• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House approves repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'(edited)

roguenuke said:
There are a lot of businesses that do recognize a gay person's significant other under benefits, but there are still more that don't. And there are many states that protect a person from being fired because they are gay, but there are some states that don't or have laws that say a business doesn't have to state why a person was fired. It all depends on what part of the country you are in and/or what business you are comparing the military to as to whether or not they are behind or ahead in this policy.
Click to expand...

Well, accroding to Redress, gays have absolute rights throughout the American landscape and that only the military hurdle remains.

My point, which has been ignored for the sake of the gay pride parade on this thread, is that absolute military prescription will lead the way in a nation full of legal contradiction and bigotry.
 
Kelzie said:
Yes, well I want to personally thank you for leading the way for gay marriage then. I can see how the military will force states to change. Consider that a gay couple married in Vermont should now be able to qualify for spousal benefits in the military...but not one from Texas? The military does like for everything to be uniform.
Click to expand...

But according to Redress, gays have a fair and equal shake everywhere in the U.S. and the military is the last hold out. And that even after we enforce higher standard and professionalism that it will still be the military that is far behind the civilian sector in terms of gay rights.
 
roguenuke said:
Maybe sooner, but we'll all just have to wait and see. Hopefully, one of those court cases working its way up will reach the SCOTUS soon and take down DOMA completely.

Gotta love optimism.
Click to expand...

What the hell is DOMA?
 
MSgt said:
You appear to be emotional. Settle down.
Click to expand...

I assume this was an attempt to be ironic.

People often mistake their personal perspectives as a definition for the general belief. Utopia has been the goal since the Greeks. The Declaration of Independence is very much a prescription fo utopia. Making mistakes and trying to do the "right thing" ever since has been about realizing the purity of utopian society.
Click to expand...

Nah. Utopia is an impossible idea. Best we can make it is reachable and not Utopian. It's also not some negative.

And notice that nowhere did I write that it had to. I'm not talking about legal marriage within the military. I am talking about legal spousal preference and SGLI benefits in a nation where courts laugh at their requests to get married. In other words, civilians want the military to pretend that they have the same rights so that they can continue to deny them rights.
Click to expand...

If SSM is not recognized, what spousal benefits are you talking about in the absence of a spouse? The rest is pure hogwash. You cannot change everything at once. SSM is the last area of inequity for gays, and it is also a separate issue. AS best I can tell your argument it's that since the civilian world does not treat gays perfectly, it's somehow acceptable for the military to not allow gays to serve openly. Maybe you can clarify your argument, cuz I know you are smarter than that.

Are you being argumentative on purpose? I wasn't talking about jokes. I am talking about malicious behavior. In your civilian world you "may" see discipline and it will probably be in the form of a letter or a class. In the military there will be pay loss, rank loss, and career loss. I would certainly describe that as being far more intolerable than your last job. And in this fashion, just like in blacks and women, the military will lead the way.
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that the in the military and the civilian world, the same standards as far as harassment are held. You can make jokes in both and you wil face discipline if you cross the line. In the civilian world, we would not get 60/60, we would get fired. It's career loss, strait up.

Well, first of all, the world has moved past nothing. Gays are ostricized, beaten up, and murdered everywhere. Second, I am quite aware that integrating blacks and women were in the past and that today's issues are about homosexuals. Your attempt to insult my intelligence was sophomoric. I was very clear about how all three social changes were and are similar. And third, you covered what you thought was my mistake for the sake of your pro-homosexual stage. I have been quite clear on my absolute indifference on whether gays serve or not. But being able to serve openly means special considerations in regards to spousal (dependent) preference, especially during conflict. These considerations will not reflect the civilian's prescription for gays in the civilian courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, people do things they should not in both the civilian and military world. But there is not systematic discrimination and double standards in relation to this issue in the civilian world, but it has existed in the military. You may have led once, but you are not leading now. And you have still not shown any evidence of any spousal issues.

