DoD "ready" for DADT repeal

[Vertigo]

I gave you an example of how the 14th Amendment didn't work in getting women the right to vote (gender issue)

However, I would never want to limit any States' Rights.

1. I believe our society and courts have changed since 1872 when this was brought up. Don't you? I don't believe our courts today would rule the same as they did 140 years ago. Today's courts would more than likely state that voting is indeed a "privilege and immunity" of being a citizen.

2. Human rights > states rights

Edited December 23, 2012 by Vertigo

[pawnman]

C'mon man--you can do better than that.

I gave you an example of how the 14th Amendment didn't work in getting women the right to vote (gender issue), but now you say it will work in forcing States to recognize gay marriage (another gender issue).

But going back to the 12-year old argument, just because it's not being contested in the courts doesn't mean the question isn't legitimate--why can a State set their own regulations as it pertains to age, but not gender when it comes to marriage?

Personally I don't understand why people would want to live in a State which didn't support at least a majority of their values. You wouldn't see me ever voluntarily choosing to live in California or Massachusetts...and at that same time I would never want to live in Mississippi or Arkansas. However, I would never want to limit any States' Rights.

So you would support a state stripping a married couple of their rights at the state line if they were married in another state? Especially for military members who don't always get a choice in where they move?

[FallingOsh]

There is no compulsion for a church to have a ceremony for a gay couple if they feel it isn't congruent with their teachings...

No offense, but you have a surprisingly short-sighted and/or idealistic view of this. Give it time and there will be compulsory rules for churches and whoever else, regardless of their beliefs. Conservatives use the 'slippery slope' rhetoric as a scare tactic, but its really not that far off base.

If you don't get what you want, sue until you do. It's the American way.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

https://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/10/catholic-church-gay-couple-massachusetts

[pawnman]

No offense, but you have a surprisingly short-sighted and/or idealistic view of this. Give it time and there will be compulsory rules for churches and whoever else, regardless of their beliefs. Conservatives use the 'slippery slope' rhetoric as a scare tactic, but its really not that far off base.

If you don't get what you want, sue until you do. It's the American way.

https://www.npr.org/t...toryId=91486340

https://www.redstater...ced-on-churchs/

https://www.guardian....e-massachusetts

Then you're saying I could waltz into a Jewish temple and demand that they my wife and I (atheist and a christian)? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I know I've had friends marry into the Catholic church that had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get a priest to oversee the wedding.

[SundevilHelos]

I know I've had friends marry into the Catholic church that had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get a priest to oversee the wedding.

Both my wife and I are Catholic and we haven't been able to be officially married in the church..it is pretty ridiculous. Usually a 6-month per-marital counseling requirement which is pretty impossible when I haven't lived anywhere for 6 months since we got married.

[FallingOsh]

Then you're saying I could waltz into a Jewish temple and demand that they my wife and I (atheist and a christian)? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

No. I'm saying your original claim is wrong.

[pawnman]

No. I'm saying your original claim is wrong.

So your claim is that the government will not force churches to marry heterosexual couples that do not meet the church's requirements, but that the government will force churches to marry gay couples?

Doubtful.

[magnetfreezer]

So your claim is that the government will not force churches to marry heterosexual couples that do not meet the church's requirements, but that the government will force churches to marry gay couples?

Doubtful.

"Heterosexual couples that don't meet the church's requirements" don't have their own lobbying organizations and DoD-designated pride/heritage week.

[pawnman]

"Heterosexual couples that don't meet the church's requirements" don't have their own lobbying organizations and DoD-designated pride/heritage week.

Ah. So if I really want that Jewish Synagogue to recognize me, I need to get other atheists to help me lobby Washington.

Or the difference might be that heterosexuals in a marriage don't have their rights taken from them by the federal government when they cross a state line.

[FallingOsh]

So your claim is that the government will not force churches to marry heterosexual couples that do not meet the church's requirements, but that the government will force churches to marry gay couples?

Doubtful.

"There is no compulsion for a church to have a ceremony for a gay couple if they feel it isn't congruent with their teachings" I'm saying lawsuits are already underway against various religious groups for descrimination. Religious groups can't just claim they are against something and expect to have Americans be ok with it. Churches will be sued. Religious schools will be sued. Some states will enact compulsory rules for religious institutions.

