If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Federal News Radio)   Defense Department announces that it will be extending benefits to same-sex couples. Well, not healthcare benefits. No, not housing benefits either. But rest assured, other than that, they're extending some might-ee good benefits, yesiree   (federalnewsradio.com) divider line 108
    More: Fail, Defense Department, same-sex couples, housing benefit, domestic partners, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Pentagon officials, stumbling blocks, identification card  
•       •       •

2946 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2013 at 8:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 08:23:48 PM
aaaah.... thanks DOMA
 
2013-02-11 08:23:52 PM
No one shall be denied use of the office coffee maker based on race, religion, creed, or sexual preference.
 
2013-02-11 08:25:38 PM
Subby, you can't blame the Department of Defense.  The DoD can't violate federal law (DOMA).  It's important you get correct who/what to blame, so it can actually get fixed.
 
2013-02-11 08:27:07 PM
Can't they just have separate but equal benefits?  Where the problem with that?
 
2013-02-11 08:28:20 PM
You know you're through the looking glass when the military looks progressive compared to the civilian government.
 
2013-02-11 08:28:44 PM
LAUGHTER OHEYYYYYYYYY.
 
2013-02-11 08:28:59 PM
Small steps.  We're getting there.  Once DOMA is dismantled, then we'll see more from the DoD.
 
2013-02-11 08:29:27 PM
50% off my Costco membership? Yay! Now that's a benefit I can believe in.

/Mission accomplished
 
2013-02-11 08:30:35 PM
So let me get this right:

I can be in the military now without risking an other-than-honorable discharge for the crime of existing, but my partner is still seen as some kind of second-class human being.
 
2013-02-11 08:32:10 PM

studebaker hoch: So let me get this right:

I can be in the military now without risking an other-than-honorable discharge for the crime of existing, but my partner is still seen as some kind of second-class human being.


Correct. Any other questions?
 
2013-02-11 08:32:24 PM
C'mon. Why the PC? Everyone knows ghehs can't shoot straight
 
2013-02-11 08:32:51 PM
FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.
 
2013-02-11 08:33:35 PM
"Why would the (Defense Department) extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits," said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

What I don't understand is why Panetta needs to put himself on the wrong side of history. Even Republicans are saying let's stop making up fake scenarios in order to scare people. People are people. Gay or straight. Black or white (or even Asian). It doesn't make any sense to create a hypothetical situation in which some gay couple is going to take away rights from a straight couple.

Count me in with the forward thinking Republican on this one.
 
Ehh
2013-02-11 08:33:44 PM

studebaker hoch: So let me get this right:

I can be in the military now without risking an other-than-honorable discharge for the crime of existing, but my partner is still seen as some kind of second-class human being.


And Lindsey Graham is prepared to filibuster to keep it that way.
 
2013-02-11 08:34:01 PM

Infernalist: Small steps.  We're getting there.  Once DOMA is dismantled, then we'll see more from the DoD.


...or, realizing that it never will be, your vote is being bought for a few strings of shiny beads.
 
2013-02-11 08:34:51 PM

lennavan: Subby, you can't blame the Department of Defense.  The DoD can't violate federal law (DOMA).  It's important you get correct who/what to blame, so it can actually get fixed.


The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states? Here I thought the DOMA just allowed states to ignore the full faith and credit clause if a marriage contract from another state happens to be a same sex marriage.

DOMA will most likely get ruled unconstitutional. We will know soon.
 
2013-02-11 08:35:08 PM
Assisted suicide? Help emigrating to Canada/UK/France, or some other more enlightened country?
 
2013-02-11 08:36:39 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.


The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, it is not part of the Department of Defense.
 
2013-02-11 08:37:03 PM

lennavan: Subby, you can't blame the Department of Defense.  The DoD can't violate federal law (DOMA).  It's important you get correct who/what to blame, so it can actually get fixed.



Exactly that. They're doing what they can within the cage Congress has put them in. Blame Congress for having prohibited doing more by law.

And let's give our Republican friends all the credit the deserve for having put those restrictions in place.
 
2013-02-11 08:38:09 PM
Coming to a military near you

c.suite101.com
 
2013-02-11 08:38:13 PM

Clemkadidlefark: C'mon. Why the PC? Everyone knows ghehs can't shoot straight


Hah ok I admit, I chortled.
 
2013-02-11 08:39:44 PM

max_pooper: The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states? Here I thought the DOMA just allowed states to ignore the full faith and credit clause if a marriage contract from another state happens to be a same sex marriage.


While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, you are missing a fundamental aspect of the discussion.  State laws are irrelevant, we're talking about the military and federal benefits.  State law does not apply.
 