Long after gays serve openly and have other men as their dependents, civilians will still refuse them legal marriage proving that you have moved past nothing. You will be proven as wrong as all those leftist dreamers that tried to paint the military as being behind in regards to women and blacks decades ago.
Click to expand...

I could make some one of the same sex my dependent now. It's not the same thing as marriage. I have no clue what your hangup on that concept is, but iy's way overblown. The "spousal" laws for gays is not going to change in the military because of this.

.....so? Remember, the biggest traitor in the Iraq War was also gay. Are these things supposed to mean something?
Click to expand...

Yes, they mean that gays are just like every one else, with the same ability to be heroic or cowardly.
 
MSgt said:
Well, accroding to Redress, gays have absolute rights throughout the American landscape and that only the military hurdle remains.
Click to expand...

Hey look, a strawman. Never said that or implied it.

My point, which has been ignored for the sake of the gay pride parade on this thread, is that absolute military prescription will lead the way in a nation full of legal contradiction and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Since gays in the military will have no more rights than gays in the civilian society, this is false.
 
MSgt said:
Well, accroding to Redress, gays have absolute rights throughout the American landscape and that only the military hurdle remains.

My point, which has been ignored for the sake of the gay pride parade on this thread, is that absolute military prescription will lead the way in a nation full of legal contradiction and bigotry.
Click to expand...

As I stated, the military is more "in the middle" on this one. They are neither leading nor in the back.

The lesbian I knew who got out under DADT did so because she had found a job in the civilian world that gave her significant other the same benefits as a legal spouse. She got out in 2004. She told me that she would have stayed in if the military could just recognize her "wife" the same as they do a man's wife, but it is 2010 and it still hasn't happened. Even with DADT repealed, it can't happen til DOMA goes away.

DOMA is unconstitutional and unfair. But it doesn't prevent private companies/businesses from allowing homosexual employees (or even heterosexual employees in relationships but not married) from getting the same benefits for their significant others that it gives to legal spouses. It does make it unfair in those instances where a company has to legally recognize a legal spouse as deserving certain privileges but no one else.

Plus, the SGLI/insurance thing really isn't an issue. SGLI could always be designated to anyone the servicemember wanted it to go to. All they would have to do is designate the relationship as "friend". The only exception to this would be the fairly new rules that say that a person's legal spouse has to agree to anyone designated besides themselves (although I'm not sure if this is really enforced, but it came about because of people not updating their SGLI info after a divorce and/or marriage). And most civilian policies can be left to anyone as well. There are, I think, a few exceptions, like some of the state employees' policies, but not sure how they work.

I think that the only thing that will get same sex marriage in place anytime soon (the next 5-10 years) is SCOTUS ruling DOMA unconstitutional. It will essentially take a ruling almost exactly like Loving v. VA to change the current policies, both federal and state.
 
This is an interesting discussion.

If I'm understanding this right, the military won't allow spousal designations for the partners of gays until the rest of the country (or parts of it?) allows gay marriage, because it would be unfair to all the unmarried couples in the military who currently can't designate their significant (but not officially/legally) other as their beneficiary.

Question then – Regarding those areas of the country who do allow gay marriage, if some gay couple gets married there, will the military allow them to designate their partners as their beneficiary and spouse?

Or however the hell that works.

Edit: I suppose if the military allowed all couples, both married and unmarried, to designate their significant other as their spouse...

Is there some legal reason for this?
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
But according to Redress, gays have a fair and equal shake everywhere in the U.S. and the military is the last hold out. And that even after we enforce higher standard and professionalism that it will still be the military that is far behind the civilian sector in terms of gay rights.
Click to expand...

Redress never said that and you know it. And you will be behind some of the civilian sectors. And ahead of some.
 
The Mark said:
This is an interesting discussion.

If I'm understanding this right, the military won't allow spousal designations for the partners of gays until the rest of the country (or parts of it?) allows gay marriage, because it would be unfair to all the unmarried couples in the military who currently can't designate their significant (but not officially/legally) other as their beneficiary.

Question then – Regarding those areas of the country who do allow gay marriage, if some gay couple gets married there, will the military allow them to designate their partners as their beneficiary and spouse?

