A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
According to this article, “Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters on Tuesday that existing policies such as housing and spousal benefits for military service members ‘can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.’”
I addressed these questions in my previous post on gays in the military.
What still isn’t being looked at is the fact that if the military recognizes gay marriages for benefits (as a former spouse, I know we had to show our marriage certificate and all that jazz to get me an ID card switched from my dad to my then-husband), how does that affect federal recognition of gay marriage? It will be very interesting to see the results.
EDIT–So I had a chance to read the “implementation” part of the panel’s recommendations. They do recognize the benefits issue and in the pre-repeal stage, the report says this:
For reasons laid out in the recommendations section of the Working Group’s report, the Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense not create a new status of “committed relationship” applicable to same-sex relationships for the purpose of benefits eligibility at this time. The issue of benefits eligibility is very complex and is part of the ongoing national political and legal debate concerning same-sex relationships and gay marriage. The Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense and the Services continue to treat all Service members not in a federally recognized marriage as “single Service members” for benefits purposes.
The panel is recommending that after DADT is repealed, the benefits issue is looked at again if it appears there is a need to do so outside of the normal assignment of beneficiaries for things like SGLI benefits or wounded caregiver:
OUSD(P&R) should revisit the issue of benefits eligibility again in the future, specifically during the designated follow-on review, and perhaps periodically after that, as the national debate on same-sex marriage and partner benefits is ongoing and the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of flux. During this review, depending in part on the degree to which the external landscape may have changed, the Department of Defense may consider creating a “qualifying relationship” status for same-sex relationships, or for both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex relationships, if the experience of repeal to that point indicates that the extension of benefits in this manner would be desirable.
To effectively implement repeal, the Department of Defense must continually monitor and evaluate changes to the law throughout the implementation process. The Department of Defense should be especially attentive to changes in law that could trigger swift and unexpected changes in benefit eligibility for all Service members and their families.
Legislative changes could occur at the Federal or state level, with Federal changes likely to have a more immediate impact on the expansion of benefit entitlements than would be the case for changes at the state level. For example, changes to, or repeal of, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, and similar laws, would change the legal and regulatory definition of “spouse” upon which the Department of Defense and Services currently rely to determine eligibility. Likewise, Federal legislation redefining “dependent” to include a same-sex partner, or child of a same-sex partner, would broaden benefit eligibility.
I am actually pretty relieved that they looked at these issues and how they might be modified. Like I said, it will be interesting to see the results of this all. One of the commenters said I am not allowed to address the gay agenda because I’m heterosexual. Since he objects to my sexual orientation (which actually has nothing to do with my observational abilities in reading speeches, stories, and websites that DO address the gay agenda and it sort of offends me that a person who wants to be taken at face value regardless of HIS orientation would immediately trot out that argument), I will just say this…the key phrases in all of that block quoting is in the first section…“The Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense and the Services continue to treat all Service members not in a federally recognized marriage as “single Service members” for benefits purposes,” and the last paragraph of the second blockquote section. That is how it will all change for this nation in terms of ending the debate on gay marriage, I suspect.
(6) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Bob the American
In this particular case, I agree.
But I also feel that it may force the Fed to recognize them.
If nothing else, it will be interesting.
Most people here know my opinion. That it should be thrown out. That gay marriage CAN be integrated. I believe it eventually will be. Yes, there will be bumps in the road. There was when blacks were allowed to serve in white units, etc. This will go through some of the same bumps. Some not the same. But I believe that our military can overcome anything. That is the thing they do best.
Adapt to the situation.
Jonathan
find it interesting when heterosexuals debate the “gay agenda” especially when they have no idea what the “gay agenda” is. Staying on topic of the legal ramifications of gay service members and their prospective “spouses”. I have been with my partner for eleven years. We met each other when we were both active duty. After we had been together three years, my partner and I were going to be separated because he was being stationed over seas and I was going to be stationed someplace stateside. So I decided to end my career just so we could stay together. While I was not able to travel with him over seas, we treated his two year assignment as a long deployment. Which meant he would come home for a month every six months for a visit and I would travel overseas every six months for a one month visit. This lasted the two years he was stationed in another country. Had I been afforded the same rights as a military spouse, I would have been able to travel with him, just as any other military spouse. What’s wrong with that? It would cost exactly the same to send my ass to another country as some dependent wife, actually less as we have no dependent children. As far as health care costs are concerned, why should I not be afforded proper health care or any other entitlements that a dependent wife is afforded. We talk about the cost of paying for “all of this” when we already do pay for the thousands of others entitled to these benefits. My relationship has been through the wringer, it has suffered years of separation, closeted existence, secret meetings that make the national security of our nation seem pre-school in comparison. I have been subjected to a non-person, non-existance, role for years, and I accepted these indignanties as the terms for my relationship with the man I love. Now that there is a possibility for me to actually exist, to declare my relationship is real, to walk into the command my “husband” works and bring him lunch, or go to lunch with him, attend a command function or have him hold my hand in the doctors office, or God forbid, accept the flag at his funeral I say thank you. For once in eleven years I feel there may be an end to this charade. And if this repeal doesn’t happen, just know, I will continue to serve, in silence, proudly. I don’t care about law suits. I am not interested in suing the united states for discrimination and as far as I can tell from the hundreds of others that I have met in the same situation as I, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of us out here, they aren’t interested in that either. I am sure there are some, but I have not met them and don’t care to. Most of us only want the same treatment. The most recognizable of all American ideas and might I add the most respected, All Men are Created Equal.
LL
You didn’t really stick with the legal ramifications. You used emotional arguments for your case. The legal ramifications are that marriage through The State is a legal contract (with attendant spousal rights and benefits). Marriage through a church is a religious and emotional one. You seem to have the emotional marriage and could most likely get a religious one (I was the Maid of Honor at a commitment ceremony for a gay couple several years ago, so I do know that some churches perform those). Focusing on the legal contract issue only, there are certain rights offered by businesses and institutions to legal spouses. Currently, under the legal codes and UCMJ, your physical relationship is illegal. Your emotional commitment to your partner is not. You are also not legally entitled to the military benefits of spouses as proven by a marriage certificate. My biggest argument is about the legal issues surrounding openly serving gays and any potential spouses of them. Do you want the same treatment as girlfriends/boyfriends of military members or do you want the full legal rights of a spouse? I’m curious as to whether you just want the right to publicly display your affection and love for your partner or the other stuff that The State bestows/enforces.
Rich Lorfink
i pray that in 50 years, this will be a nonissue. jonathan, anyone with upper cerebral function who read that post and doesnt get it, is just a biggot. very well written. more importantly the emotions are palpable. i could not imagine not being able to kiss my wife goodbye at work, or even hug her. thank you, and seek publishing for that.
Bob the American
I think it will be less than that. I think it will be in my lifetime, and I’m 45.
Of course, I also hope pot becomes legal in my lifetime.
Go ahead, bash me for it. And as the economy gets worse, it get closer and closer to happening.
lance.hemmert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDiC5iStnc8