Will a future Republican President reverse this...or let it stand?

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is poised to extend health care, housing and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of military members by the end of August, but may reverse earlier plans to provide benefits to gay partners who are not married.

According to a draft Defense Department memo obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, the department instead may provide up to 10 days of leave to military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can travel to states where they can marry legally.

While no final decisions have been made, the memo from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to top defense leaders would reverse an earlier plan that would allow the same-sex partners of military members to sign a declaration form in order to receive limited benefits, such as access to military stores and some health and welfare programs.

The recent Supreme Court decision extending federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples eliminates the need for such a plan, Hagel said in the draft.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-unmarried-same-sex-couples/#ixzz2bP2gzwWQ

 

As long as the rules are applied evenly, I really dont have to much concern what the military does. Gay or straight the rules need to be applied the same

 

I guess my question is more to those antipathetic-to-gay-rights (a term approved by Mods). To see if they hope for some "reversal" on gay rights in the future....or have resigned themselves to continuing defeats?

 

Thats a fair enough question. On a similar topic I watched the Jackie Robinson story. Maybe in 50 years kids will learn about this stuff and shake their head at the behavior displayed in our time

 

Never seen this???

 

Sure and I suspect the gay issue will die the same natural death.......at least that is my little optimist dream

 

I say get the bedroom entirely out of the conversation.

If you want to extend benefits then make it the enlisted person and 1 other of their choice

Does an IED discriminate between single or married people? If not, then why do the benefits/compensation?

 

Just wondering if you've divorced your wife yet ;-P

 

Because...gays can marry now.

Just because you don't want them to have benefits doesn't mean you suddenly change the whole system.

The benefits were designed to be shared among married couples. Nothing about that is changing.

 

Do IEDs or bullets discriminate between single people and married ones?

- - - Updated - - -

Do IEDs or bullets discriminate between single and married people?

 

Do IED's or bullets have anything to do with these benefits and who they are granted to?

Answer: No.

 

as would be the reply by someone who is only interested in the homosexual aspect, not for everyone. That's OK as there are those of us who look at the big picture

Allow me to net it out

it's high time the benefits gain parity. Using what you do within the bedroom should not be the measuring stick

A solider is a soldier. I hope you won't insist that a homosexual soldier is different

They all are exposed to the exact same risks

So, why should a single soldier receive any less pay or benefits than one who is married?

Can you at least remove the homosexual blinders for once to see this?

If the military is reviewing the benefits package, and wants to extend medical coverage to a spouse/partner then it should be extended as simply one more person. Why can't a single soldier add his brother or sister to the plan?

To not agree simply shows that you believe homosexuals are special and deserving of different treatment

 

I do too. History proves it. 20 years before Reagan, even the HINT that his son, Ron. Jr. was gay....would have kept him out of the White House. 20 years before Cheney, the OPEN admission that his daughter was a lesbian, would have had Jerry Falwell tell Dubya to NOT pick him for his Veep Nominee.

GOP Senators are rapidly dropping opposition to gay marriage. Democratic ones see no harm, and advantage in no longer remaining silent. A Repbulican majority US Supreme Court is ruling for gay rights. And nobody but some nutters like Michele Bachmann or Louie Gohmert still dream of a "Federal Marriage Amendment" to the Constitution.

 

I would have no problem with soldiers being able to add family under benefits. In most cases of death these benefits are transferred to next of kin.

However, lets not be dishonest and pretend that this isn't only an issue because now it's being given to gay troops.

 

When it was straight couples....there was no major objection raised. Even by the Religious Right.

 

Of course not.

 

There will be a future Republican President?

 

Why are you just now questioning marriage benefits for those who serve our country?

 

why do you only want to give benefits to those who sleep with same sex partners? Do you not value the lives of the single soldiers?

 

I never said that. You are assuming facts very much not in evidence. I would like all married troops, whether male or female, gay or straight, to receive benefits. But you didn't answer the question. Married troops have received benefits since at least WWII, if not before. Why is it that, only now, after SSM has become legal, that it occurred to you to object?

 

why do you de-value the good work done by our single soldiers? Do you believe their life is worthless if they don't have a partner? Do you realize that you are also lumping in homosexual single soldiers as being less valuable.

 

The majority of Republicans under the age of 30 support gay rights including marriage. A common misconception is that this is a left v right issue, it isn't, its an age issue. A majority of older Democrats are also opposed to gay rights. I figure that by 2020 gay rights will be about as controversial an issue as women getting the vote.

 

I don't. But you didn't answer my question. Why is it only NOW, after SSM marriage has become legal and the military no longer discharges people just for being homosexual, that you have decided that marriage benes are a bad idea? It's been that way since WWII, shouldn't you have objected before now?

 

Truth. Oldsters have gone their whole life simply KNOWING that "them damn queers" were bad. They can't adapt to the new paradigm. But, every day that goes by, as they die off, so does their ideology.

 

I have been consistent. I do not agree with the bedroom test. If you are going to do for one, then do for all. It's a very simple test; are you giving the same benefits to a single person (or adjusted comp) as to an equivalent married person? How one engages in sex should never be a qualifier