USSC overturns DOMA; DoD rushes to give benefits away

| June 26, 2013

So, you didn’t really think that the Defense of Marriage Act would stand up under the scrutiny of this court, did you? The is the Supreme Court that gave us Obamacare, for Pete’s sake. But anyway, as soon as the decision was announced, Chuck Hagel rushed out a statement that would give benefits to same-sex couples, you know, because they’ve kept their promises so well to, well, regular couples. From Stars & Stripes;

“The Department of Defense welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision today on the Defense of Marriage Act,” it read. “The Department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies. The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses — regardless of sexual orientation — as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do.

“Every person who serves our nation in uniform stepped forward with courage and commitment. All that matters is their patriotism, their willingness to serve their country and their qualifications to do so. Today’s ruling helps ensure that all men and women who serve this country can be treated fairly and equally, with the full dignity and respect they so richly deserve.”

Last year, they wanted to strike down the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy so they could openly serve. That’s all they wanted – to be able to serve without hiding who they are. So, the camel got his nose under the tent, and voila!

Honestly, I don’t care about gays serving in the military, I just don’t like being lied to about their intentions. Oh, just so you same-sex couples know, when it comes to those benefits that you get promised, they break their promises all of the time. They tell us that, as retirees, we’re unsustainable and then they pile a bunch new people into the system, so enjoy it while you can.

And, oh, by the way;

The Pentagon will have to decide whether only legal marriages qualify for benefits or whether those in domestic partnerships are eligible as well, Panetta said in his memo.


The outlook is more complex for veterans in same-sex marriages, McKean said. The statute that governs veterans benefits defines a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband.”

Category: Military issues, Veterans Issues

Comments (63)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jon The Mechanic says:

    We really need to find a way to make it illegal for liberals to vote. I am tired of this crap.

  2. Eric66 says:

    Maybe having gay couples get benefits is JUST what we needed. God only knows they get all the publicity and opposite-sex couples get screwed in the VA system. So with them on board, maybe the VA will actually get scrutinized more…

  3. OWB says:

    But, but , but, THIS is important! Let all those vets languish as they wait for their earned benefits, and deny as much earned medical care for combat injuries as possible.

    And be sure to reduce the force significantly so that the “savings” can be used to support all these new dependents.

    Among other questions I have is how many people with whom you are cohabitating can you claim? Must a domestic partner be a human? Will there be contests and prizes for those who claim the most domestic partners in a calendar year?

  4. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, if I can’t claim Mikey as a dependent, it’s just not fair.

  5. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    God Almighty. If we only had 6 or 7 Scalias on the Court! He gets it. This business of a few blacked-robed lawyers telling the rest of the nation what OUGHT to be and then ruling to make it so is–undemocratic and unconstitutional. This from Scalia’s dissenting opinion:

    “We have no power to decide this case.And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. The Court is eager — hungry — to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case.”

  6. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Anti-Federalist Robert Yates: “The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away.” Brother, oh brother, did Yates call it or what. Damn Marbury vs. Madison. Damn the Supreme Court–as it presently functions. Yeah, I’m pissed. I’m so pissed off I can’t see straight.

  7. Anonymous says:

    @ 1: That’s the spirit of freedom, democracy and equality that we hold so dear!

    The government shouldn’t be in the business of giving additional rights, tax credits, etc., to straight couples and not to gay ones. Churches are free to do what they wish. One of the key problem is that ‘marriage’ has both a civil and religious meaning.

  8. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @7. You have no freakin idea what the proper constitutional of the Supreme Court is. None. In fact, I bet that you do not know what precisely was decided today and what was not, with respect to this matter. All you know is that you FEEL that it is a good thing.

  9. NHSparky says:

    @7–churches can’t be compelled to perform gay marriages–FOR NOW.

    But what about when another lib’rul president then decides to sic the IRS after those who refuse to perform them? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…yes, I do seem to recall having read that somewhere.

    The Pentagon will have to decide whether only legal marriages qualify for benefits or whether those in domestic partnerships are eligible as well, Panetta said in his memo.

    Yes, because they’ve done such a bang-up job in sniffing out the phony marriages so Pvt./SN Schmuckatelli can get bennies and live out in town rather than on post/ship so far…

    (And yes, that was in fact sarcasm.)

