DOJ backs equal benefits for gay couples in the military

posted at 9:30 pm on February 18, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The administration yesterday announced that it will allow same-sex military spouses to receive marriage benefits like hospital visitation rights and side-by-side burials in military ceremonies:

In a letter to the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that the Justice Department shared the view of plaintiffs in a lawsuit in Massachusetts that such laws — including a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, and statutes governing veterans’ benefits —are unconstitutional. …

The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex spouses of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans,” he wrote. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that could warrant treating these provisions differently from” the marriage act.

Two past administration decisions make this news decidedly not surprising. In the first place, the Justice Department has for months refused to defend a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act (never mind that it’s law!). In the second, the Pentagon recently decided to allow military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on and off federal bases.

News like this makes me ponder anew Ed’s opinion that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Perhaps he’s right. The benefits addressed by this decision have nothing to do with the religious meaning of marriage; they’re strictly practical matters. If I were in the military, I’d like to be able to confer hospital visitation rights on a person of my choosing no matter what their relation to me. Same story with side-by-side burials.

More importantly, though, news like this makes me extra sensitive to the religious liberty battle that’s waging across the country right now. We need conscience protections for military chaplains and, indeed, for all people of faith, to ensure that we’re never required to recognize same-sex marriage as an ordinance or sacrament of God.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

File this under useless thread!

residentblue on February 18, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Deflection.

JimboHoffa on February 18, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Waiting for Dr. T. Perfect thread for him/her.

Barred on February 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

In actual news, Allahpundit running fore President!

mythicknight on February 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Yep! Everything is pointing to social issues.
Gonna divert from the economy and everything else!

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Gay Day at HA. Cue the Dr. in 3….2…..1….

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Waiting for Dr. T. Perfect thread for him/her.

Barred on February 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Busy on the sheriff one! Guess it won’t hit a thousand now!
Tried to get someone to get him over to Canada…but hey…this will work! Want me go get him?

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Gay Day at HA. Cue the Dr. in 3….2…..1….

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM

You hearing sirens?

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:41 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM

You might as well, tire him out before QOTD.

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

File this under useless thread!

residentblue on February 18, 2012 at 9:32 PM

“useless is what useless does!”

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM

File this under useless thread commenter!

residentblue on February 18, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM

In McLaughlin, plaintiffs are current and former active duty members of the United States military seeking various federal benefits for their same-sex spouses. These benefits include medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military identification cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefits, and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries. The plaintiffs claim that Section 3 of DOMA prevents their same-sex spouses from being eligible for these benefits.

Hey, it’s only money. We’ve got all the money that people will loan us. No problem.

RBMN on February 18, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Dr. Tesla on February 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Pick up the phone Dr. T…Emergency call! Eric holder wants to give gays in the military all the same rights as GI Joe and his wife…before people can come to grips about how the economy is doing. New Thread->

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Ok! Listen for the siren…any minute now!

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Doesn’t the lawsuit have to actually, you know, GO TO TRIAL before the DOJ can do anything about this?

I mean, DOMA is the law of the land right now – to the best of my knowledge, it hasn’t been overturned or superceded by another Legislative or Judicial action.

The DOJ actually shouldn’t have any standing to make this decision.

Then again, this entire administration has shown a blatant lack of understanding of the Constitution and how it works….

TeresainFortWorth on February 18, 2012 at 9:53 PM

File this under useless thread my boyfriend’s pillow!

residentblueboy on February 18, 2012 at 9:32 PM

M240H on February 18, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Tina
Glad you are coming around on thinking the government has no jurisdiction in marriage.

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:54 PM

M240H on February 18, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Nice subtle change to the moniker. ; )

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Bingo!

batterup on February 18, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Tina
Glad you are coming around on thinking the government has no jurisdiction in marriage.

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:54 PM

It’s from all the proposals from all the Hot Air guys she has received! It’s like the Mormon thing of a hundred years ago in reverse! Poor girl! She doesn’t want Eric Holder telling her that a proposal, is the same as a contract! Imagine!

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Soon followed by “dependent” housing, “dependent” allotment checks, “dependent” commissary and PX privileges.

Exit question: If two females decide they want a “family”, does that mean the taxpayer picks up the tab for in-vitro fertilization.

IIRC, 1 gay + 1 gay does not equal another human being. Something about the laws of nature. Perhaps Momma Nature will soon find herself being sued in court.