2013-02-11 08:40:02 PM

max_pooper: The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states?


Yes. See1 U.S.C. § 7:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
 
2013-02-11 08:40:14 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.


It is part of DHS during peace and switches to the DOD during war.
 
2013-02-11 08:41:06 PM

meow said the dog: LAUGHTER OHEYYYYYYYYY.


off topic, but I heard you were Glamping.
 
2013-02-11 08:41:33 PM

amquelbettamin: Coming to a military near you


Hey now, that's crossing the line, buddy.
 
2013-02-11 08:42:08 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.


It got moved under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, but can be transferred back to the Navy by the President or Congress during a war.  So even though they're uniformed members of the military, the DoD's ability to set rules for them are vague and shifting at best.

To give the DoD credit, they've done just about as much as they can do, and more than they're probably legally able.  Take getting a gay spouse and ID card for example - to do that you have to prove a relationship, which means handing a federal entity a gay marriage license and getting it recognized in spite of DOMA, which says such a thing does not exist.  They've basically done all they can internally - insurance and such would most likely involve outside bean-counters not under their control.

I'd put this step up on the same shelf as DADT.  Sure, it's shiatty that homosexual's civil rights are still being violated, but at least it's a step in the right direction, and those rights are being violated a little bit less than they were yesterday.
 
2013-02-11 08:45:10 PM

max_pooper: lennavan: Subby, you can't blame the Department of Defense.  The DoD can't violate federal law (DOMA).  It's important you get correct who/what to blame, so it can actually get fixed.

The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states? Here I thought the DOMA just allowed states to ignore the full faith and credit clause if a marriage contract from another state happens to be a same sex marriage.

DOMA will most likely get ruled unconstitutional. We will know soon.


Not guaranteed either.

As much as I favor making the civil institution (as opposed to the religious rite) of marriage something that same sex couples can engage in as freely as opposite sex couples, I'm also realistic about it.  We're probably 10-20 years away from that being a reality everywhere in the US.
 
2013-02-11 08:45:24 PM

lennavan: While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, you are missing a fundamental aspect of the discussion.  State laws are irrelevant, we're talking about the military and federal benefits.  State law does not apply.


Actually state law is in no way irrelevant.  Marriage is one of the traditional powers left to the states.  While the constitution, through the 14th amendment applies with equal force preventing certain kinds of discrimination in granting marriages at present there is no such dictate* with regards to the right of people to marry those of the same sex.  However, the federal government itself does not grant marriages, states do.  Thus in effect what DOMA is doing is just as much a federal power grab in which the national government tells certain states  (see, e.g., Massachusetts or Iowa) that some of their marriages aren't good enough.  This would be the root of the federalism prong of the attack on DOMA in Windsor.

/* hopefully, soon, we will have a case like Loving v. Virginia wherein we get such a dictate with regards to same sex marriage.
 
2013-02-11 08:47:13 PM
Reading this and the story of the guy who shot Osama, I have to say it's pretty troubling that the DoD for some reason thinks it's a good idea to shaft a large group of people who are trained to kill.
 
2013-02-11 08:47:16 PM

max_pooper: Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.

The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, it is not part of the Department of Defense.


Karac: Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.

It got moved under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, but can be transferred back to the Navy by the President or Congress during a war.  So even though they're uniformed members of the military, the DoD's ability to set rules for them are vague and shifting at best.

To give the DoD credit, they've done just about as much as they can do, and more than they're probably legally able.  Take getting a gay spouse and ID card for example - to do that you have to prove a relationship, which means handing a federal entity a gay marriage license and getting it recognized in spite of DOMA, which says such a thing does not exist.  They've basically done all they can internally - insurance and such would most likely involve outside bean-counters not under their control.

I'd put this step up on the same shelf as DADT.  Sure, it's shiatty that homosexual's civil rights are still being violated, but at least it's a step in the right direction, and those rights are being violated a little bit less than they were yesterday.


vwfst55: Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.

It is part of DHS during peace and switches to the DOD during war.


Thank you all! I can't keep the alphabet soup that is our gubmint straight sometimes. I suspect their "well, sometimes...." status might have a bit to do with my confusion, but I can't be sure, because I am that generally confused about DHS, DoD, FBI, CIA, ASPCA, EPA, USPS - pick a random string of letters and I'm confused. 'Cuz who the hell are these peoples???
 
2013-02-11 08:47:25 PM

hdhale: max_pooper: lennavan: Subby, you can't blame the Department of Defense.  The DoD can't violate federal law (DOMA).  It's important you get correct who/what to blame, so it can actually get fixed.

