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

Discussion in 'US' started by jumpinjarhead, Feb 20, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thanks JJH, but does this really have such a big effect on the US defence budget? Don't the facilities exist anyway?
     
  2. 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 It is also confirmation of my prediction when DADT was repealed (literally in the middle of the night) that mere open recognition was not the ultimate goal of the homosexual lobby.
     
  3. ...the worrying bit.
     
  4. OK, not my country but that sounds outrageous. I haven't seen any sign of that happening over here, but if it did, I'd oppose it.
     



  5.  
  6. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    those evil hermers get everywhere don't they.

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

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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?
     

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

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Quoting from the article again:

    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
     

  10. 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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. 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?
     
  12. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Interesting question, though I think the interpretation of the clause will actually be closer to that which I posited above.
     
  13. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. 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.