Or however the hell that works.

Edit: I suppose if the military allowed all couples, both married and unmarried, to designate their significant other as their spouse...

Is there some legal reason for this?
Click to expand...

Actually, it appears the military won't recognize gay marriage because of DOMA. The federal government doesn't either for the same reason. Presumably there will be no gay families moving on base then? I wonder why they included that in the questionnaire.
 
Kelzie said:
Actually, it appears the military won't recognize gay marriage because of DOMA. The federal government doesn't either for the same reason. Presumably there will be no gay families moving on base then? I wonder why they included that in the questionnaire.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address my edit, however...

If they won't recognize gay marriage, what if they allowed the designation of beneficiaries to include unmarried significant others? There could be potential legal issues, obviously, such as people claiming they were significant others and not actually being such...

That might be why they don' wanna.
 
The Mark said:
That doesn't address my edit, however...

If they won't recognize gay marriage, what if they allowed the designation of beneficiaries to include unmarried significant others? There could be potential legal issues, obviously, such as people claiming they were significant others and not actually being such...

That might be why they don' wanna.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't see them doing that. The spousal benefits are really awesome and quite costly for the military. They do have to restrict them somewhat.
 
Redress said:
You may have led once, but you are not leading now. And you have still not shown any evidence of any spousal issues.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get this. It is simple enough....

1) Women: Long after civilians were bitching and moaning about female emancipation, they were denied equality within the military. Civilian frustration with civilian systems were able to declare how ancient the military was. However, eventually, females were Commanding Officers and Generals long before they were CEOs. In the end, it was the civilian world tat proved anbcient and behind. This would be the first time that the military led the way for civilians who continued to exercise their right to look down upon the unacceptable.

2) Blacks: Long after the Civil War (which was military by the way) to free blacks and after the civil rights marches, they were still denied true equality within the military. Civilian frustrations with civilian systems were able to declare how ancient the military was. However, blacks were leading units and being promoted fairly, long before the civilian Affirmative Action. This would be the second time that the military led the way for civilians who continued to exercise their right to look down upon the unacceptable.



What exactly is it that you need the civilian sector to look like to once again declare the military as behind? It's the same leftist illusional crap. In the end, gays will be treated better in the military (because it will be forced to) than they are in civilian courts and private business. They will be able to declare dependents with full awareness that "spouse" is the intent. And when the military as a whole follows the same policies and laws, it will be the states of the nation that continue to contradict each other and treat gays as unnacceptable. Once again, the military will lead the way. You should be more appreciative of the military's professionalism to do the right thing rather than fulfilling the same old leftist role of yesterday's social struggles.



Redress said:
Yes, they mean that gays are just like every one else, with the same ability to be heroic or cowardly.
Click to expand...

Again....so? Save the gay pride crap for someone else. I simply don't care. I wasn't the one that denied gays. Civilian prescription did. This would be the same prescription that refuses them equal legal rights in courts. The military also wasn't the one clinging to DADT a couple months ago when the Air Force and the Pentagon moved to shelve it. But I guess this way, the White House can take their credit. And when the military begins leading the way for gay acceptance, maybe then you will see what history has always told you to expect.
 
MSgt said:
And why is this? Don't mistake your lack of knowledge as sense.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting response. I called you sensible, and you are saying that I am mistaking sense for a lack of knowledge.

MSgt said:
As soon as civilians allow gay marrriage. Or should the military lead this too? In the mean time, the military will recognize spousal preference in the RED, which is a step up from what they get now in the courts.
Click to expand...

I don't see why the military couldn't lead it. They are an organization that can marry people.
 
roguenuke said:
As I stated, the military is more "in the middle" on this one. They are neither leading nor in the back.
Click to expand...

Well, like I have tried to portray to Redress, nothing is new with this. We neither led nor were in the back when it came to blacks and women. However, leading is exactly what happened in the end. What is it about history that has people afraid to see the obvious? This gay subject is no different.
 