GarandFan on February 18, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Two threads about teh ghey in one evening?
Oh my…
;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 18, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Tina is doing a lot of threads. More and more.

SparkPlug on February 18, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Exit question: If two females decide they want a “family”, does that mean the taxpayer picks up the tab for in-vitro fertilization.

IIRC, 1 gay + 1 gay does not equal another human being. Something about the laws of nature. Perhaps Momma Nature will soon find herself being sued in court.

So you’re saying the only way a family is really a family is if they produce kids? Kind of ignorant. What about straight couples who decide not to have kids? Are they not families?

Cyhort on February 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Dr. Tesla on February 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Pick up the phone Dr. T…Emergency call! Eric holder wants to give gays in the military all the same rights as GI Joe and his wife…before people can come to grips about how the economy is doing. New Thread->

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:48 PM
2nd PAGE! Calling Doctor Tesla!

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

I tried again….He’s busy right now arguing about McCain with a couple of fellers, and a ‘broad’…give him time!

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM

First!

…Oh wait….

Topic about gays….

*walking backwards quietly****

Electrongod on February 18, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I think that the word “justice” has lost its meaning.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:15 PM

News like this makes me ponder anew Ed’s opinion that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Perhaps he’s right. The benefits addressed by this decision have nothing to do with the religious meaning of marriage; they’re strictly practical matters. If I were in the military, I’d like to be able to confer hospital visitation rights on a person of my choosing no matter what their relation to me. Same story with side-by-side burials.

Tina, it boggles my mind that you and Ed consider yourselves to be conservatives. Precipitous change of the most fundamental institution of society based on whatever notions you have of pragmatism?

You are shortsighted and deceived about the presuppositions and agenda behind this decision as well as its consequences.

INC on February 18, 2012 at 10:15 PM

What about straight couples who decide not to have kids? Are they not families?

Cyhort on February 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM

No, they are a couple.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM

DOJ backs equal benefits for gay couples in the military

Well, long as Eric Holder doesn’t make them smuggle fabulousness to Mexican druglords…

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Pension benefits too? That’s the real injustice.

libfreeordie on February 18, 2012 at 10:20 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Saw this over at the Canadian thread.

Meh, I don’t have anything against Canada, Its far enough north, heII I never go that far north.

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Go to the UP in Michigan and most parts of Canada and you will come to the north more often!

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Thought I’d share this with you. My Dad. Can’t tell you which one he is. Just have a look at some of the photos. High places.

http://www.mackinacbridge.org/photo-gallery-10/12/

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM

No, they are a couple.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:16 P
Says who, you?? Of course they are a family. There are a lot of military families without kids and they stay without kids for their entire service years, yet the dependent spouse receives all the benefits, and the mil person also gets the house allowance, separation allowance, etc. According to your bizarre views, they shouldn’t receive all said benefits because umm…..they don’t have children??? Utter nonsense..

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Prior to the last few decades, marriage has been defined and recognized across time and across cultures as a relationship between a man and a woman. What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society, and which societies and countries have protected through legal means because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.

INC on February 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM

They get those benefits as a couple. Look up a decent dictionary.

BTW, where do you think the phrase: “get married and start a family” comes from?

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:31 PM

INC on February 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Societies evolve and so do societal norms in the process…attitudes and mentalities change too…you might not like it but there’s nothing much you can do about it if/when society at large considers said redefinitins and accepts the changes that come with them..

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Holder should be in PRISON, not making policy.

And for his complicity to murder, shouldn’t he be facing death by firing squad?

wildcat72 on February 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Well in this case I will just get married on paper to male friend so I get more allowances for having “dependents.” He can get health insurance, base privileges, hiring preferences for government jobs overseas, moving expenses paid, etc. It is that easy to just claim I am gay, get all the benefits that come from being married and then live as a celibate gay man with my good buddy (aka husband). Since the government has no say on what I do in my own bedroom who are they to tell me who I can marry.

Jutt518 on February 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM

wow. its such a huge priority…..or not.

ted c on February 18, 2012 at 10:39 PM

BTW, where do you think the phrase: “get married and start a family” comes from?

