Surprise! Gays want more
I guess no one saw this coming, well, maybe, except for everyone (Washington Times link);
In addition, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which led a long fight in Washington to repeal the ban, has written to Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta urging him to extend military housing and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of personnel.
“Provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act and other laws prohibit the Department of Defense from extending certain benefits, such as housing and transportation allowances, to same-sex partners,” said Pentagon spokesman George Little.
“But a same-sex partner can be designated a beneficiary, for example, for life insurance. The department continues to examine benefits to determine any that may be changed to allow the service member the discretion to designate persons of their choosing as beneficiaries.”
At this point, the military does not plan to recognize same-sex marriages, citing the act signed into law by President Clinton that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department this year decided not to defend the law against court challenges, but the Pentagon says it plans to follow the Defense of Marriage Act.
Yeah, that may be indefensible in court…selectively enforcing the law. There’s this equal protection thing in the Constitution. Either enforce the law or don’t.
But all of you who didn’t anticipate that gay groups saw getting DADT repealed was like the camel getting his nose under the tent please raise your hand. Yeah, I saw it coming, too. They didn’t want a “right” to serve…they could already serve under DADT. They wanted to force the military into complete acceptance of their lifestyle, and the lawyers wanted job security. It’s never going to end.
Category: Military issues
I’m pretty that majority of them won’t ever serve to begin with. I can see them demanding they get better benefits than anybody else serving, plus they’ll want a change to make it where even the smallest disagreement is a hate crime that gets you dishonorably discharged from the military.
“It’s never going to end.”
Nope. Never. Just the same way Jesse Jackson is never going to be satisfied.
It might end when we stop giving ground and tell them that we’re not going to be dominated by a petulant minority any longer.
Just wait two decades and see what’s next on their to-do list. I’m talking about things that would seem ludicrous now. Things that we think will never, ever be proposed by the pervy minority, much less accepted by the majority.
Have a look at the agenda set out by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in 1972:
http://www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm
They’ve achieved most of the things on that list. Only a few more remain. Most of the remaining items seem radical (such as abolishing the age of consent), but give it time. Please remember that EVERY item on the agenda seemed radical at the time it was proposed.
If you think “that would never happen” just think about how bizarre same-sex “marriage” must have seemed back in the 1970’s. Even the most hardened leftists of their day were against it (publicly).
When Phyllis Schlafly fought against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970’s, she argued that the text would be interpreted to mean that men could marry men. The feminists said boo. That told her it would never happen and that she was simply fear-mongering with her ludicrous “what if?” scenarios.
And today, all of the leading feminists are proud supporters of an idea that they said was simply too far-fetched to debate.
In the academic sense, the only argument for me against extending benefits at this particular time is that we simply can’t afford it.
In the realistic sense, if DoD doesn’t recognize gay marriage, they cannot very well extend those benefits.
I’m not opposed to giving them housing, medical rights, and all of the same exact rights that their hetero cunterparts already enjoy. And the above article makes me think that’s all they want – the same, not more, not different.
But I do have to wonder what happens next. I live in Utah. There is a HUGE polygamist community here. My neighbor just three doors down from me has three wives. I helped build a kitchen at a house in Price, Utah where the husband has 16 wives. The same communities are getting stronger in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. And yet, I never see this in the news (granted it is much more accepted here than in other states).
So now that gays can serve openly, what next? When can a polygamist join the Army? When does the FLDS church make the argument in court that their freedom of religion is being violated by the military? What next?
@UtahVet
I can’t think of a single argument for same-sex “marriage”–and for open homosexuality in the military–that couldn’t also be used to support polygamy and polygamy in the military.
And since I can’t “force my morals” on anyone else, since it would be wrong of me to try to erect a “theocratic state”, then I suppose there’s nothing I can do about it. Your polygamist neighbors should be allowed to continue with their polygamy, the relationships should be recognized under law, and the military should be made to house every stinking one of his wives and children.
And anyone who doesn’t think so should be fired from their jobs.
Here’s a vote againnst tolerating this insanity. I want them back in the closet. I want the closet door nailed shut.
Actually, this is light stuff in comparison. Current maneuvers are to get transsexuals/transvestites full permission to live and dress as they choose, while in service; and to mainstream pedophilia.
That has always been the plan DaveO.
As I said over 20 years ago, and say today, it was never about “equal” rights. They wanted to be “special”.
@NHSparky – This is a routine statement, but one that I’ve never had explained to any satisfaction. Special is defined as distinct or particular, in this case implying that gays would be striving for or granted privileges and/or considerations apart from what straights enjoy.
