DoD facing another Half Trillion Dollars in Cuts but extends benefits to homosexual c

#2
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has agreed to expand benefits for gay and lesbian couples serving in the military, but officials continued to withhold equal access to base housing, healthcare and educational services.
Leon E. Panetta, the outgoing secretary of Defense, signed an order Monday that permits same-sex partners and their dependents to use numerous family-oriented facilities and services on U.S. military bases, including recreation areas, counseling programs, school buses, child care and shopping exchanges.
Thanks JJH, but does this really have such a big effect on the US defence budget? Don't the facilities exist anyway?
 
#3
Thanks JJH, but does this really have such a big effect on the US defence budget? Don't the facilities exist anyway?
I apologize if I obscured the intended points that include the manner in which it was done--secretarial edict rather than Congress AND that it confers benefits unfairly in that these "partners" get benefits unavailable to heterosexual dependents of serving military members. It is also confirmation of my prediction when DADT was repealed (literally in the middle of the night) that mere open recognition was not the ultimate goal of the homosexual lobby.
 
#6
the changes stop far short of full equalization of benefits for same-sex couples in the military.


officials said the cost of the expanded benefits would be negligible at a time when the pentagon faces potentially deep budget cuts. They cited estimates that 5,600 same-sex couples are on active duty, 3,400 serve in the national guard and reserves, and 8,000 are retirees.

 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
those evil hermers get everywhere don't they.

dont ask dont tell was okay but moving in together kinda gives the game away
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#8
I apologize if I obscured the intended points that include the manner in which it was done--secretarial edict rather than Congress AND that it confers benefits unfairly in that these "partners" get benefits unavailable to heterosexual dependents of serving military members. It is also confirmation of my prediction when DADT was repealed (literally in the middle of the night) that mere open recognition was not the ultimate goal of the homosexual lobby.
Sorry, maybe it's not clear from the article (and I am not au faix with the benefits conferred on partners of serving personnel [straight or gay]) but what benefits are same sex couples recieving that heterosexual couples are not?

permits same-sex partners and their dependents to use numerous family-oriented facilities and services on U.S. military bases, including:
recreation areas,
counseling programs,
school buses,
child care
shopping exchanges.
The order grants same-sex couples the right for the first time to request assignment to the same post or duty station if both serve in the military.
Does this not apply to straight couples

It also allows partners to receive pay and other benefits if one is taken prisoner or is missing in action.
As above

Speaking at a news briefing, Defense officials said they worried that heterosexual couples and their families might be denied housing on some bases if same-sex couples were allowed to apply.
"One of the concerns was, 'I'm married and now I'm going to be bumped by this person who is not married,'" said one official, citing a military housing shortage. The officials spoke to reporters on condition they not be identified.
Sounds like Gays are being denied benefits - mainly because the Federal Govt refuses to recognise same-sex partnerships (marriage) as equal to those of hetero - thanks to DOMA (1996)

does not allow a same-sex partner to request his or her partner's burial at Arlington National Cemetery.
Gays being denied equal benefits

the spouse of a heterosexual service member being deployed overseas can seek help obtaining a visa, may have access to medical facilities and has legal immunity for some laws in foreign jurisdictions. Those benefits will not be available to same-sex couples.
Gays being denied equal benefits

Could you elucidate further please?
 
#9
Sorry, maybe it's not clear from the article (and I am not au faix with the benefits conferred on partners of serving personnel [straight or gay]) but what benefits are same sex couples recieving that heterosexual couples are not?





Does this not apply to straight couples



As above



Sounds like Gays are being denied benefits - mainly because the Federal Govt refuses to recognise same-sex partnerships (marriage) as equal to those of hetero - thanks to DOMA (1996)



Gays being denied equal benefits



Gays being denied equal benefits

Could you elucidate further please?

The point is unmarried heterosexuals' "partners" get no such benefit.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#10
The point is unmarried heterosexuals' "partners" get no such benefit.
Quoting from the article again:

Under the order, gay and lesbian service members may file a form with the Defense Department that declares they are in a "domestic partnership," defined as a "committed relationship between two adults of the same sex."
The most sensible interpretation of this is that it will only apply to those same sex couples that have married or entered into civil union that confers similar rights as marriage (or even limited rights as marriage) in one of those states that recognises those partnerships. It is not likely to apply to John and Jack of the Texas NG who have never left the state in order to enter in one of those unions, or Jill and Jenny of Alabama who have only been together for a year.

And if it were the case that these benefits were extended to those couples who had undertaken a legally recognised union would you have the same issue?

Taking the question further if DOMA was repealled and same-sex unions were recognised as equal to that of traditonal heterosexual unions would you have the same gripe?

Further edit: As Section 3 of DOMA (that which classfies marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman) has been deemed unconstitutional by 8 Federal Courts is this not recognition by the current administration (which has admitted that it will no longer defend that section in court)that it is time this was overturned
 
#11
The point is unmarried heterosexuals' "partners" get no such benefit.

Probably because heterosexual couples have the choice to marry if they wish. Same sex couples can only do so in a select few states.

Note the key paragraph:

Under the order, gay and lesbian service members may file a form with the Defense Department that declares they are in a "domestic partnership," defined as a "committed relationship between two adults of the same sex."
It's pretty obvious this is to deal with couples who are essentially married but cannot officially do so under US law.

It is also confirmation of my prediction when DADT was repealed (literally in the middle of the night) that mere open recognition was not the ultimate goal of the homosexual lobby.
Yes, their sneaky ulterior motive was to be treated equally as people, judged not by their sexual preference but content of their character. And so that if their partner dies in service of their country, they aren't denied benefits given to heterosexual couples who have the freedom to marry or not marry.

Your bigotry is turning you into a caricature.
 
#12
Probably because heterosexual couples have the choice to marry if they wish. Same sex couples can only do so in a select few states.

Note the key paragraph:

It's pretty obvious this is to deal with couples who are essentially married but cannot officially do so under US law.
So heterosexuals are forced to marry, even though they may not wish to (or cannot for other reasons, such as finance, religion or culture)? Why does the "domestic partnership" option not extend to such couples ... just drop the "of the same sex" clause? Should such declarations be limited to couples?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#13
So heterosexuals are forced to marry, even though they may not wish to (or cannot for other reasons, such as finance, religion or culture)? Why does the "domestic partnership" option not extend to such couples ... just drop the "of the same sex" clause? Should such declarations be limited to couples?
Interesting question, though I think the interpretation of the clause will actually be closer to that which I posited above.
 
#14
So heterosexuals are forced to marry, even though they may not wish to (or cannot for other reasons, such as finance, religion or culture)? Why does the "domestic partnership" option not extend to such couples ... just drop the "of the same sex" clause? Should such declarations be limited to couples?
I'm fairly certain most homosexual couples would rather prefer the same civil rights and just get married, rather than have the military bend the rules for them and make it seem like they are demanding special attention.
 
#15
The thing with equal rights is that the concept is designed to treat people as they need to be treated to enjoy the same opportunities to enjoy their lives as the rest of us, and is NOT designed to treat people exactly the same as everyone else.

In some cases appearing to excessively favor one section of society will inevitably lead to discontent by other sections of society who see themselves in some way discriminated against merely by the absence of a right they really don't need.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
equal rites is one thing but affirmative action was and is an absolute mess - this is little different.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top