[Spartacus]

"There is no compulsion for a church to have a ceremony for a gay couple if they feel it isn't congruent with their teachings" I'm saying lawsuits are already underway against various religious groups for descrimination. Religious groups can't just claim they are against something and expect to have Americans be ok with it. Churches will be sued. Religious schools will be sued. Some states will enact compulsory rules for religious institutions.

There is a much deeper problem here. This is getting into basic freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Do individuals and churches have to declare at their inception everything that they believe in and can't change that? I also think that we are well past the point to where the government is legislating morality and deciding what churches can and cannot believe in. There are many churches that have had a stand against birth control ever since it became available and now they are expected to suddenly change that belief because the government says they are wrong? Yes, conservatives like to play the slippery slope card but it is also fairly accurate and the government is always known for taking more and more power but seldom ever gives it up.

[PapaJu]

No offense, but you have a surprisingly short-sighted and/or idealistic view of this. Give it time and there will be compulsory rules for churches and whoever else, regardless of their beliefs. Conservatives use the 'slippery slope' rhetoric as a scare tactic, but its really not that far off base.

If you don't get what you want, sue until you do. It's the American way.

https://www.npr.org/t...toryId=91486340

https://www.redstater...ced-on-churchs/

https://www.guardian....e-massachusetts

The comment from the plantiffs' lawyer in the first case implied that there was a dispute over whether the pavilion was public or private property. Not sure if the 2nd case is really an instance of government overreach, either: if the Church wants to buy and sell assets in the public market, they're susceptible to laws that come with it (unless there isn't a law preventing them from discriminating on who they sell to).

Edited December 26, 2012 by PapaJu

[Breckey]

Panetta signs memo extending benefits to same-sex partners

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123335893

[HeloDude]

I don't have any problems with any of the new provisions. Hell, I don't have any problems with extending all the same benefits, just repeal DOMA and have that be the end of it...but nope, the Dems would rather talk gun control that wil do nothing to fix gun violence. Be cool if the GOP House would pass a bill repealing DOMA but then that would send a 'negative' message to the Bible Belt folks (like the majority of them would vote Dem anyway)...one can always hope the country becomes more Libertarian, but I just don't see it happening.

[nsplayr]

Full text of the memo that lays out specifically what's covered.

[HU&W]

Wow, that policy really discriminates against those who are in a committed relationship and not of the same sex.

[Butters]

Wow, that policy really discriminates against those who are in a committed relationship and not of the same sex.

No, not really. Guys who bang chicks and vise versa are universally allowed to get married and may choose not to. Homos on the other hand can only get married in a few states and are sometimes forced to live in sin ( twice) once for being homo and again for not being married.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Butters

[nsplayr]

I don't have any problems with any of the new provisions. Hell, I don't have any problems with extending all the same benefits, just repeal DOMA and have that be the end of it...but nope, the Dems would rather talk gun control that wil do nothing to fix gun violence.

Google the Respect for Marriage Act, it's been introduced in both the 111th and 112th Congresses. Not sure if the sponsors have brought it up again this term. There were 3 House GOP co-sponsors at the very end of the 112th, although at least one gave his support only as a lame duck after being defeated and is now gone.

[HU&W]

No, not really. Guys who bang chicks and vise versa are universally allowed to get married and may choose not to. Homos on the other hand can only get married in a few states and are sometimes forced to live in sin ( twice) once for being homo and again for not being married.

Did you read the memo? It says nothing about sex or any other type of banging, homo or hetero. There are numerous heterosexual couples that meet the criteria listed in the policy letter, but for whatever reason are not married or not married yet. Why deny them benefits based on their social choices when a couple with identical criteria, other than sexual orientation, are granted them. This is the first step down the same road of affirmative action where government creates a culture of unlawful reverse discrimination (ie offset previous unfairness with new unfairness). The solution is simple. Just remove all references to "same sex" from the policy and don't discriminate against anyone.

[HeloDude]

Google the Respect for Marriage Act, it's been introduced in both the 111th and 112th Congresses. Not sure if the sponsors have brought it up again this term. There were 3 House GOP co-sponsors at the very end of the 112th, although at least one gave his support only as a lame duck after being defeated and is now gone.