Can you describe what the ‘special’ is here?
Marriage is a religious institution, for far longer than it has been a legal one. Spousal privilege varies widely from state to state even among heterosexual couples.
How long until churches are dictated that they MUST perform gay/lesbian weddings, in direct violation of the First Amendment?
How long until gays/lesbians are crying “discrimination” because they couldn’t “express” their sexuality openly in uniform? (Hint: Don’t tell me heteros can. You’d be bullshitting yourself and you know it.)
Again, what part of, “prejudicial to good order and discipline” does the ghey lobby not understand, besides the part they don’t want to follow?
How many different “standards” must we put into place now that gays and lesbians are openly serving? Remember how many “standards” we had to implement to put women into front-line ships and combat units? How’s that PT “standard” going?
Tell ya what–you tell me they don’t want “special” treatment. Okay, tell me that the minute they don’t want gay pride parades, etc. Until then, you’re trying to blow sunshine up my ass.
“Marriage is a religious institution, for far longer than it has been a legal one.”
Absolutely….but irrelevant. The state has long ago usurped any monopoly on the union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.
“How long until churches are dictated that they MUST perform gay/lesbian weddings, in direct violation of the First Amendment?”
Do you maintain some sort of precedent that shows the ability of government to prescribe religious dogma? That’s the slippery slope argument taken to an absurd extreme.
“How long until gays/lesbians are crying “discrimination” because they couldn’t “express” their sexuality openly in uniform?”
Hetero’s can’t, of course it depends on what you define as expressing their homosexuality. That could be something as benign as kissing your spouse on leaving for deployment.
“Again, what part of, “prejudicial to good order and discipline” does the ghey lobby not understand, besides the part they don’t want to follow?”
Subjective argument. If homosexuals do not violate the UCMJ, they are complying with good order and discipline.
“How many different “standards” must we put into place now that gays and lesbians are openly serving?”
What mythical standards are you referring to and how does that relate to PT. Do you somehow believe they have a different physiological makeup that enables or disables them in regards to physical functions?
>Subjective argument. If homosexuals do not violate the UCMJ, they are complying with good order and discipline.
That’s the WHOLE point about being special. Homosexuals in the military apparently don’t follow rules they don’t like- i.e., DADT. Most got out because they chose to TELL. They subvert rules and beat everyone into submission until they are changed. What’s to say that some UCMJ regulation isn’t found discriminatory?
Absolutely….but irrelevant. The state has long ago usurped any monopoly on the union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender. Not at all irrelevant. Most states with high military populations don’t recognize same-sex marriages. But if the gay lobby has its way… Do you maintain some sort of precedent that shows the ability of government to prescribe religious dogma? That’s the slippery slope argument taken to an absurd extreme. Imagine someone like, say, Obama, or someone like him, who feels so strongly about churches which don’t recognize same-sex marriage that he directs the IRS to remove any tax-exempt status they may have. Don’t think it could happen? “Hetero’s can’t, of course it depends on what you define as expressing their homosexuality. That could be something as benign as kissing your spouse on leaving for deployment.” Haven’t been to the Folsom Street Fair lately, I take it. Do a Google on Zombietime and you’ll get an idea. Oh, and I’m sure we’ll all be marching in that “Straight Pride Parade” next week. Shit, that’s right–they don’t have those. “Subjective argument. If homosexuals do not violate the UCMJ, they are complying with good order and discipline.” Until they don’t. And when they get their pee-pees smacked over it (as a recent case in NPS in Charleston) and act all butt-hurt because they didn’t want to play by the rules, as they didn’t under DADT? Why, just change them!!! This is what we’re seeing now–gays don’t like the rules, so they want to change them. Fuck what everyone else wants, fuck readiness, fuck the system, it’s all about MEEEEEEEE!!!! What mythical standards are you referring to and how does that relate to PT. So you’re telling me that there WON’T be quotas for gay promotions, billets, etc? Really? Tell ya what. Explain this one to me: How is it that women make up less than 15 percent of the Navy, yet in 2009, ALL of the Sailors of the Year (Pacflt, Lantflt, Shore, and Reserve) were women? Was it REALLY their outstanding nature (which I’m sure they all were) or was it more… Read more »
CI – Actually, the government can mandate some aspects of church dogma by eliminating its tax exempt status for discrimination. Historically, this discrimination has taken the form of refusing to perform a marriage between races. If you don’t believe that someone is going to sue the First Baptist Church of Somewhere, USA for this and seek to have their tax exempt status removed, you are naïve.
