Jump to content

Extending Benefits


Damien the Leper

Recommended Posts

2/11/2013 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Calling it "a matter of fundamental equity," Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta today signed a memorandum to the service secretaries and the Pentagon's top personnel official extending benefits to same-sex partners of service members.

Here is the secretary's announcement of the policy change:

"Seventeen months ago, the United States military ended the policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' We have implemented the repeal of that policy and made clear that discrimination based on sexual orientation has no place in the Department of Defense.

"At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy. It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country. The department already provides a group of benefits that are member-designated. Today, I am pleased to announce that after a thorough and deliberate review, the department will extend additional benefits to same-sex partners of service members.

"Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation.

"One of the legal limitations to providing all benefits at this time is the Defense of Marriage Act, which is still the law of the land. There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law, which is now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation. Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and their families.

"While the implementation of additional benefits will require substantial policy revisions and training, it is my expectation that these benefits will be made available as expeditiously as possible. One of the great successes at the Department of Defense has been the implementation of DADT repeal. It has been highly professional and has strengthened our military community. I am confident in the military services' ability to effectively implement these changes over the coming months."

http://www.af.mil/ne...Fu3_iI.facebook

Link to comment

Since the LDS church supported in SLC an ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, it seems quite rational to think it would have no problem with equal employment practices for those with ssa in the military. If Congress had thought through the entire issue in when DOMA was passed, perhaps it would have made it clear that it was not the job benefits that it was prohibiting, just the legal recognition of marriage.

Link to comment

never mind

Link to comment
it seems quite rational to think it would have no problem with equal employment practices for those with ssa in the military.

If the Church is opposed to gay marriage, it would be rational to be opposed to offering benefits to homosexual couples as if they were married.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

So where are my Food Stamps? In other words, it is correct that this is a matter of welfare but one has to meet certain conditions to receive it.

There is no reason whatsoever for gay couples to receive it on that basis alone and who can tell who is gay and who is not? Me and a same sex friend, both heterosexuals, could decide to become roommates, falsely declare our "gayness" and reap the benefits of insurance and welfare. Whereas an opposite sex couple could simply shack up and at least we would have a modicum of a clue that perhaps here is a couple who are providing the proper and uniquely beneficial male and female role models.

Link to comment

Actually BCSpace is on to something. I didn't realize they were literally extending (or trying to) all benefits that married couples recieve. That seems like a gross injustice to cohabitating and committed heterosexual couples and it is ripe for fraud.

Link to comment

Actually BCSpace is on to something. I didn't realize they were literally extending (or trying to) all benefits that married couples recieve. That seems like a gross injustice to cohabitating and committed heterosexual couples and it is ripe for fraud.

The existing social welfare programs that we do have are not based on marriage but on income.

Link to comment

Marriage or the lack there of has never been a conditional for receipt of food stamps. Poverty is.

That's correct. They only look at the "household" members and their total household income, as long as they share the food. Relationship is not relevant.

Link to comment

I was thinking maybe congress could hire them on as staff.

The PC term is "interns" now.

The problem with Congress isn't the people in it. It is the people choosing the people who end up in it. Take a brilliant man or woman and send them to Congress. Within a few years they will be grandstanding and making gestures and talking drivel. They have to. The ones who do not have to leave. One of the downsides of democracy is that it obscures the stupidity of the people by letting them assign it all to the government.

Link to comment

So where are my Food Stamps? In other words, it is correct that this is a matter of welfare but one has to meet certain conditions to receive it.

There is no reason whatsoever for gay couples to receive it on that basis alone and who can tell who is gay and who is not? Me and a same sex friend, both heterosexuals, could decide to become roommates, falsely declare our "gayness" and reap the benefits of insurance and welfare.

Good point. Let's allow the same-gender couples to marry and then we won't have that dilemma. :)

Whereas an opposite sex couple could simply shack up and at least we would have a modicum of a clue that perhaps here is a couple who are providing the proper and uniquely beneficial male and female role models.

The "shacking up" couple is, perhaps, providing beneficial role models?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...