Kelzie said:
Yeah I don't see them doing that. The spousal benefits are really awesome and quite costly for the military. They do have to restrict them somewhat.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, and I can't help but think that it is perfectly reasonable for them to promote more stable households for it's troops, which marriage tends to do in many cases (although sadly, less so than in the past, I think...).
 
The Mark said:
This is an interesting discussion.

If I'm understanding this right, the military won't allow spousal designations for the partners of gays until the rest of the country (or parts of it?) allows gay marriage, because it would be unfair to all the unmarried couples in the military who currently can't designate their significant (but not officially/legally) other as their beneficiary.

Question then – Regarding those areas of the country who do allow gay marriage, if some gay couple gets married there, will the military allow them to designate their partners as their beneficiary and spouse?

Or however the hell that works.

Edit: I suppose if the military allowed all couples, both married and unmarried, to designate their significant other as their spouse...

Is there some legal reason for this?
Click to expand...

This has already been a topic of discussion within military legal sectors. This has been a part of the Pentagon's studies to see how best to impliment open gays into the community. I have stated this before, but people are more interested in boasting their allegiance to gay rights above all else.

Allowing a "dependent," with obvious understanding that significant other is the intention, is the probable course until 50 states (or federal) agree that gays are to be treated as equal in their civilian world as well. I have been trying to state this, but have been met with the gay pride parade who appear to know absolutely everything.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
This has already been a topic of discussion within military legal sectors. This has been a part of the Pentagon's studies to see how best to implement open gays into the community. I have stated this before, but people are more interested in boasting their allegiance to gay rights above all else.

Allowing a "dependent," with obvious understanding that significant other is the intention, is the probable course until 50 states (or federal) agree that gays are to be treated as equal in their civilian world as well. I have been trying to state this, but have been met with the gay pride parade who appear to know absolutely everything.
Click to expand...
This seems to make sense, but I won't pretend I understand all the intricacies involved...

So gays were not previously allowed to designate their partners as “dependents”?
 
Kelzie said:
Redress never said that and you know it. And you will be behind some of the civilian sectors. And ahead of some.
Click to expand...

Uh hu...

"I already covered your mistaken beliefs about SSM. The rest is already the case in the civilian world. Sorry, but the world moved past you all." - Post 315

I got the idea that if only the military gives in then all will be well, just like it is in the civilian sector. But the fact is that once all gays in all branches are bound to the same rules and all branches honor a homosexual's death gratuities towards an obvious "dependent," the civilian sector will still refuse them equal legal rights across the land. Despite their inability to marry, the military will be treating them as spouses in legal code. We will lead, once again. This has always been my point.
 
MSgt said:
Uh hu...

"I already covered your mistaken beliefs about SSM. The rest is already the case in the civilian world. Sorry, but the world moved past you all." - Post 315

I got the idea that if only the military gives in then all will be well, just like it is in the civilian sector. But the fact is that once all gays in all branches are bound to the same rules and all branches honor a homosexual's death gratuities towards an obvious "dependent," the civilian sector will still refuse them equal legal rights across the land. Despite their inability to marry, the military will be treating them as spouses in legal code. We will lead, once again. This has always been my point.
Click to expand...

How would they do that you think? What's to prevent a gay guy from having 15 dependents in a year?
 
megaprogman said:
This is an interesting response. I called you sensible, and you are saying that I am mistaking sense for a lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

You stated that my posts are lacking sense. I think I am being clear and I asked you why.

megaprogman said:
I don't see why the military couldn't lead it. They are an organization that can marry people.
Click to expand...

We are going to lead enough, once again. But we are bound by the law of the land. We don't create the laws, civilians do. We don't create social prescription, civilians do. When the judge declared DADT as unconstitutional, it was the Air Force and the Pentagon that jumped at the chance to end it. The Army and the Marine Corps have largely ignored it since 9/11. DADT has been a burden and the numbers, as they correspond to the years, prove it. However, it was the White House that denied our attempt to end it so that they could pass it through Washington and make it "legal." And I suspect, to cling to credit.