Here in Atlanta, a country club was sued because it would not extend “spousal” privileges to a homosexual member’s partner, even though the homosexual member knew the policy when she joined. (The suit had to do with a city ordinance which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation). I do not remember how it ended, but I do know that it started.
Personally, if you are going to allow homosexuals to serve in an “out” manner, extending these benefits is a natural conclusion. I have no real problem so long as they: (1) are in some form of longstanding contractual type relationship that (2) requires something a kin to divorce to end. I don’t want to see a change of “partner” every other week.
These conversations always remind me of what a gay friend of mine once said: “Gay men are the only ones who will parade down the street in assless chaps and then complain because no one takes them seriously.”
“Not at all irrelevant. Most states with high military populations don’t recognize same-sex marriages. But if the gay lobby has its way…”
DoD recognizes marriages from all 50 states. I stated above that benefits cannot be extended until or unless DoD treats all legal unions equally. But what exactly is the ‘special’ about recognizing the consensual union between two adults?
“Imagine someone like, say, Obama, or someone like him, who feels so strongly about churches which don’t recognize same-sex marriage that he directs the IRS to remove any tax-exempt status they may have. Don’t think it could happen?”
In a word…no. The Christian lobby is far, far more powerful than the gay lobby. Political suicide, whether it was committed in favor of gay marriage, or increasing revenue.
“Do a Google on Zombietime and you’ll get an idea.”
I’m very familiar with zombietime’s work, they also capture rather revolting parades of sagging hippie breasts…but you’re distracting yourself from your own argument. What is your premise that gay service members would attempt on-post parades [which would be contrary to good order and discipline? Or do you wish to focus on the absurd extreme to ignore the fact that kissing and hugging your spouse/girlfriend is also a display of sexuality?
“Until they don’t.”
Not much of a premise for an argument. Of course, it makes as much sense as arguing against something because of the way it makes you feel.
“So you’re telling me that there WON’T be quotas for gay promotions, billets, etc?”
There is that risk, but has the military collapsed because of the same instances with race, gender, WPPA, Masons? Or are we working through it and driving on?
@Susan – “Actually, the government can mandate some aspects of church dogma by eliminating its tax exempt status for discrimination.”
That’s a good point, and I don’t mean to imply that anything is impossible, but given the latitude that churches have in this nation regarding dictats, it’s highly improbable; And an especially thin argument when one is attempting to define ‘special rights’. As an aside, when churches seize opportunities to receive government funding for charities or other activities, they open themselves up to regulation. Separation of church and state protects both.
“Imagine someone like, say, Obama, or someone like him, who feels so strongly about churches which don’t recognize same-sex marriage that he directs the IRS to remove any tax-exempt status they may have. Don’t think it could happen?”
“In a word…no. The Christian lobby is far, far more powerful than the gay lobby”.
http://whatisprop8.com/churches-may-have-their-tax-exempt-status-challenged-or-revoked.html
Seems that churches could lose their tax-exempt status over same-sex unions. The article seems a bit fuzzy with details, but that’s what I took away from it.
CI–nice noticing how you parse my replies (or ignore them completely) and cherry-pick from them. Context, context, context. Try it sometime, won’t you?
@NHSparky – “nice noticing how you parse my replies (or ignore them completely) and cherry-pick from them.”
I’m only interested in responding to those portions that make some semblance of a point instead of emotional ranting.
“And you gonna tell me that this won’t happen on every different level when the Lavender Mafia takes off? Bitch, please.” contains no context.
Bullshit. You only respond to those points that you think you can debate. You conveniently ignore the rest.
Post points that are debatable and leave the emotional chaff aside.
Problem solved.
You’re talking about a bunch of butt-hurt (literally) drama queens and telling ME to leave out the emotional chaff?
Stop. Hurt. Sides. Laughing.
There is that risk, but has the military collapsed because of the same instances with race, gender, WPPA, Masons? Or are we working through it and driving on?
Google Captain Holly Graf. That should make my point abundantly clear. Throw in Kelly Flynn and Kara Hultgreen while you’re at it.
@NHSparky – “You’re talking about a bunch of butt-hurt (literally) drama queens and telling ME to leave out the emotional chaff?”
This discourse between you and I….has included you and I. Gays didn’t introduce emotional ranting into it, you did. And continue to do so.
I have no particular fondness for the homosexual orientation, but I will not deny them the personal liberty to pursue happiness in the same manner that straight Americans do.
I’m still awaiting your clarification on what ‘special’ rights they are trying to attain…..