USSC overturns DOMA; DoD rushes to give benefits away
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
@35: “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.” You must not have paid attention in the classes, then. The multiple briefings on the repeal of DADT were factually accurate. As a matter of fact, DOMA was mentioned in the briefings as well, with the caveat that, while DOMA was still on the books, those restrictions applied. DADT and DOMA were two separate federal laws. If you are upset that the briefings on the repeal of DADT didn’t include apocalyptic warnings, then I don’t know what to tell you other than none of the stuff came true that Elaine Donnelly and her “Center for Military Readiness” posited.
“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”.”
It appears, from my foxhole, that their lawsuits are to obtain the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy. I am curious as to the rights they will possess that we, as heterosexuals, will not. Regarding sex changes and hormone therapy, I’ll be okay with that if TRICARE starts fully covering everything involving IVF.
Georgia Guy: Exactly why, as a taxpayer, do I have to pay for someone to have a sex-change? For that matter, why do I have to pay for someone to have IVF? I expect my tax dollars to go toward the support of the military mission, not what has become mail-order sexual or reproductive choices.
This whole thing just doesn’t keep me awake at night. I’m a cynic, and somebody already said it: If we can piggyback getting attention on the problems with VA benefits because suddenly it’s a gay issue, I won’t care.
I don’t need to be religious (which I am) to disapprove of this all, either, but sometimes secular law is going to punch my religion in the face. The dude abides. I don’t think we’re on the road to legalized pederasty and polygamy by any means, but meh. If my kids go gay they get written out of the will. If the boomers had the stones of their parents’ generation, we wouldn’t be here at all. People wouldn’t feel the need to identify by where they put their naughty bits. Shame that’s become a “lifestyle.” What does that make me on the merits of what went on between myself and my happy sock?
Its a good thing we are entitled to our own opinions. Have a nice day 🙂
Another PowerPoint lecture to sit through along with the mandatory SHARP (sexual harassment)lecture, suicide prevention class, and probably some mandatory IT / NDA course concerning the whole Snowden issue. I swear we can’t get anything done in the military anymore. I’m waiting for the fall out from DOMA. How many Joes are going to get hitched just to pocket the BAH, family sep, and or to give medical benefits to a friend? This is going to effect the bottom line more than the current cartel has figured. Crossing my fingers that they start offering early retirement soon.
It’s satire folks:
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/06/doma-military-troops-gay/
@56 What did I just read??? WHERE is my eye-bleach??
@56, that was f’n hillarious.
yeah, wait and see how farkin’ happy they are come April 15th when they find out those two famous words: MARRIAGE PENALTY.
A local pholospher named Kinky Friedman when he was running for governor was asked whether he supposerted gay marriage. He said “Hell, yes – why should we be the only ones to suffer?”
Oh, and if they aren’t legally married – just like us hetero folks with live-ins – f*ck ’em. No marriage license, no money.
The moral compass in this country is broken – and it’s shameful.
A massive social program for Democrat-voting constituencies, not a defense of our nation– what left/libtards want in a military.
Oh, and, today’s SHARP training: If it’s at all amusing it’s sexual harrasment– unless they’re gay, then you’ll be punished for “homophobia” if you complain about it. (Gotta keep those evil hetero men from their “war on women,” you know.)
Georgia Guy, I paid close attention to the briefings we received. What struck me about the briefings we received is the positive picture that was placed on everything and how this major shift in policy was not that big of a deal and anyone who thought differently was oh so wrong. And I can assure you that much of what Elaine Donelly posited is in fact coming true.
I am not on active duty any more but still talk almost daily to my old comrades and they assure me that since being allowed to come out, homosexuals are making up for lost time. Leaders are having to deal with sexual misconduct that they never saw from heterosexual troops.
So I tell you, this is a problem. And it is going to continue to be a problem. What is not going to happen is any real coverage of problems in the ranks by the media. Anyone who dares to speak out against homosexuality is going to have their career ended.
As far as DOMA goes, when the President and the Attorney General say they are not going to enforce a federal law because they do not agree with it, or their views had transitioned or whatever bullshit they were spouting, do you think anyone took much of what was told to them seriously??
Bottom line, the role of the military is to fight and win our nations wars. This administration has taken consistent action to undermine that capability. Either through social engineering or fiscally. This has been done to appease certain voting blocs. That is criminal. You can support the actions taken or you can have a strong military, but in my opinion, you cannot do both.