The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states? Here I thought the DOMA just allowed states to ignore the full faith and credit clause if a marriage contract from another state happens to be a same sex marriage.

DOMA will most likely get ruled unconstitutional. We will know soon.

Not guaranteed either.

As much as I favor making the civil institution (as opposed to the religious rite) of marriage something that same sex couples can engage in as freely as opposite sex couples, I'm also realistic about it.  We're probably 10-20 years away from that being a reality everywhere in the US.


Just so you know, DOMA being ruled unconstitutional wouldn't really affect national gay marriage, it would just stop screwing those states that do allow such marriages and stop screwing individuals who are married under state law but ignored under federal law.
 
2013-02-11 08:47:37 PM

max_pooper: lennavan: Subby, you can't blame the Department of Defense.  The DoD can't violate federal law (DOMA).  It's important you get correct who/what to blame, so it can actually get fixed.

The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states? Here I thought the DOMA just allowed states to ignore the full faith and credit clause if a marriage contract from another state happens to be a same sex marriage.

DOMA will most likely get ruled unconstitutional. We will know soon.


You're thinking of section 2; which says that homosexual marriage licenses don't fall under the full faith and credit clause.

Here's section 3: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The federal government, by law, does not recognize marriages which do not include 1 woman and 1 man.  Which means that, technically, extending ANY benefits to homosexual couples is illegal.  But I'll agree not to tell the Republicans if you won't.
 
2013-02-11 08:47:48 PM
Sigh...

Why the hell should it matter whether someone wants to marry someone of the same or opposite gender?

If these men and women are willing to make the same sacrifice for their country as their hetero bretheren
(and sistren - is that even a word?) then they should receive the same benefits. Plain and simple.
 
2013-02-11 08:50:48 PM

Karac: The federal government, by law, does not recognize marriages which do not include 1 woman and 1 man.


Does that mean the Federal Government does recognize polygamist marriages?
 
2013-02-11 08:52:32 PM

studebaker hoch: So let me get this right:

I can be in the military now without risking an other-than-honorable discharge for the crime of existing, but my partner is still seen as some kind of second-class human being.


You are in better shape than cohabiting heterosexual people are. And for the record it's not being married that gets you the extra pay and benefits, it's having dependents that does it. Two married service members don't get any extra pay (even though they have the same extra costs in regards to housing for example) while a married service member and a civilian do get a fairly substantial pay increase. If the married service members have a child then they can get the extra housing and food allowances.

I was married to a service member while I was in and I had to absorb the extra costs of maintaining a home while I was away. I was an E6 and there were E4's with the same domestic responsibilities (married, no kids) that had a larger paycheck than I did (which really kind of pissed me off as I had a much heavier work load and more work responsibilities than they did). The difference mostly came when we went out to sea and I lost all housing benefits and he did not.
 
2013-02-11 08:52:39 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.



Title 14 of the United States Code (also known as The Code of Laws of the United States of America), Section 1:
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.
 
2013-02-11 08:52:47 PM

pudding7: Karac: The federal government, by law, does not recognize marriages which do not include 1 woman and 1 man.

Does that mean the Federal Government does recognize polygamist marriages?


"the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."  I know you were being Fark snarky, but come on, its the line right above!
 
2013-02-11 08:54:10 PM

NotoriousFire: Real Women Drink Akvavit: FTFA: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday also directed the Coast Guard to implement the same extension of benefits as the military."

Whoa whoa whoa! I thought the Coast Guard was part of the military. Have I been wrong and they just use similar rules and regs or something?

Someone please enlighten me, por favor.


Title 14 of the United States Code (also known as The Code of Laws of the United States of America), Section 1:
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.


Thank you!
 
2013-02-11 08:54:18 PM

Teiritzamna: lennavan: While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, you are missing a fundamental aspect of the discussion. State laws are irrelevant, we're talking about the military and federal benefits. State law does not apply.

Actually state law is in no way irrelevant.


It actually is completely irrelevant.  DOMA defines marriage for inter-state and federal purposes as a man and a woman.  Here's the federal part:

Section 3. Definition of marriage.  In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
 
2013-02-11 08:54:48 PM
NotoriousFire:
Title 14 of the United States Code (also known as The Code of Laws of the United States of America), Section 1:
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.


Meant to bold more of that line. But the key point from 14 USC 1: "shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. " Don't let the DHS/DOD argument fool you - US Code is US Code.
 
2013-02-11 09:05:23 PM

max_pooper: The Defense of Marriage Act requires the federal government to ignore marriage contracts from states? Here I thought the DOMA just allowed states to ignore the full faith and credit clause if a marriage contract from another state happens to be a same sex marriage.