  10. Anonymous says:

    @8: From a few personal thoughts and a thoroughly deserved mocking of someone wishing to restrict voting from over half the country, you’ve ascertained the entirety of my character and knowledge. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

  11. UpNorth says:

    “Churches are free to do what they wish.” For how long?
    First it was, “we just want civil unions”. Then it became, “we just want marriage equality”. Next, it will be, “We’re here, We’re queer and you have to do what we want”.

  12. Anonymous says:

    @ Sparky: To give an honest answer, I think that could get complicated and I’m not sure there’s an easy answer. When Churches actively engage in politics, should they have tax-exempt status? What if *I* form a ‘church’, where I preach to people, and claim tax-exempt status? (This sort of thing does happen.) Where do we draw the line between tax-exempt for doing the many (near universally) good things Churches do, like feeding the poor, taking care of communities, etc., and when they actively campaign against certain political candidates? If they campaign against a political candidate on something -say, gun rights- that isn’t a tenet of their religion, is that allowed? What if it IS for reasons central to their religion? I don’t have any firm answers, but since none of this has happened yet, I think I’ll worry about that when it becomes an issue.

    If, on the other hand, some President tried to strong-arm the Catholic church, for example, into performing gay marriages, I’d stand firmly against that. I have zero problems with Churches sticking by their teachings, obviously, I just think it gets murky when the tax stuff gets involved.

    I honestly don’t know much about how DOD will handle this, but I think it’s pretty outrageous when you can have people who’ve been ‘married’ for 30 years, move to another state, one gets hospitalized, and the other can’t see them because they’re not recognized as a ‘spouse’. People -no matter of what orientation they fall into- deserve better than that, even with the complications and other problems that may arise.

  13. NHSparky says:

    someone wishing to restrict voting from over half the country

    Oh, I’d love for you to explain this one. I can be somewhat of a bullshitter myself, but I always love listening to an expert. Please, do go on!

  14. NHSparky says:

    When Churches actively engage in politics, should they have tax-exempt status?

    Nope. Then again, which political party usually stumps from the altar?

    M’kay, thanks for playing, have a nice day.

  15. Anonymous says:

    @11: And, to reiterate that (ignoring the complicated question of taxes), the moment any liberal politician puts forth a law requiring the Catholic church, for example, to perform marriages that go against their intrinsic beliefs, I’ll stand firmly against that. But, to me, it honestly seems so incredibly far-fetched that I don’t think it likely.

    I’m not religious myself, but in so far as one’s religious beliefs don’t negatively impact another person -and no, only marrying straight people within a religion doesn’t hurt anyone- then I’ll adamantly defend that religion’s rights to do as it sees fit.

  16. Anonymous says:

    @13: I was replying to #1, who said, “We really need to find a way to make it illegal for liberals to vote. I am tired of this crap.”

    Since liberals are roughly half the country, suggesting that it be illegal for them to vote is, in fact, seeking to restrict voting from half the country. I clearly don’t think that’s happening, I was just mocking #1.

    As for political parties stumping from the altar, to be honest, I feel it’s far more the conservatives. At least where I am. Maybe I’m wrong? Do you have any data on that? Regardless, I’m an independent – I don’t like EITHER side stumping from a tax-exempt status. If you want to play politics, you have to pay the price.

  17. OWB says:

    What part of the US Constitution is it that deals with marriage?

  18. NHSparky says:

    @16–you find no issue with people who are put more thought into who they’re going to vote for on American Idol than for President or other government officials?

    Makes me wish that the FF intent was maintained in that only landowners could vote–after all, back in the day they were the ones who paid the freight. Same as now. We have half of America with no or a negative tax burden. Who do you think they overwhelmingly vote for every election? (Hint: Gimme mah “free” shit!)

    And for the record, the percentage of people who self-identify as liberal is about 20-25 percent. Hardly half.

    As for political stumping from the altar, yeah, you’re wrong. How many politicians do you see in church, very carefully telling the congregation to get out the vote, etc. Kinda like Gore at the First AME in Los Angeles, Obama at predominantly black churches, etc., etc…seems to me I don’t recall Romney or Ryan doing that, but meh.

  19. NHSparky says:

    Yet funny, ain’t it–Hagel is all hot-cock to extend bennies to turd burglars but at the same time they’re shutting down 10 BCT’s to save money?

    Yeah, thanks for showing us what it’s REALLY about, Chuck.

  20. Anonymous says:

    @18: I find that’s a deeply unfair characterization of liberals – it’s pretty much akin to when some of them whine that the only thought a conservative has when it comes to vote is if the candidate is a white male. It ignores the many, many flavors of liberals and conservatives, and the many real policy differences both have, in favor of a caricature that’s easier to loathe.