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:31 P

I do hope that you are basing your argument on a little more than an idiomatic expression…so, if the mil benefits are granted to married couples (as opposed to ‘families’) why are you people so surprised that the DoD consider same benefits for same sex couples? I don’t think anybody in the military expected any different once DADT was repealed…

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Jutt518 on February 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Except that what you have described is not a marriage in the true sense. Personally, I do not like to see definitions altered to suit some new fad or fashion.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Please see my post below yours, at 10:46. I am totally opposed to the repeal of DADT, and the perverting of natural unions.

BTW, if by “you people” you mean “hard right”, I am never surprised by the machinations of the Left.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 10:51 PM

The military is the perfect place to start this. Most of the those in service are men. Many are single men. The military pays a higher salary to those who are married, offers them better living arrangements and so forth. Essentially, it is designed to encourage marriage, and if they can pretend to be gay married, they get all the benefits and can totally avoid all the headaches of being really married in a loving relationship shipped off for months or years at a time.

I certainly felt as if I was getting the worst end of the bargain being single in the Marines when the guy who had a wife and no kid got an allowance to pay for an apartment out in town instead of living in a two man room or a huge bay with 50 men. Got paid extra money for nothing other than being married. Got paid extra allowance for food. Was allowed to have a vehicle on base. Not to mention that a sick wife gave him free leave, the ability to show up late for just about any function and he was constantly leaving work early. People like me picked up his slack and had to work extra hard in order to earn less than half of what he was raking in in total.

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Exit question: If two females decide they want a “family”, does that mean the taxpayer picks up the tab for in-vitro fertilization.

GarandFan on February 18, 2012 at 10:03 PM

TRICARE does not cover it for heterosexual couples, so they’d better not start covering it for homosexual ones. I agree with Tina and others on this thread: Where on earth does Holder get the authority to tell the military to disregard the law? The overreach of this administration is disgusting.

pookysgirl on February 18, 2012 at 11:01 PM

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Forgive me, I don’t wish to get personal, but was that in the age where marriage was considered as an ideal situation?

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Well in this case I will just get married on paper to male friend so I get more allowances for having “dependents.” He can get health insurance, base privileges, hiring preferences for government jobs overseas, moving expenses paid, etc. It is that easy to just claim I am gay, get all the benefits that come from being married and then live as a celibate gay man with my good buddy (aka husband). Since the government has no say on what I do in my own bedroom who are they to tell me who I can marry.

Jutt518 on February 18, 2012 at 1

Dude, do you even know what you are talking about? You can get kicked out of the mil and even get court martialled for something like this, who do you think is such an idiot to join the military and then risk it all for a stupid scam like this? Or what, you want to tell me that you can do all of the above and this would be the world’s best kept secret?..imagine you get drunk one night and spil the beans to a buddy, or somebody informs your superiors that you don’t live with your spouse at your place yet you collect family house allowance benefits…. the military is a tightly-knit community, even if you live off base…it’s quasi impossible to implement your scenario and people not to have an idea of what is going on…besides your (otherwise absurd) scenario can apply to a heterosexual couple too…if a hetero couple wants to scam the govt/DoD, they can also marry on paper and do all that you suggested above…

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM

What I have never understood is why is govt involved in the rite of marriage? I have thought, for years, the only reason they became involved in a religious sacrament was to charge a fee for a license, the way they charge fees for everything under the sun these days. Revenue! So what if it is a religious rite, we can charge a fee! I suspect the separation of church and state only applies when it is convenient to the govt’s standpoint on a particular issue. The govt truly has no right to be standing between a couple and their marriage vows.

herm2416 on February 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Forgive me, I don’t wish to get personal, but was that in the age where marriage was considered as an ideal situation?

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 11:01 PM

88-92

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Who is going to risk their career finding out if gay marrieds are really gay marrieds and prosecuting them? By the way, the whole idea of adding gay marriage to the lexicon is to take away any and all ideals of what it means to be married. Married is married…

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:08 PM

What I have never understood is why is govt involved in the rite of marriage? I have thought, for years, the only reason they became involved in a religious sacrament was to charge a fee for a license, the way they charge fees for everything under the sun these days. Revenue! So what if it is a religious rite, we can charge a fee! I suspect the separation of church and state only applies when it is convenient to the govt’s standpoint on a particular issue. The govt truly has no right to be standing between a couple and their marriage vows.

herm2416 on February 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM

The history here is pretty interesting. Marriage law was initially a way of maintaining patriarchy. The U.S. inherited the British system that all of a married woman’s property would instantly become her husband’s upon marriage and that all of the father’s property would revert to the first born son upon his death. Marriage laws got more of a national uniformity to them around the turn of the 20th century, the end of bigamy became a major project of state governments. Bigamy, naturally, screwed around with clear rules of inheritance (especially now that women could inherit their husbands property). Marriage law is all about the orderly transfer of resources, which is why its particularly dumb for people to oppose legally recognized same-sex marriages.

libfreeordie on February 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM

The history here is pretty interesting. Marriage law was initially a way of maintaining patriarchy. The U.S. inherited the British system that all of a married woman’s property would instantly become her husband’s upon marriage and that all of the father’s property would revert to the first born son upon his death. Marriage laws got more of a national uniformity to them around the turn of the 20th century, the end of bigamy became a major project of state governments. Bigamy, naturally, screwed around with clear rules of inheritance (especially now that women could inherit their husbands property). Marriage law is all about the orderly transfer of resources, which is why its particularly dumb for people to oppose legally recognized same-sex marriages.

libfreeordie on February 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM

There are things called wills for that. So, your whole history of marriage argument fails immediately upon the tiniest inspection.

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Thanks! Nice…I’ve seen some of those! I can’t do the linky thing yet. Tried yesterday on a link with JugEars with an Afro-Americans for Obama link..and failed! One of these days I’ll practise or something. Need to do the ‘strike’ one too-I always get the whole sentence

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Who is going to risk their career finding out if gay marrieds are really gay marrieds and prosecuting them? By the way, the whole idea of adding gay marriage to the lexicon is to take away any and all ideals of what it means to be married. Married is married…

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:08 P

The same is valid for heterosexual couples though, if they are into it to scam the govt…it would not be unique to gay couples, in any way, were it to actually happen…in reality it is a lot more difficult scam (and pretty absurd, considering the huge risks)) to pull off than you and the other commenter are suggesting…

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Just waiting for the first same sex couple to show up and ask for a dependents ID card. The looks will be priceless.

banzaibob on February 18, 2012 at 11:33 PM

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Thank you for the info. So, the military must have their own reasons for thinking that marriage is ideal – perhaps a sense of caution, induced by responsibilities.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 11:35 PM

The same is valid for heterosexual couples though, if they are into it to scam the govt…it would not be unique to gay couples, in any way, were it to actually happen…in reality it is a lot more difficult scam (and pretty absurd, considering the huge risks)) to pull off than you and the other commenter are suggesting…

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Is it really? How hard can it be? It is a marriage, you do not have to prove anything other than that you got the government papers that say you are married. People do it all the time. Visa scams. Many people do even the reverse, pretend they are not married to get welfare checks while still living together as a married couple. Your argument fails as you have nothing that demonstrates that these things are easily detected. Prove that aspect, and I will reevaluate.

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:37 PM

banzaibob on February 18, 2012 at 11:33 P

Why—it’s just an admin thing, wo cares…besides I am sure that there will be quite a few couples of two gay servicemembers, in which case they won’t apply for a dependent ID :-) …

jimver on February 18, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Thank you for the info. So, the military must have their own reasons for thinking that marriage is ideal – perhaps a sense of caution, induced by responsibilities.

OldEnglish on February 18, 2012 at 11:35 PM

LOL, yeah, that is what it is… You would have to be pretty naive to think that is why those benefits are granted. It is just because two people cost more to upkeep.

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Cultural suicide.

logis on February 19, 2012 at 12:07 AM

I would like to see governments stick with “civil unions” and leave “marriage” to religious bodies. Then the legal aspects–inheritance, tax status, hospital visitation–are separate from the religious ones. It sort of is already done that way with states authorizing religious bodies to perform marriages. But I am strongly opposed to a “homosexual marriage” by that name as a matter of policy. Civil Unions, though–what the heck.

Regarding the military side. Fraudulent heterosexual marriages do happen, and are prosecuted hard when found out. It would be the same, I should hope, for a homosexual situation.

The military likes married personnel as they stay in, rather than getting out to get married.

But the DOJ is wrong to not enforce the DOMA. It is going to be very hard four our Country to undo the damage of these four years.

Kevin K. on February 19, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Politics as usual for O’useless.

However, love and fidelity, right or wrong, is of concern to no one except the loved and faithful.