Thanks to DOMA - since my partner is not recognized as my husband by the feds - the health insurance for my partner is taxed.  So that's an awesome chunk of money I lose every year.
 
2013-02-11 09:08:11 PM

rlandrum: Can't they just have separate but equal benefits?  Where the problem with that?


3.bp.blogspot.com

That worked out so well last time.
 
2013-02-11 09:11:32 PM
FTA:  including identification cards
www.prestongrant.com
 
2013-02-11 09:11:44 PM

Teiritzamna: Just so you know, DOMA being ruled unconstitutional wouldn't really affect national gay marriage, it would just stop screwing those states that do allow such marriages and stop screwing individuals who are married under state law but ignored under federal law.


True.  But right now, you have to remain corralled in one of the patriotic states to get full marriage benefits.  But, if we forced the anti-Enlightenment states to quit shiatting upon the Constitution, those couples could move out and infiltrate those heathen God-haters.  Think about how quickly homosexuality as a state has become rather blase in normal interactions; hell, would you have said we would even allow gays to serve even 3 years ago, much less the big yawn that was the response to those two guys kissing?  Get the Defense of Bigots Act out of the way, and I doubt it will take 5 years for most states to pass pro-marriage laws (and by pro-marriage, I mean "marry whomever the fark you want").
 
2013-02-11 09:15:08 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Thank you all! I can't keep the alphabet soup that is our gubmint straight sometimes. I suspect their "well, sometimes...." status might have a bit to do with my confusion, but I can't be sure, because I am that generally confused about DHS, DoD, FBI, CIA, ASPCA, EPA, USPS - pick a random string of letters and I'm confused. 'Cuz who the hell are these peoples???


And just to add to the alphabet soup for you, before 9/11 the USCG was under the DoT.

One of the big reasons for not having them under DoD is so they can board drug-running boats from other countries without it being an act of war. Some Navy vessels will even keep a couple Coast Guard officers and a USCG flag around so they can act as a Coast Guard vessel if need be.
 
2013-02-11 09:15:13 PM

lennavan: Teiritzamna: lennavan: While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, you are missing a fundamental aspect of the discussion. State laws are irrelevant, we're talking about the military and federal benefits. State law does not apply.

Actually state law is in no way irrelevant.

It actually is completely irrelevant.  DOMA defines marriage for inter-state and federal purposes as a man and a woman.  Here's the federal part:

Section 3. Definition of marriage.  In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


Yes, and under what law are they married?
 
2013-02-11 09:16:20 PM

phalamir: Teiritzamna: Just so you know, DOMA being ruled unconstitutional wouldn't really affect national gay marriage, it would just stop screwing those states that do allow such marriages and stop screwing individuals who are married under state law but ignored under federal law.

True.  But right now, you have to remain corralled in one of the patriotic states to get full marriage benefits.  But, if we forced the anti-Enlightenment states to quit shiatting upon the Constitution, those couples could move out and infiltrate those heathen God-haters.  Think about how quickly homosexuality as a state has become rather blase in normal interactions; hell, would you have said we would even allow gays to serve even 3 years ago, much less the big yawn that was the response to those two guys kissing?  Get the Defense of Bigots Act out of the way, and I doubt it will take 5 years for most states to pass pro-marriage laws (and by pro-marriage, I mean "marry whomever the fark you want").


Oh i know this is one more gambit in equality chess, just wanted to make sure everyone knew what move we were on.
 
2013-02-11 09:16:44 PM

Teiritzamna: lennavan: While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, you are missing a fundamental aspect of the discussion.  State laws are irrelevant, we're talking about the military and federal benefits.  State law does not apply.

Actually state law is in no way irrelevant.  Marriage is one of the traditional powers left to the states.


State law doesn't mean shiat. Look at Montana with their speed limits, or ask any medical mj distributor who has had their door kicked in recently. The 10th is dead.
 
2013-02-11 09:19:06 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: "Why would the (Defense Department) extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits," said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

What I don't understand is why Panetta needs to put himself on the wrong side of history. Even Republicans are saying let's stop making up fake scenarios in order to scare people. People are people. Gay or straight. Black or white (or even Asian). It doesn't make any sense to create a hypothetical situation in which some gay couple is going to take away rights from a straight couple.

Count me in with the forward thinking Republican on this one.



When same-sex partners can get married like cohabiting heterosexual couples can, then this will be a legitimate argument. Meanwhile, Inhofe favors a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. If not for people like the "forward-thinking" senator, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report