    Are there a good number of people who vote for Democrats because of social welfare programs? Absolutely, and that’s a problem, as is the nature of some of these programs and how they’re abused. No argument there. But it’s one hell of a dangerous precedent to suggest that, you know, only people who support one political party should have a vote. You and I see differently on this because you see us in a far more dire position than I do; to you, the system is already broken, possibly because of the groups you mention, whereas I see it working, albeit in an imperfect sense. I can understand where you’re coming from, since if I felt we were careening over a cliff, I’d probably feel radical measures are required too. But I don’t think we’re there.

    As for half vs. 20-25 percent, I was simplifying things by just looking at the recent President elections. Sure, maybe 20-25 percent ‘self-identify’ as liberal, but if 50+% of the people who vote do so for the ‘liberal’ guy, I think it’s equally fair to classify them as ‘liberals’. Disagree? No problem, we’ll call them ‘democrats’, and many people here use those two terms interchangeably, so I still think we’re talking about the same thing.

    Sometime, when I have a chance, I’ll look into the political stumping from the altar stuff. The way I see it right now, I see far more influential conservative ‘faith’ groups -Pat Robertson, the officials of the Catholic Church, guys like Mike Huckabee, etc., espousing a religiously conservative viewpoint, and this jives with the same things friends and family hear in their churches. There are a few liberal churches around, but my personal experience rests far more on the conservative-preaching side. That’s why I feel differently. I don’t go to church, and neither do the liberal friends I have, so perhaps that’s why I don’t see the other side.

  21. USMCE8Ret says:

    With the repeal of DADT and now this, I wonder how many homosexuals will try to have their service reinstated after being subject to admin discharge boards in the past?

  22. USMCE8Ret says:

    … and no, I don’t hate fags – its just that I don’t like their agenda being forced down the throats of people who don’t subscribe to their lifestyle. Same goes for liberals.

    Suck on that “Anonymous”.

  23. NHSparky says:

    I find that’s a deeply unfair characterization of liberals

    Too bad, cupcake. Fact is, I’ve rarely run into a liberal who doesn’t make decisions more based on emotion than fact.

    Funny how liberals claim that the only candidates conservatives will support is a white male, when the FACTS show quite the opposite, in fact. Taken a step further, if a minority displays conservative values, they’re labeled an Oreo, Uncle Tom, coconut (brown on the outside, white on the inside), etc.

    Who are the racists, again?

    No, voting shouldn’t be restricted to only one political party, much as the liberal agenda has been to piss on the election process and destroy the “one person, one vote” concept. But neither do I think a person should be allowed to vote when they are TOLD how to vote, think, and act. How many times have you seen/heard liberals tell their constituents that gramma’s gonna be shoved out in the cold, that their healthcare is gonna be taken away, that blacks will be lynched again, etc., if they don’t vote Democrat?

    C’mon, don’t be shy, I just watched Ed Markey and the DSCC put a whole shitload of those type of commercials on just the past few weeks against a squishy RINO, fer Chrissakes. Imagine what they’d do against a REAL conservative.

    And for the record, most of the LIV (Low-Information Voters) still think the Democrats are the party of JFK/FDR, not realizing those guys were kicked to the curb decades ago.

  24. DaveO says:

    Well, other than a declaration of Obama’s evolving support on pedophilia and PLA soldiers goose-stepping down Main Street, every Prognazi wet dream has been realized.

    Oh, there’s one more thing.

    Stripping veterans and retirees of their benefits, placing them on Social Security, and stripping them of their votes. Yeah, that should cover it.

    Elections have consequences.

  25. CI says:

    “So, you didn’t really think that the Defense of Marriage Act would stand up under the scrutiny of this court, did you?”

    I didn’t think that DOMA would stand under proper Constitutional scrutiny. And it didn’t.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous points out the true issue, a way too complex tax system where politicians can choose winners and losers based on who fills their pockets most.

    Back in the day, there was no issue with church leaders speaking about politics because there was no tax-exempt status to worry about, just plain free speech, free for everyone, everywhere.

    It’s the same with marriage. Marriage used to be the domain of religious institutions, not the state. The state was only involved in those royal or aristocratic marriages that were actually business deals, rather than what we think of as marriage today. It also changed when Napoleon standardized the practice of recording births, deaths, and marriages for local governments instead of just in churches.