“get out of the marriage business entirely”…Yes.

Marriage is a religious entity entirely.

Unions are state concerns.
Feds, get out of the discussion completely, please!
Back to basics,
i.e. Constitution.

I’m no libertarian, but any argument against this is moral phobia.

Separation of church.

Figure it out.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 12:23 AM

But the DOJ is wrong to not enforce the DOMA. It is going to be very hard four our Country to undo the damage of these four years.

Kevin K. on February 19, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Funny you should mention that, it was the Republicans who enabled this change.

astonerii on February 19, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Funny you should mention that, it was the Republicans who enabled this change.

astonerii on February 19, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Quite right.
Social issues are the bane of bane of this republic.
The states are the only proper venue for these discussions.
We are being led by the nose!
Focus people!
The O’media is purposely leading our eyes away from the true issues.
Issues that will leave your children indentured.
Wake up.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Your argument fails as you have nothing that demonstrates that these things are easily detected. Prove that aspect, and I will reevaluate.

astonerii on February 18, 2012 at 11:37 PM

First off, there is at least one branch where such a scam would be easily detectable…AF…the maintenance NCOs and pretty much all the commissioned officers have to obtain and maintain a secret clearance status, in many cases it is TS clearance due to the ‘gadgets’ on the jets, the nature of their missions (if it’s spy jets) and all…if you get a secret clearance (hardly impossible to serve in the AF in jet maintenance or intel gathering, surveillance equipment), guess what, they investigate in detail every aspect of your family and professional life and all, hard to believe that a scam like this would escape a background investigator…..I am sure in many other mil branches other than AF they do background investigations on the service members too…besides, to pull something like this off, it means that the non-mil person whose in it for the scam, would be tied (geographically and otherwise) to the person who is the mil, wherever the mil person PCS, the civilian ‘spouse’ (even if it’s on paper only) has to follow, a lot of the time that is overseas…do you want to tell me that anyone would do this (relocate every 3,4 years and bring their real life-partner along) just so they can get a health insurance or, in the case of the mil person, a higher house allowance?? absurd…you can get health insurance by doing whatever other work…besides, you have to be physically present at the current PCS location of your mil spouse in order to get health care at that particular base hospital…When you make a hospital appointment as a civilian spouse, first thing they ask for is for your mil spouse’s SSN, not yours, and they expect you two to be at the same location/base like your mil spouse, or else they will inform Tricare administrators and they will inform the chain of command…also, as a dependent you need to be physically present to get a base ID, that is biometric these days, so they have to fingerprint you, the said ID is valid a number of years, depending on the DEROS of the mil spouse, then it has to be renewed…each time you have to be present…then, there are pre-deployment briefings that a spouse is expected to attend, if not the First Sgt (in the case of enlisted members) would ask questions, you can skip 1,2, 3 such briefings but not all of them…you are also expected to be part of the spouse base networks and attend different functions with your mil spouse…the higher the rank, the more you are expected to show up at functions and events with your spouse…if you don’t, people start asking questions and those people can be in your chain of command…you have neighbors who are also service members, do you think it would escape them that there is no spouse living with you, while you get a married person house allowance? people will talk/gossip out of envy or for other reasons, they might even complain to a superior or First Sgt who will have to investigate…anyways, bottom line the whole thing is too absurd…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Cultural suicide.

logis on February 19, 2012 at 12:07 AM

This is why I got out. The JAG and CO gave us a few briefings while we were still deployed. Mostly about the living arrangments. To a man my squad said they’d prefer not to billet with a gay soldier. The CO said there were no provisions to do that. He said we’d have billet with whoever Top assigned us to. Me and my buddy were supposed to reup about that time. We both got out when we returned to Campbell.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:45 AM

I think the Justice Department needs to get out of the Defense Departments affairs and mind their business. We are cutting weapons and personnel so we can add benefits for more “spouses”? The military is becoming less military and more full of social programs, for active duty anyway. If your a retiree you are getting hosed more and more every day.

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 at 12:47 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Astonerii is right. Anyone can get a contract marriage and draw BAQ and VHA. Your Secret or TS clearance wouldn’t have shit to do with it.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:49 AM

It’s starting to smell like prison sex around here…

/

:)

Seven Percent Solution on February 19, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Cultural suicide.

logis on February 19, 2012 at 12:07 AM

I agree your moral point of view, but to the extent that the Feds have little or no right to discern otherwise, I see nothing against this view in a purely constitutional context.
Show me the constitutional basis otherwise.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 12:53 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

And there is no requirement for a spouse to accompany the service member anywhere. Your whole argument is pretty much … wrong.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:54 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Wall o text

This isn’t complicated.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Seven Percent Solution on February 19, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Lysol, not enough Lysol!
:(

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

And there is no requirement for a spouse to accompany the service member anywhere. Your whole argument is pretty much … wrong.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:54 A

In which case neither would be able to access the benefits properly…or this is what this whole absurd scenario was all about…that you can enter faux marriage with a mil person for benefits, one of them being health care.. if you are not accompanying your mil spouse at his current PCs location where will u get it? You are assigned the same primary care physician like your spouse, if you are in different state or country you cannot access it, as simple as this…you can call tricare and they will allow u to use local urgent or emergency care but this is all, for everything else you have to access the military hospital on the base your spouse PCS at…it’s where your records are and all, and only they can make referrals or make decisions about your treatment, etc…..

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:09 AM

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Let your conscience be your guide.
Let not the state sway your morals, but let the state stay true to consttitutional directive.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 1:10 AM

If I were in the military, I’d like to be able to confer hospital visitation rights on a person of my choosing no matter what their relation to me. Same story with side-by-side burials.

This should be the law irregardless of situation. If it’s in writing somewhere it should be honored legally.

kim roy on February 19, 2012 at 1:19 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:09 AM

You don’t have to be on a base to use TriCare. You don’t have to be on a base to use Delta dental. You only have to go to an ID card facility once and then have your military sponser enroll you in DEERS. And your set. As long as you have that marriage certificate, there’s not much anyone can do to prove it’s a contract marriage. The biggest reason people do this though is for the BAQ and VHA. So I don’t know what your military experience is, but you’re as wrong as you can be.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Let not the state sway your morals, but let the state stay true to consttitutional directive.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 1:10 AM

I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM

And when they statrt demanding that gay sex be taught in the base schools what then? Remember sex between a man and a woman can be taught as procreation. Gay sex cannot be taught as such.
They will be forced to teach the whole gamut of gay sex in health class.
I have children in public school, no pedophile will teach this to my children.Any adult who tries to expose children to this behavior is a pedophile and will be treated as such.
Exit question: Less than 1.6 of the general population IDs itself as homosexual,yet over 38% of adopted children of gay couples become practicing homosexuals.Socialisation or genetics?

Thicklugdonkey on February 19, 2012 at 1:28 AM

There is no requirement for a mil spouse to be present to renew an ID card for a dependent. Just takes a form signed by the member to be presented to the MPF. If the mil members ex has custody of the kids and the kids need a new ID the form can be mailed to them and they take it to the nearest base with DEERS.

For a secret security clearance, all that is done is a background check, law enforcement databases and the such. Nothing comes back and you are golden. For a top secret, that is a bit more difficult, interviews with family, friends, employers, employees, co-workers, neighbors.

As long as a military member is living off base the spouse can pretty much live anywhere they want and still collect BAH although it will probably be at a rate were the mil member is stationed. There was a Chief that lived in the dorm and his wife lived 500 miles away, taking care of the homestead for several yrs until he retired. Since he was in the dorm he did not collect BAH though. No one checks on these things unless something smells fishy. In the early 90′s two guys (both straight) wanted out of the dorm. They found two girls to marry them and they lived their lives and the girls lived theirs. The guys got caught only because their addresses on the recall rosters were the same and they received Art 15′s. It is nothing to say that a spouse is living with their ma and pa 1000 miles away though because they aren’t doing well and need help and they get free medical and access to any base/fort that may be near by.

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Astonerii is right. Anyone can get a contract marriage and draw BAQ and VHA. Your Secret or TS clearance wouldn’t have shit to do with it.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:49 A

You have no idea what you are talking about…they investigate your marital status and your spouse’s background in detail for your TSclearance, your financial background and a lot of details of your life….they investigate the background of your non-mil spouse and their relations and relatives, they inquire with your neighbors…are you serious that they wouldn’t know that your are scamming the system once they get to investigate your background, and they would clear you for TS or secret status? Preposterous…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:37 AM

. So I don’t know what your military experience is, but you’re as wrong as you can be.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:21 A

Not much, I am married to an AF active duty, that’s all…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:41 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Oh they’ll investigate whether you’re married or not. They might even want to talk to your spouse. That’s not an ENTAC requirement thought. All you’d have to do is say he/she lives at your home of record or wherever. If they call her/him, the contract spouse if properly IDed and enrolled in DEERS just has to say they reside I dependant of one another. There is no requirement to have your spouse with you. You’re just wrong.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Then you should know better.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Astonerii is right. Anyone can get a contract marriage and draw BAQ and VHA. Your Secret or TS clearance wouldn’t have shit to do with it.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Wrong. Background investigations for security clearances always look into marital status.

Don’t bother disagreeing. This was a staple of my Navy career, and I actually had two sailors in that time who were caught scamming the system with fraudulent marriage claims because of what was turned up in their SSBI-PRs.

J.E. Dyer on February 19, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM

One of the guys was married to a Korean national and as far as I know, she never left the ROK. You whole comment s dead on.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:56 AM

J.E. Dyer on February 19, 2012 at 1:52 AM

I didn’t say they wouldn’t check your marital status. I was saying that even under an ENTAC investigation it would be hard to prove it’s a contract marriage.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:59 AM

J.E. Dyer on February 19, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Really? Don’t bother disagreeing? Sorry, I disagree.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Politics as usual for O’useless.

However, love and fidelity, right or wrong, is of concern to no one except the loved and faithful.

“get out of the marriage business entirely”…Yes.

Marriage is a religious entity entirely.

No, it’s a human entity. It’s recognized by religion, and many religions have their own teachings about marriage, but marriage has existed as long as there have been men and women.

Christian teaching about marriage says that God created us male and female from the beginning. Before the first church, before the first synagogue, before the first sacrifice offered to God, there was an institution of marriage.

When people convert from other religions to Christianity, they are not and never have been required to quit their marriage, or to recreate their marriage in a church.

If you believe that marriage is a religious institution, then you have completely misunderstood the most basic part of what marriage is.

Now, there are Christian teachings about marriage, and the First Amendment guarantees us the right to follow those teachings without interference. But I expect those rights will be thrown away the first time they come into conflict with something the homosexual activists want.

Unions are state concerns.
Feds, get out of the discussion completely, please!
Back to basics,
i.e. Constitution.

I’m no libertarian, but any argument against this is moral phobia.

Separation of church.

Figure it out.

OTTO on February 19, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Any argument for it is government activism. The government does not get to redefine marriage at will.

This is a typical argument from the left. They try to turn the situation on its head and demand a good reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.

Wrong. If you want to change the institution, the burden is on you to prove at least the following:

a) that it’s the business of government to redefine marriage. The entire push for same-sex marriage assumes that the government has the right to do it, and there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that addresses the issue one way or the other. If a right is not granted to the federal government, according to the Tenth Amendment, it is reserved to the states and to the people.
b) that redefinition of marriage will not be destructive to the institution of marriage. Proving this requires a bit more than saying, “Naw! Shouldn’t be a problem!”
c) that redefinition of marriage is necessary. Since the only rights specifically conferred by marriage can be conferred by powers of attorney or other instruments, there is no reason that marriage itself must be redefined
d) that redefinition of marriage does not violate freedom of religion. The Freedom of religion is actually explicitly listed in the First Amendment, which in the event of any conflict immediately trumps any argument that same-sex marriage is implied by the Constitution.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 2:02 AM

The entire Homosexual issue became moot when the CDC refused to test and quarantine HIV positive homosexuals. While homosexuals whined that they needed more research dollars and made up the word “homophobia” for anyone who finds their behavior nauseating, which most do; they vilified anyone who pointed out that the disease is preventable and incurable while bashing the Scientific community for not doing enough while continuing to spread AIDS, anal warts and Homosexual Bowl syndrome.

Bulletchaser on February 19, 2012 at 2:05 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Then you should know better.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:48 A

I know exactly the length of investigations they did on my spouse…they inquired with all our neighbors, they asked them if they knew me and for how long, and if e lived together at our address…they popped up on different days and talked to a whole bunch of people whom I don’t even know…
So, yeah, I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about..

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM

From what I have seen, if someone is truthful on their SF86/e-QIP then things won’t be totally bad, unless you were totally bad. Start hiding things like debts or involvement with law enforcement and it will bite you.

