Pentagon push to extend benefits to same-sex couples stirs debate

Do gay couples have the option of marrying a mate compatible with them?

 

Yes, at least in ten states.

 

40 to go.

 

But heterosexual couples get benefits gay couples can't get. That is actually discrimination. Giving gay couples equal access to them is of course not discrimination

 

Heterosexual couples have to get legally married and provide a marriage license to the military to get benefits for their spouse. Homosexual couples don't have to get married or provide a license to get the same benefits.

Thus, unmarried homosexual couples are able to get more benefits than unmarried heterosexual couples. This is the problem.

If the military had simply said that they would accept a marriage license or certificate of marriage for any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, then it would have been equal. As it is, this policy discriminates against unmarried heterosexual couples.

 

homosexual couples can only get married in 10 states, and non of those are recognized by the federal govn't. thus, heterosexuals getting benefits homosexuals can not. discrimination.

heterosexuals can marry. homosexuals can not. this is the problem.

no it doesn't. unmarried heterosexual couples can marry.

 

Have they ordered the Marines to stop wearing Dress Blues and start wearing blue dresses?

This trend, like women in combat, is a pathetic scraping of the bottom of the barrel in order to avoid having a draft. They are desperate to keep enough people, no matter what their military fitness is, in order to keep fighting wars for flagburning draftdodgers like Clinton and flagwaving draftdodgers like Bush. They are terrified that the next time there is a draft the ruling class's gutless brats and its brown-nosing flunkies will get drafted at age 18 and get sent to the front lines.

 

This is the most ignorant thing you've posted in a while. Why do you equate gay men with women?

Not at all. This is about doing what's right and fair.

 

None of which are recognized by the Fed.

 

nah

it should simply state allowing benefits to one additional person of your choice. It could be your friends mother who needs medical coverage.

how you have sex should have absolutely no bearing on benefits. This is the result of the intolerant left

 

I wouldnt have a problem with "same sex marriage". Its this insistance of creating "GAY marriage" that I dont like.

 

Has nothing to do with equal rights and is instead government indoctrination to garner more "respect and dignity" for homosexuals

 

Well, not recognized according to the law. But this is the Obama administration that thinks they can make their own rules.

 

He doesn't really know what he's saying.

My troops (gay and straight) would LAUGH OUT LOUD at such commentary. They might even 'joke-around' by saying something like that... but real servicemen realize that gay-male is not necessarily equal to feminine-male. In fact, say that to the WRONG "gay" male soldier... and the one saying it might want to take it back immediately.

- - - Updated - - -

????!!!!

 

Obama and the military leaders are doing a very good job. (I'm sure you disagree.)

 

Thats because you think its good for Obama to ignore laws that you disagree with.

 

Wrong, dixon.

 

Unless they have a life and it is difficult to travel to another state and pay for that travel. If it were illegal to practice your religion in all states but a few, would you say "just move" to those whose rights were being violated? Your argument attempts to justify bad law here by pointing to good law there. Its a red herring--I am talking about the laws that need changes here.

 

Actually the military currently is not allowed to give the same benefits to all legally married couples if they are the same gender.

Did you miss out on the story of the wife of the vet who wasn't able to get survivor benefits that she would have gotten if her spouse was a man?

This story does raise an interesting point-

Are you against discrimination of benefits or for discrimination of benefits?

If your point is that this unfairly discriminates against unmarried different gender couples, are you also against the discrimination against married same gender couples?

 

Washington, D.C.--Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued a memorandum to the armed services branches February 11 ordering the extension of 22 educational, survivor, travel, and transportation benefits to the “same-sex domestic partners” of service members.

The two-page memorandum with attachments includes a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” form that service members can use to identify their partner.

The benefits Panetta identified include dependent identification cards, access to commissaries and exchanges, emergency leave, joint duty assignments, disability and death compensation, child care, and space-available travel on military aircraft.

OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network hedged somewhat in its reaction, praising the action but noting that the Pentagon did not extend two or three benefits OutServe believes it could have added without running afoul of the Defense of Marriage Act. These include on-base housing, burial rights at national cemeteries, and travel to visit service members overseas.

Panetta noted that DOMA prevents the department from extending certain benefits, such as health care and housing allowances, because they are “currently only available to spouses and therefore cannot be made available to same-sex domestic partners.”

“In the event that [DOMA] is no longer applicable to the Department of Defense,” said Panetta, “it will be the policy of the department to construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents, will be granted full military benefits.”

 

I wonder if a person can use that form to name an opposite-gender domestic partner. If so, this sounds like an acceptable policy.

 

Does not matter. If it is for couples it should cover all couples not just an Obama special interest group

- - - Updated - - -

It is if they get benefits other couples don't get

 

Like Obama you want all morals gone and you push for more perversion. This is just one part of Obama's plan to lift up his special interest group the gay's

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ouse-to-weigh-in-on-prop-8-gay-marriage-case/

 

Of course it matters.

which is why marriage should be extended to same sex couples. if it's not, you'll just have to live with the current arrangement.

like heterosexual couples get now? that is actually discrimination. extending them to same sex couples is of course not.

 

both morals and peerversion are subjective terms. what you find morally right or wrong, or pervasive has no relevance to anyone other than yourself. you don't get to make others live by your perceived view of morality or perversion