You may as well ask why we can't make it legal for our 19 year old Privates to drink alcohol.
 
The Mark said:
This seems to make sense, but I won't pretend I understand all the intricacies involved...

So gays were not previously allowed to designate their partners as “dependents”?
Click to expand...

No. Everybody has to be able to prove dependency of some sort. Part of the studies was about the legal courses that will be available when DADT goes away. Without the ability to show legal marriage, something else must be done to accomodate the contradiction that civilians are forcing upon the military. They are going into war. And with the ability to declare significant others in the open, we have to figure out how to give them equal rights and benefits in a nation that refuses it in civilian court. None of them are thinking about any of this because "gay pride" trumps all details. This is where this is unlike women and blacks. Before the force, they had legal equality in the civilian world. Gays do not and civilians are expecting us to have a legal standard they currently don't have.
 
Kelzie said:
How would they do that you think? What's to prevent a gay guy from having 15 dependents in a year?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. They would have to prove dependency and the procedure is too much of a pain in the ass for it be viewed as haphazard. Aside from living conditions and unit cohesions issues, the legal ramifications to treat homosexuals equal to heterosexuals is a huge hurdle in the study. This is largely because whatever they do, it will contradict national laws. Essentially, unless worded right, the military would break national laws just to treat gays as equal. Very ironic. This is why I have linked the ability for gays to die for the rights of civilians in this nation to not being able to marry by those same spoiled civilians.

I think it is going to be about wording. Without the ability to be legally "married" we have to be able to acknowledge death benefeciaries and spousal preferences.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
You don't seem to get this. It is simple enough....

1) Women: Long after civilians were bitching and moaning about female emancipation, they were denied equality within the military. Civilian frustration with civilian systems were able to declare how ancient the military was. However, eventually, females were Commanding Officers and Generals long before they were CEOs. In the end, it was the civilian world tat proved anbcient and behind. This would be the first time that the military led the way for civilians who continued to exercise their right to look down upon the unacceptable.

2) Blacks: Long after the Civil War (which was military by the way) to free blacks and after the civil rights marches, they were still denied true equality within the military. Civilian frustrations with civilian systems were able to declare how ancient the military was. However, blacks were leading units and being promoted fairly, long before the civilian Affirmative Action. This would be the second time that the military led the way for civilians who continued to exercise their right to look down upon the unacceptable.
Click to expand...

And this has what to do with today? Standing on past glory is not how our military got to where it is now.

What exactly is it that you need the civilian sector to look like to once again declare the military as behind? It's the same leftist illusional crap. In the end, gays will be treated better in the military (because it will be forced to) than they are in civilian courts and private business. They will be able to declare dependents with full awareness that "spouse" is the intent. And when the military as a whole follows the same policies and laws, it will be the states of the nation that continue to contradict each other and treat gays as unnacceptable. Once again, the military will lead the way. You should be more appreciative of the military's professionalism to do the right thing rather than fulfilling the same old leftist role of yesterday's social struggles.
Click to expand...

In what way will gays be treated better? This is that righty smug superiority(see, we both can play that game) in action. In no way will gays be treated better than they are now in the civilian world, since in the civilian world they re treated as just folks(with the exception of marriage). You are not leading **** when it comes to gays, but in fact trailing badly behind. Up until now, the military has not been able to handle what college kids in dorms handle.

Again....so? Save the gay pride crap for someone else. I simply don't care. I wasn't the one that denied gays. Civilian prescription did. This would be the same prescription that refuses them equal legal rights in courts. The military also wasn't the one clinging to DADT a couple months ago when the Air Force and the Pentagon moved to shelve it. But I guess this way, the White House can take their credit. And when the military begins leading the way for gay acceptance, maybe then you will see what history has always told you to expect.
Click to expand...

What "gay pride crap". People are people. That is so controversial. Try and actually discuss without mindless spinning.

By the way, the Pentagon and the Air Force work for the White House. Maybe you didn't know that. They did not "move to shelve it", they had to by court order, unless you are talking about something I am unaware of, in which case you might want to document it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom