Lesbian Marine bilks Corps with phony marriage
So it seems this female Marien decided that she wanted more money to live with her partner, so she married a male Marine to take advantage of the extra pay, then her partner did the same thing with another Marine. Now the corporal is looking at a year in the jug and loss of her pay and allowances and her rank.. And, oh, she owes the Corps $75,000 in ill-gotten gains.
But I guess that could never happen now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is finished, right?
Thanks to Sporkmaster for the link.
Category: Military issues
I’m assuming that you believe there is a right to own a handgun.
Considering that the Second Amendment PROHIBITS the government from keeping them from me, yeah, I’d pretty much say I have a right to a weapon provided I’m neither a felon nor judged mentally incompetent.
>In most States, the same is not true for gays.
But if the states passed a law “true for gays” then you get special protection. You don’t think anyone has been fired for their sexual behavior as a heterosexual? You don’t think anyone has been fired because of their spouse? C’mon if you really believe that NO ONE gets fired in life for their personal life other than gays, you are more obtuse than I thought.
insipid–and do you think any company wants the headache and publicity that goes along with firing someone based solely on sexual orientation?
C’mon, start using your head at least.
@47: What does the statement about shouting “fire” in a theater have to do with 1st Amendment rights or 2nd Amendment rights? Your argument is becoming disjointed and unfocused.
You need to take a step back and look at what you wrote. We are talking about the difference between civilian and military laws/rules. I pointed out that there are differences and that the UCMJ overshadows what civilians think are “rights”.
The Constitution guarantees individual rights endowed by their creator, not the government and the first 10 are rights of the individual. Whether you want to agree whether I should be able to have a firearm is irrelevant, because it’s not your call, nor is it the governments. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, but rather safety of the citizens in the theater. A newspaper printing how to make a nuclear bomb isn’t as much of a worry, since there are people right here on this site that could tell you how to do it. Go ahead and do a search; I’m sure you could find the plans somewhere. The problem is having the ability to build it.
@49: The federal trumps the states in matters of civil rights. Any 10th grade kid in civics class could tell you that.
>or because they find out you’re over 40
BTW, generally they just don’t hire you.. They hire the “more qualified” person. Being over 40, being a gender, being black- are all things the employer already knows PRIOR to hiring someone.
Religion is probably the CLOSEST thing to your example, but even that has been questionable lately. Many people have been fired for their comments specifically about gays and their religion…
The fact that they have the right 1. causes gays to be second class citizens and forces them to hide 2. codifies the idea that gays are second-class citizens not deserving of the same protections that other minorities have.
You’re arguing with an idiot. Is this your idea of supporting gay rights?
No, your ladyship, that was not meant for you.
Guess someone never heard of a wrongful termination lawsuit, insipid? Happens all the time, and for a variety of reasons, including sexuality.
But it’s not considered wrongful termination in 30 states to fire someone for being gay. That’s my point.
>codifies the idea that gays are second-class citizens not deserving of the same protections that other minorities have.
So you then think all sexual orientation should be protected? So a person who likes pain is involved in BDSM should be able to talk about their life, wear their collar etc.? Should pedophilia also be protected, since their are factions now in the APA that say it is a sexual orientation and not a mental problem.
I don’t consider you a minority any more than I consider ANY alternate sexual preference a minority.. Homosexuality is self-identifiable… unlike age, gender, and race.
BTW, I think a private business owner should be able to hire whomever he wants for whatever reasons.
@51 Sparky: Considering that the Second Amendment PROHIBITS the government from keeping them from me, yeah, I’d pretty much say I have a right to a weapon provided I’m neither a felon nor judged mentally incompetent.”
While i disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, i will say that your examples nicely illustrate my point. Rights are still governable by law.
But it’s not considered wrongful termination in 30 states to fire someone for being gay. That’s my point.
Show me how many people can PROVE they’ve been fired for being gay. I don’t mean them claiming it, I mean being proven in court or arbitration.
Rights are still governable by law.
Rights are governable only when they are abused, m’boy.
BTW–let’s get to the real crux of the issue here, insipid. Were the word “lesbian” not attached to this article, would you be so quick to defend this action?
Your turn.
@42 – “Sorry CI, but marriage was a religious institution long before it was a legal one. Frankly, the government has too much of a hand in marriage as it is.”:
No argument on either point, but you’r first is a statement of fact, not of precedent. The law trumps the church, as it should, as long as the law is administered judiciously toward the liberty of the individual.
The very premise that government has granted itself the ability to permit or deny marriage between consenting adults is an affront, but that doesn’t mean codifying church doctrine us any better.
No, under our system of government, one does not trump or fall subservient to the other…kind of the whole “separation of church and state” bit, which, BTW, doesn’t exist in the Constitution.
But to say that religion played no part in HOW this government and nation were formed, why we split off from the crown (among other reasons) and the structure of our current system of government is, to be nice, fucking stupid on its face.
@62 – “Homosexuality is self-identifiable… unlike age, gender, and race.”
As a philosophical point, wouldn’t you agree that this goes for heterosexuality as well?
@63 – “While i disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..”
You’re not one to believe that only the National Guard should bears arms, are you?
@66 – I suppose I had previously given you more credit for reading comprehension. Where did I say that Judeo-Christianity had no role in the creation of our nation?
But by all means, let me know where religious doctrine, where there is no secular value, trumps law.
The gummint shouldn’t even have the power to stop a felon or mental case from getting a weapon. Its all a slippery slope from there.
