After the ban of the Military’s controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, most Americans would think that our troops are serving freely and fairly alongside each other. But that is not the case.
So says Evan Wolfson of Freedom To Marry, an American coalition dedicated to freedom for same-sex couples. “Federal law still discriminates against married gay and lesbian service members, veterans, and their families by denying them crucial protections and creating two classes of service members in our armed forces.”
Adam Smith, an important house Democrat from Washington who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, agrees with Wolfson.
Authored By Jordan Ruimy – See the Full Story at Dot429
Find more articles and gay wedding resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook. We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.
Unfortunately, the author of the linked article at Dot429, while meaning well, is poorly informed. First, heinous as he is in so many other ways, Romney has indicated he has no interest in resurrecting the ban. Second, he does not adequately make clear that Cong. Smith’s bill [which has virtually no chance of passage as long as even one house of Congress is controlled by the Repugs] would only affect same sex military couples who have legally married, e.g., in New York state. Most importantly, contrary to the author’s assertion, the Pentagon made clear in their pre-repeal “study” published in November 2010—the “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—that NO “current law” bans “free legal services” nor ALL “housing benefits.” From page 144 et al., of the study:
“In this category are benefits that are *NOT statutorily prohibited, because Congress has *NOT explicitly limited the benefit in a manner that precludes same-sex partners, but that current *[Pentagon] REGULATIONS do not extend to same-sex partners. For these, the Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory flexibility to define the eligible beneficiaries in way that includes same-sex partners. An example of a benefit in this category is the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance office.*AT PRESENT, those legal services may be extended to ‘dependents’, and in this context *CONGRESS HAS LEFT IT TO SERVICE SECRETARIES to determine who is a ‘dependent’. Military family housing is another prominent benefit in this category. … For benefits such as these, the Department of Defense **COULD legally direct the Services to revise their regulations to extend coverage to Service members’ same-sex partners. This could be accomplished in two ways: leave to the Service member the freedom to designate his or her ‘dependents’, ‘family members’, or similar term; or, revise these definitions to specifically mention a committed, same-sex relationship, and require some type of proof of that committed relationship. The latter is similar to the approach now being taken in Federal agencies for civilian employees. … We do **NOT, however, recommend that military family housing be included in the benefits eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating whomever he chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, and such a system would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.” [*emphasis mine; **emphasis theirs]
How did the Pentagon define “unfairness”? By suggesting that it would be unfair to deny unmarried straight couples such access but allow unmarried gay couples—dodging the fact there is no ban anywhere on straight couples marrying, AND that, even in 2010, legal marriage was available to gay service members through some states. WHY deny such gay couples such benefits then; and why deny them NOW when that number has increased?
And WHY is Gay, Inc., refusing to demand that the Secretary of Defense or the President/Commander-in-Chief simply use their unequivocal legal powers to ORDER that the ARBITRARILY bans be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY?
[RE: “surviving spouse benefits”—the author does not define, and the bill does not mention anything about these. While there may be some that are limited by statutory definitions, the Pentagon report made clear that, because they are “member designated,” the following beneficiary programs are CURRENTLY available to anyone the service member chooses: Service members’ Group Life Insurance, Veterans’ Group Life Insurance, Death Gratuity, Deceased Members Pay and Allowances, Thrift Savings Plan, and, if the service member is not married, nor have a dependent child: the Survivor Benefit Plan.]