    If you think about it, without the tax benefits, marriage is just a contract, a contract any two or more people can already have by writing it up and signing it at the courthouse.

    A flat or fair tax would solve this issue as well as myriad others and rid us of the corrupt and expensive IRS.

  27. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hmmm… DaveO, I don’t like Bodaprez because I think he’s a putz. I wouldn’t buy a used car from him. I wish he’d shut his silly PC mouth.

    But I have yet to see or find anything anywhere that says he supports or is pushing an agenda that favors pedophilia, so I’d REALLY like to know where the hell you get your information when you post something like that.

  28. Enigma4you says:

    I try not to comment on the political shit but this one hits home for allot of reasons.

    I have commented before that I am a Navy Vet. My son is on active Duty now. He got married to his childhood sweetheart a few months ago. They are still waiting for her dependent status to be approved.

    One of his shipmates Married a female sailor, both on active duty. This took place at the base chapel. She was then transferred to Diego Garcia. The Navy has yet to recognize that marriage.

    Now all of us know that Gays and Lesbians have been in uniform since time began. The vast majority of them served honorably and kept their sexual preference to themselves.

    I do think that any same sex couple that wants dependent benefits must have to meet the same criteria that an opposite sex couple must meet. To do it any different would be discrimination. IF the DOD chooses to recognize Domestics Partnerships (Like the Rest of the Federal Government) then it must also recognize opposite sex Domestic Partnerships.

    This is already a problem with other federal Employees, same sex couple can declare a domestic partnership and get the health coverage as well as the other perks. Traditional couple must still get married.

    THis is going to be a mess and end up costing US more money that we dont have.

    How will this affect the Bases located in states that have amendments to that state Constitution that define a marriage?
    I can see this turning into yet another states rights issue as well.

    It seems the Fed is no longer interested in Representing the Union only itself.

    We as a Nation have become afraid to use Common sense out of fear of offending those that dont have any sense.

    We only have ourselves to blame, we let it get to this point…

  29. Tactical Trunk Monkey says:

    In regards to the church and politics and the tax exempt status:

    Yes, EVEN if a church speaks out against a political party, it should have it’s tax-exempt status. Here’s my thoughts on it.

    If a church, preaches my religious beliefs (or is really really close to them, because we don’t always agree with everyone 100% of the time), then I why wouldn’t I want to hear from God on the subject of politics.

    HOWEVER, if I walk into a church, and they are preaching on a subject that I don’t agree with, I leave and don’t come back.

    HOW AWESOME IS THAT!? Here, in America, I’m allowed to watch/not watch, listen/not listen, do/not do anything that I don’t agree with!

    I actually prefer when my preachers discuss politics, because everyone of them I have sat under since my salvation (in 2005), have done the research on the candidates/issues and discussed them from the point of view of God’s Word.

    ‘Nuff said.

    TTM, out.

  30. Anonymous says:

    @29: The problem is never the church we ourselves belong to, it’s the ‘church’ that people whom we don’t agree with belong to. Who gets to decide what’s a legitimate church and what isn’t?

    A Christian church that talks about Jesus the vast majority of the time, sure, it’s a church. What if they talk about political races 90% of the time and Jesus 10%? How about 99% and 1%? What if the parishioners are tasked with going door to door to sway people in their politics? What if this were a mosque, and 100% of money collected during service is being donated to the political campaign of a firebrand cleric? Is Scientology a ‘church’? What about pagan ‘churches’? Can *I* form a church, donate all my pay to it, tax-free, then pay myself -again, tax-free- from the church’s money to support my role as a pastor?

  31. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @10. Okay Anonymous. I was very angry yesterday and operating from emotion, not intellect. That’s not an apology; it’s an acknowledgement. So, now, many hours later, I return to pose a question to you. What was the standard of review employed by the Supreme Court in deciding DOMA? Gayhood is not a suspect classification so you certainly know what standard was not employed. And Congress, in passing DOMA, certainly had a rational basis for passing it and its passing served an important governmental interest. So, without reliance on your feelings, how about addressing the standard of review matter. eh? (HINT: Politico, MSNBC, and Demo Underground won’t be of help to you here.) I have other questions for you, as well, but this one is fundamental. Besides, I don’t want to waste my time with you if all you have are those feelings to offer.

  32. Ex-PH2 says:

    I found it interesting on the news this morning that one gay couple said “We don’t want a civil union, we want a marriage.”

    OK, this attitude is called splitting hairs over nothing. A civil union — JOP, whatever/wherever, etc. — IS a legal contract of marriage. A domestic partnership is normally called a common law marriage and does not require a ceremony. We used to call it shacking up.

