, born to the military member or adopted? Do the same thing whether the member is straight or gay-- which I assume already happens.

Because of the despicable Defense of Marriage Act, right now the military can't recognize gay marriages, just as other federal institutions can't. That's sad.
I would love it if we recognized gay marriage at the same time, but we can't let the good be the enemy of the best. At least we can stop throwing people out of the military for being gay.

I don't think the military can legally give spousal benefits to someone who is not recognized as a spouse though. That is the problem.

Also, I don't think the military brass has come out in support of the removal of DADT. The only person I know who did is Gates, and he is a politician.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

And yet, the actual people in the actual military, and their actual commanders, overwhelming support or are neutral about gays in the military. So this concern about unit morale does not seem to be justified.

Razorsharp · Guru

But Republicans in the Senate blocked repeal. I think their principled argument is, "Gays are yucky."

That simply is not true at all.

The concern of many, not just Republicans, is about military cohesiveness. The ability of the military to function in units and to effectively kill the enemy is far more important than protecting the feelings of homosexuals. If having gays in the military diminishes the military's ability to fight, then I oppose homosexuals in the military. If it does not diminish the military's ability to fight, then I say let them serve and I would thank them for their service.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

We're NOT going to recognize gay marriage nationally any time soon. That will not happen.

So saying we have to wait to get rid of DADT until gay marriage is legal is the same as saying we're going to keep gays out of the military for the next ten or twenty years. It's just another excuse. We need to stop giving excuses, and get rid of DADT right now.

ELY · In exile

I'm with you on that point, pima. I just don't buy into the argument that the military needs to wait (or is justified in waiting) until same-sex marriage is legal across the board. They don't need to recognize civil unions/same-sex marriages or give benefits in order to repeal DADT. As Cardinal Fang points out, they can always prop-up such a policy against the Defense of Marriage Act. Baby steps . . .

-- Edited by ELY on Thursday 18th of November 2010 09:54:20 AM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

DADT should be repealed, but it would be best if we recognize gay marriage simultaneously.

No complaints here.

pima · Guru

Ely, I agree, but why should we stop at military policy, why not extend it to every American?

pima · Guru

To get military bennies for a dependent you must show a valid marriage license from the state. If the state doesn't recognize homosexual unions, you are SOL. I don't want to muddy the waters of going to a state that is not your home of record.

The military does not recognize S.O of military members, but you are missing the point. The heterosexual couple has the right to get married and get the bennies, that is not true for the homosexual couple. Again, it goes back to producing a valid marriage certificate....key word marriage certificate.

Now if Reid proposes to allow homosexual couples the same right as federal employees, it is moot, but if they do not close that loop hole, the military will be forced to follow the regs, and the regs are you need a valid marriage certificate to enroll the dependent.

The child born or adopted by a military member, any military member (I know single Moms who adopted), must present a valid birth certificate and the legal paperwork to prove they are the guardian.

Believe it or not, there is an office, and all they do is process these things. Enrolling into the system is not a 1,2,3 out of here in 15 minutes, it is longer than that. Additionally, if you divorce, the military will change the id card priviledges, on the back they actually show what your priviledges are from soup to nuts.

I support the repeal, but as I stated earlier there are finesse issues. For example, when the military moves you, not only do you get a weight allowance that differs for dependents or w/o dependents, but also your dependent gets a per diem per mile and per day. I think it is @50 bucks a day, and 37 cents a mile. Imagine moving from San Diego, CA to Norfolk, VA. That is a lot of money you lose just because you CA doesn't recognize your marriage. In the military over a 20 yr career, you could move 10 times. That is a lot of money out of pocket

ELY · In exile

I've heard that argument before, pima, and I realize you know far more about these things than I. However, it seems easy to fix this--why not make it a US govt. policy not to extend benefits to gay unions until such time that they are recognized/valid through a constitutional amendment (or the like)?? When service men & women enlist they agree to uphold many military policies--why not make this another?

Anyone see The Daily Show's segment on the perplexing waffling done by McCain on DADT?
(hey, I can now, in our new little diaspora, link a video. Enjoy.)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-15-2010/it-gets-worse-psa

. . . sorry, I'm hyperllink impaired.

-- Edited by ELY on Thursday 18th of November 2010 07:51:24 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I don't understand this objection, pima. The proposal is to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, not to allow gay marriage in the military. And remember, the military brass have endorsed repealing DADT now.

Many of the bennies are tied to dependents. OK. What does the military do with straight partners of military members other than spouses? Do the same thing for gay partners. What does the military do with children, born to the military member or adopted? Do the same thing whether the member is straight or gay-- which I assume already happens.

Because of the despicable Defense of Marriage Act, right now the military can't recognize gay marriages, just as other federal institutions can't. That's sad.

I would love it if we recognized gay marriage at the same time, but we can't let the good be the enemy of the best. At least we can stop throwing people out of the military for being gay.

pima · Guru

I know many military members who want it overturned, but want it done correctly. I will be very upset with the R's if it is a homophobic reason, but I would be supportive if they said to Reid we need to do this smartly.

People who have never lived the military life do not understand that many of their bennies are tied to dependents, that includes pay, medical, housing, moving and even shopping at the base grocery store (commissary).

Military members are saying how do you do this properly? To get a military i.d. for a spouse you just show a marriage certificate. Currently, homosexual unions are not recognized in every state. That means the legally married gay member from NY can get every right for their spouse, but the member from CA can't. Can you magine 2 gay members serving and one has a spouse who is recognized by their state, thus the military, living on base, getting job preference as a spouse, dental care, medical care, tuition assistance, and the other also in a committed relationship not being even able to drive on base because they do not have a military i.d. let alone the bennies.

For an officer stationed in AK, you are not talking pennies, you are talking hundreds of dollars a month. In NC for a Lt Col, it is @500 a month difference for housing allowance if you have a dependent or you don't.

On top of that, it would mean a service member posted overseas would not be able to get bennies for their spouse, and depending on the country they might have to leave every 6 months because they would be there as a tourist. This would be on their own dime, and tours can be 2-3 yrs. Just imagine living in Germany and not being able to get medical care, shop on base, PLUS pay roundtrip air fare 2X a yr on a military salary. G forbid a family member takes ill stateside, Red Cross steps in and flies the family home for free, but it wouldn't if you are not on orders. Military orders not only include the member, but every dependent. It could cause morale issues and lawsuits will pop up immediately based on discrimination.

It would become a quagmire. If I was homosexual involved in a relationship with a member from a state that didn't recognize homosexual unions I sure as hell would contact the ACLU and every attorney to fight for my rights.

The military should never be used as guinea pigs. Military members are not idiots, and they know gay members serve, they just wanted it implemented correctly. The fact that the govt has yet to recognize homosexual unions from a national perspective causes more problems.

DADT should be repealed, but it would be best if we recognize gay marriage simultaneously.

-- Edited by pima on Thursday 18th of November 2010 07:37:16 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

No preparation. They just have to stop throwing people out of the military for being gay. That's all. That's it. Whatever rules there are about romantic or sexual relationships between two people in the military would apply to a same-sex pair just as they apply to an opposite-sex pair.