@69: Mentally unstable persons, while still being part of society can’t exercise the judgement needed to have firearms. Felons have proven that they have exercised poor judgement and may be at risk of recidivist activities if given the chance to own firearms. Public safety being the crux of those examples.
Show me how many people can PROVE they’ve been fired for being gay. I don’t mean them claiming it, I mean being proven in court or arbitration.
That’s not really a fair standard? If you can’t bring a suit, how can you prove it?
“Rights are governable only when they are abused, m’boy.
BTW–let’s get to the real crux of the issue here, insipid. Were the word “lesbian” not attached to this article, would you be so quick to defend this action?”
I agree, the two committed fraud, i’m not saying the prosecution is wrong, i’m saying the policy against allowing gays the same marriage rights as straights is wrong.
>@62 – “Homosexuality is self-identifiable… unlike age, gender, and race.”
>>As a philosophical point, wouldn’t you agree that this goes for heterosexuality as well
Yep, and I would not be adverse to someone being fired for their heterosexual lifestyle either..
Let’s put it this way– what if a gay establishment like a gay bar wanted all their employees to be gay for whatever reason. Let’s say it makes the clientele feel more comfortable. It does not bother me a bit if 1) No heterosexuals were hired and 2) Someone who is assumed gay identifies themselves as a heterosexual gets fired..
#71You’re not one to believe that only the National Guard should bears arms, are you?
I believe they’re the only ones who have the right, but that doesn’t mean that it should necessarily be illegal for everyone. But let’s NOT go down that road.
I’m not saying the prosecution is wrong
Then you have nothing to bitch about. Next case.
@72 – Private company, their rules. I think we both concur.
69 Part of me agrees with that but the 2nd Amendment is clear with the “shall not be infringed”. Also if our rights come from the creator than the gummint has no authority to supercede His will and if He gives us the right to weapons for self defense only He can revoke it. An armed society is a polite society and if some felon or looney toon wants to get uppity both will find no shortage of morally and mentally sounds citizens who will air them out for trying.
Yes, Melle but there’s a difference between discriminating based on someones ability to do the job and based simple bigotry:
From this site:
http://www.halloran-sage.com/Knowledge/articleDetail.aspx?storyid=2055
In determining whether a discriminatory policy constitutes a BFOQ, one must first look at the particular job and what it requires. You must then look at the discriminatory policy and determine if it is necessary to performing the job. For example, the FAA has a rule which requires that airline pilots are not allowed to serve in the capacity of captain after reaching the age of 60. This rule is obviously based on the probability that a pilot’s skills have deteriorated with age and that the safety of the crew and passengers depend most heavily on the captain. This rule only pertains to the position of captain and does not preclude pilots of 60 years of age or older from serving as flight engineers, because age is not a BFOQ for the position of flight engineer.
In claiming the defense of BFOQ, the employer has the burden of proving the discriminatory policy is a valid BFOQ. The employer must demonstrate “plainly and unmistakably” that its discriminatory employment practice meets the terms and spirit of the Title VII exception. In other words, you must demonstrate that a discriminatory practice is reasonably related to an essential operation of your business. There is no requirement that formal studies be conducted to ascertain the need for a BFOQ. A BFOQ can be demonstrated through the use of expert witnesses, empirical data or just plain common sense.
@62 So you then think all sexual orientation should be protected? So a person who likes pain is involved in BDSM should be able to talk about their life, wear their collar etc.? Should pedophilia also be protected, since their are factions now in the APA that say it is a sexual orientation and not a mental problem.
The point of this argument is only to equate gays to pedophile or BDSM folks. Gays are not on the same level of pedophiles, and to equate the two is an insult.
Gays should have the same constitutional protections as straights.
Then you have nothing to bitch about. Next case.
Mmm, not i can still bitch about Doma, still bitch about the military not affording gay couples the same priviledges as straights. Which by the way is what i’ve been doing. Welcome to the thread.
The matter of homosexual rights should not be a military matter. Matters regarding homosexual rights should be settled through the branches of government and not the military. Asking the military to give homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights is tantamount to asking for a federal endorsement of specific rights which, at the moment, vary state-to-state.
To be clear, I feel that campaigning for homosexual rights is fine…I just believe that demanding the military to embrace homosexual rights while state governments and the national government cannot agree on homosexual rights is backhanded at best.
Well, the military is part of the Federal Governement, gays our paying for the military with our tax dollars. I don’t think there is, nor should there be, anything off limits in terms of what and where we campaign for our rights. The military is a government body that discriminates. I want that to change.
The idea that we’re supposed to only go so far is, I think a silly one. But to be fair, this is an issue that divides gays as well.
This is embarrassing. I just recommended this site to a vet whom I recently met. It’ll be just my luck the poor guy picks today to visit. He’ll think this is a gay blog.
Oh for goodness sakes, I didn’t post the fucking story.
I think I can explain it really simply you commit fraud you go to jail, be it military or civilian. The homosexual argument would not fly in civilian criminal court why should it then work in the Military courts system.
80 comments? Really? I just posted the story because I’d hoped they’d let me watch sometime for telling their story. Who among you don’t think that a movie about a lesbian Marine in prison for a year would make a blockbuster movie?
@85 – “Who among you don’t think that a movie about a lesbian Marine in prison for a year wouldn’t make a blockbuster movie?”
To be fair…it’d be a straight to Cinemax venture….but count me in.
Oh man. That did it.
Or maybe on the LOGO channel or Bravo?
Didn’t see a mullet… so skinemax, not LOGO.
John, I’d throw down on that. The one one the right looks like she might be down with anything.