    But this attitude is that of a spoiled brat who wants everything handed over right now. If a civil union is not good enough for you as a gay couple, then how come it’s been good enough for people who have been getting hitched in civil unions for a very long time?

    It IS a marriage, by law, and labeling it something else means that you, as a gay person/couple, don’t really accept yourself for who/what you are. Marriage is a union, a long-term relationship. It is NOT a wedding ceremony with a party at the end. You can have that in a civil ceremony, too, but that just isn’t good enough for you, is it?

  33. rb325th says:

    Government needs to just end all “benefits” for married couples. Start by eliminating the Tax Code and replace it with either the “Fair Tax” or a set percentage of income with no deductions, loop holes, right offs, nothing. That way there, no one is discriminated against and won’t get their poor little feelings hurt.
    As to marriage itself, I could really care less if they get married or have a civil union. What about the couples who have been together for years who are also denied all those “benefits”? The ones who have no desire to get married? Should they too be somehow compensated? Are they also being discriminated against? Is their love and relationship no less valid than married couples? There are straight and gay couples who will never get married, have no desire to but….
    This is what happens when Big Government gets too involved in our lives, writes laws regarding everything, and taxes the shit out of us with exceptions written in to appease different segments of the population to insure that a politician will get their vote.

  34. Maddie says:

    My son is gay, do I have to pay for his wedding now? Thats what concerns me. Oh fyi, he is not a pedeophile nor are any of his friends.

    Also, where the hell is the 583.00 dollars the Army has owed me since 1986? I do not think I would have any more luck getting that money if I was gay.

    Sorry, I rarely get upset over what I can’t change.

  35. MGySgtRet says:

    Since my retirement from the Marine Corps, I have worked as a GS. Just prior to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being repealed, we were given mandatory classes on the implications of what the repeal would mean. It was all unicorns and cotton candy and everyone would be fine and nothing really was going to change except now the homo’s would be legit. That was all a lie.

    Gay’s don’t want equality, they want to tie up the courts with bullshit lawsuits for “rights” that the rest of us don’t have. And don’t forget, it is not just gay rights that they are fighting for, it is the rights of all sexual deviants and freaks. The military is going to be paying for sex changes and hormone therapy and any other bullshit that the LGBT bloc comes up with. Cause it is their “right”.

    This is not going to end. The military is going to be subjected to this wrong headed social engineering to the nth degree because the military is the only entity that the federal government can tell what to do and expect instant willing obedience. And our uniformed “leaders” are in lockstep with this bullshit. Unreal.

  36. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “My son is gay, do I have to pay for his wedding now?” Yes, if he’s the bride. No, if he’s the groom.

  37. MGySgtRet says:

    @36 LOL!!! You should write an advice column!!!

  38. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Proposition 8,the California referendum which was overwhelmingly approved by that state’s citizens declaring that marriage is between only a man and woman but was subsequently overturned by a single gay judge, was ‘undecided’ by the Supreme Court yesterday. It never issued an opinion upholding or striking the law but, instead, ruled that the party seeking relief lacked standing. The standing issue hinged on the fact that the appeal was lodged by a private party, not the state–which opposed the appeal. Thus, once again, democracy has been defeated by a tiny group hell bent on forcing their minority views on the rest of us. Congratulations. Obamaman has climbed another rung on his transformational ladder. Whoopie.

  39. Maddie says:

    Wow, sexual deviants?? Homosexuals are not sexual deviants. Besides, what are you afraid of? Are you having doubts about your sexuality? I do have to wonder.
    Frankly, in 30 years in the military I have never once concerned myself with a coworkers sexual preference. I care if they can carry their own weight, or do their own job.

  40. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @39. I’m not the one who said that homosexuals are not sexual deviants but I agree that they are. The question is whether it’s nature’s mistake or nurture’s funny hand. And that what-are–you-afraid-of business is funny. Is fear a prerequisite to rejecting a moral abomination? Must I fear the pedophile to find his acts repugnant?

  41. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    That first line in cmt 40 should have read, “I’m not the one who said that homosexuals are sexual deviants…” And while I’m here again, let’s talk some logic. If the only proper gauge for judging those on the job is whether they can carry their own weight, or do their own job, then their integrity, dependability, and, indeed, their penchant for sexual relations with furry, four-legged creatures is what, just irrelevant stuff? I just picked those few out of the air but there are many more to offer.