Dude, the Dems had their chance in 2009-2010, and since then have had their chance in the Senate (no filibusters that I'm aware of) to at least pass it and send it over to the House. I would like them to pass it in the Senate and send it over to the House, until then, the party of supporting gay marriage isn't doing all they can. Trust me man...I blame the GOP for not repealing (or at least meaningful attempts at trying to repeal) from 2001-2006 a lot of the anti-gun laws already on the books. Call a spade a spade.

[nsplayr]

Did you read the memo? It says nothing about sex or any other type of banging, homo or hetero.

Re-read attachment 3. Seems like the new benefits apply to declared domestic partners, which it defines as, "...a person in a domestic partnership with a service member of the same sex."

I'm fine with doing the same for heterosexual couples who are in a "domestic partnership" but not married but that doesn't appear to be Dod's position here. I guess the fact of the matter is that if you want those benefits you can easily get courthouse married in any state you choose, so if you don't you are choosing to restrict yourself out if free will. Homosexuals are not afforded that opportunity so until that's the case I guess this allows them to affirmatively choose access to those benefits in a similar way.

Hell, I think the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, that would make all this way easier. Set one standard the government recognizes, fill out a form, and two people can be legally bound in a partnership. If you want to get married, which to me should be a religious practice, go to a church. Churches can then set whatever standards they want to be married by their adherents.

I would like them to pass it in the Senate and send it over to the House, until then, the party of supporting gay marriage isn't doing all they can.

I agree.

[GovernmentMan]

Hell, I think the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place...

I agree, though that's easier said than done. From there, the argument switches to the tax perks of being married. What's the point of setting lower tax rates for married people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it to make it easier for young couples to crank out more kids back in the days of Manifest Destiny? These days, it's a short hop to the part where environmentalists and economists rail against the people whose religion practically commands them to "be fruitful and multiply." Giant cans of worms that no politician wants to touch.

[disgruntledemployee]

Re-read attachment 3. Seems like the new benefits apply to declared domestic partners, which it defines as, "...a person in a domestic partnership with a service member of the same sex."

I'm fine with doing the same for heterosexual couples who are in a "domestic partnership" but not married but that doesn't appear to be Dod's position here. I guess the fact of the matter is that if you want those benefits you can easily get courthouse married in any state you choose, so if you don't you are choosing to restrict yourself out if free will. Homosexuals are not afforded that opportunity so until that's the case I guess this allows them to affirmatively choose access to those benefits in a similar way.

So what's to keep a couple of dudes or ladies from walking up to DoD, "declaring" a partnership and asking for bennies?

If gov't keeps bending to the few, everyone will point it out, call foul, and gov't looks silly trying to defend.

Out

[nsplayr]

I agree, though that's easier said than done. From there, the argument switches to the tax perks of being married. What's the point of setting lower tax rates for married people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it to make it easier for young couples to crank out more kids back in the days of Manifest Destiny? These days, it's a short hop to the part where environmentalists and economists rail against the people whose religion practically commands them to "be fruitful and multiply." Giant cans of worms that no politician wants to touch.

Yea, good points and agreed that it's unlikely due to the entangled legal web constructed around marriage. I'm not really sold one way or the other that the government should or should not promote marriage although I lean toward that it should.

Really though you could keep the same system now, just replace in all instances the word "marriage" with "partnership" and keep the same benefits and incentives. Allow any two consenting adults to enter into a partnership, make dissolving them the same as getting legally divorced, and call it a day. Churches can then choose to do marriage however they see fit WRT who they want to allow to marry.

I'm sure it's a gross oversimplification but that doesn't mean I don't with it could be made to happen.

So what's to keep a couple of dudes or ladies from walking up to DoD, "declaring" a partnership and asking for bennies?

Seems like nothing other than integrity. If you really want to lie to your employeer by pretending to be in a homosexual relationship with a non-military male friend and roommate in order to get him a mil ID and commissary privileges, be my guest.

Edited February 13, 2013 by nsplayr

[hispeed7721]

Seems like nothing other than integrity. If you really want to lie to your employeer by pretending to be in a homosexual relationship with a non-military male friend and roommate in order to get him a mil ID and commissary privileges, be my guest.

Don't pretend it won't happen widespread...I know of more than one (both O and E) that have legally married someone (hetero marriage) solely so they could get the pay boost. Other than on paper they aren't married...live apart, date like they're single, etc. I'm sure two straight dudes will do the exact same thing (I'm not condoning it AT ALL, just acknowledging that it will happen)