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 at 2:09 AM

The real outrage of course is that the DOJ is abandoning their responsibility to uphold the laws as written. It doesn’t matter if they disagree with DOMA. It’s the law, and they should support it.

But when your approach to the Constititution is, “It means whatever I say it means,” then we should not be surprised that they think they can do the same with all other laws.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 2:12 AM

So, yeah, I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about..

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM

You personal experience is just that. Unless you can tell me what criteria an ENTAC inspector or FBI agent uses to determine marriage fraud your story is meaningless to me. I had a Secret. My S2 reviewed most of my information and sent it off. I was never interviewed by anyone and one day, voila, I have a Secret clearance. The ENTAC process may catch some like Commander Dyer was saying, but it would be hard to prove someone with a legal marriage certificate was just scamming the system.

To the other points, you are not required to use Tricare on base. Or Delta dental. Your spouse is not required to reside with you.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 2:17 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 19, 2012 at 2:12 AM

I completely agree. As I stated earlier, the DoJ needs to get out of the DoD’s business. It’s like the DoD telling the FBI how to do their job.

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 at 2:19 AM

There is no requirement for a mil spouse to be present to renew an ID card for a dependent. Just takes a form signed by the member to be presented to the MPF. If the mil members ex has custody of the kids and the kids need a new ID the form can be mailed to them and they take it to the nearest base with DEERS.

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 a

Every time I needed to renew my I’D card I had to be present and they took a new picture of me for the new card , they never used the previous one on record….besides the IDs are biometric now ( they didn’t use to be) so you do have to be present for them to fingerprint you…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Correct, but the military member does not have to be present for a spouse or kids to get an ID.

Russ86 on February 19, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Every time I needed to renew my I’D card I had to be present and they took a new picture of me for the new card , they never used the previous one on record….besides the IDs are biometric now ( they didn’t use to be) so you do have to be present for them to fingerprint you…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM

First, Russ86 is exactly describing what some of my buds who where geographical bachelors did with their spouses to get their ID cards. But as far as your experience I still say it doesn’t prove your point.

How would that determine a contract marriage? Does the ID Card facility know by your picture that you’re scamming the system?

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 2:34 AM

I’m just curious Tina, would you support “conscience protections” for muslim men who wanted to live by sharia law?

j/c

triple on February 19, 2012 at 2:47 AM

First, Russ86 is exactly describing what some of my buds who where geographical bachelors did with their spouses to get their ID cards. But as far as your experience I still say it doesn’t prove your point.

How would that determine a contract marriage? Does the ID Card facility know by your picture that you’re scamming the system?

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 2:34 A

I think russ86 was referring to dependents as in kids living with the ex of the mil person, in a different state or at a different location, but anyways…that’s an entirely different thing…the ID card thing doesn’t prove anything, I was just responding to that post who said that as a dependent spouse you can get your ID renewed without being present…that hasn’t been my experience or that of anyone I know….the point of this being that you sounded as if this scamming thing is quite comon in the military and easy to pull off, and I say it doesn’t seem easy to pull off at all, not only thst but it doesn’t make any sense at all especially if you really care about your career and if you want to make it to the top…

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:59 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 2:59 AM

Russ’s scenario would be the same for a geographical bachelor. Same process. Like I said, I worked with guys who had to get ID cards for spouses who weren’t living with them where they were stationed.

And I think this conversation is more you stating above that it was nearly impossible to have a contract marriage. I don’t know if it’s common. But I know people do it.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 3:07 AM

jimver on February 19, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Oh they’ll investigate whether you’re married or not. They might even want to talk to your spouse. That’s not an ENTAC requirement thought. All you’d have to do is say he/she lives at your home of record or wherever. If they call her/him, the contract spouse if properly IDed and enrolled in DEERS just has to say they reside I dependant of one another. There is no requirement to have your spouse with you. You’re just wrong.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Wrong. Background investigations for security clearances always look into marital status.

Don’t bother disagreeing. This was a staple of my Navy career, and I actually had two sailors in that time who were caught scamming the system with fraudulent marriage claims because of what was turned up in their SSBI-PRs.

J.E. Dyer on February 19, 2012 at 1:52 AM

If you come back to the discussion JE, this was my last comment before yours.

smoothsailing on February 19, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2