  42. MGySgtRet says:

    Hey Maddie, I never said that homosexuals are sexual deviants. Read my comment again and try not to be so fucking sensitive. Having said that, homosexuals sure don’t seem to mind getting lumped in with the deviants when fighting for their “rights”. Also, nice job jumping right in with the “are you having doubts about your sexuality” because I have an opinion that differs from yours. Typical liberal tactic, smear the opposition with a charge of intolerance, bigotry or racism or try to embarrass them to shut them up. Not going to work here.

    I think that the repeal of DADT has had horrible effects on the morale of our military and has put more crap on the plate of commanders who should be more focused on war fighting and less focused on political correctness and worrying about the feelings of everyone in their command. And that is not just my opinion, I know several commanders from battalion level on down who have had to deal with non stop BULLSHIT since the repeal of DADT and this is while trying to prepare their units to deploy to Afghanistan. So sexual preference IS a concern when it impacts unit readiness. Just because you never saw it, doesn’t mean it isn’t a concern. And since homosexual conduct in the military was illegal for much of your 30 years of service, you seem to have ignored enforcing regulations you didn’t like so I don’t much care what the fuck you wonder about.

  43. UpNorth says:

    @38. The Supremes “ruled that the party seeking relief lacked standing.” I wondered about that too. Since when doesn’t a citizen or group of citizens have standing when it was the citizens who passed the law in the first place? I guess up is down and left is right now.

  44. Sparks says:

    @35 I agree 100%. The gay community in this nation does not want equal rights with the rest of the country, they want MORE and SPECIAL rights, applicable only to them. That is my beef with the gay community.

  45. A Proud Infidel & Patriot says:

    GOD help America, her legal system isn’t doing so!

  46. TheCloser says:

    @33- “Government needs to just end all “benefits” for married couples. Start by eliminating the Tax Code”

    First, I’m all for a fair tax, but I’m going to assume you are not married, or you would be aware of the “marriage tax.”

    If both spouses work, filing a joint return results in more taxes than if both were filing as single. Married filing separately is the most expensive category of all.

    I’m hoping that once the gays figure this one out, they will get that “benefit” of marriage changed.

  47. PintoNag says:

    *sigh* Volunteering to go colonize Mars is starting to look better and better.

    As long as I can be the door-gunner.

  48. USMCE8Ret says:

    @39 – You don’t believe homosexuals aren’t sexual deviants? You mean to tell me that two women or two men swapping spit, try to copulate or perform oral sex on one another isn’t deviant – then I don’t know what is.

    No. I’m not going to pander to political correctness or try to sugar coat things because it may hurt someone’s feelings -I’m going to write things just the way I see them.

  49. Georgia Guy says:

    @28: “My son is on active Duty now. He got married to his childhood sweetheart a few months ago. They are still waiting for her dependent status to be approved.” There’s really not much of a wait. They both need to visit the nearest DEERS office with a copy of their marriage certificate and her SSN card. They will immediately enter her in the system as his spouse, and she can obtain her dependent ID card. He can then change his housing allowance to with dependents, add her to his emergency data form (DD Form 93), and update his SGLI through his personnel support channels. If he cannot accompany her to the DEERS office, she can go with a general or special power of attorney. See here for ID card requirements:

    “One of his shipmates Married a female sailor, both on active duty. This took place at the base chapel. She was then transferred to Diego Garcia. The Navy has yet to recognize that marriage.” Again, see above. This process is really not all that complicated. There are some differences regarding housing allowances for members married to other members, and both of them will maintain a Common Access Card instead of also having a dependent ID card. If one of them were to separate, then the dependent ID card is issued.

    Regarding your concerns about domestic partnerships, this law has not been passed: Even though DOMA was struck down, other rules and regulations must be written, so the DPBO Act appears to still be in play.

    Regarding the health benefits for domestic partners of federal government employees, see here:

    From the article: “Providing benefits to domestic partners would be coupled with a new “self plus one” option for federal employees, meaning they could provide coverage to themselves and a partner or one child. Currently, feds must choose either self or family enrollment.” It appears, from this proposal, there is no distinction on gender, so it would be available to heterosexual partnerships as well. DOMA being struck down eases in the changes discussed in this article, but it also means that any benefits afforded to same sex couples will be available to opposite sex couples as well.

  50. Georgia Guy says:

    @44: I’m curious. What “more” and “special” rights do they want that would not be considered equal to what heterosexuals already enjoy?