Homosexual Advocacy Group Pushes for Benefits
In perhaps the most dismissed — and yet most widely predicted — response to the repeal of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a homosexual advocacy group is pushing for military benefits currently denied to homosexuals.
Far from simply relying on the eventual undoing of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the military can actually grant benefits consistent with the law:
For example, legal experts at SLDN argue that married housing benefits can’t be extended to same-sex couples (because that payout is outlined in federal law), but determining who is eligible to live in military family housing (governed by department regulations) could include those couples without running afoul of DOMA.
Basically, the group says “married” housing can’t be granted to homosexuals, but the military isn’t limited to having only “married” housing.
Military officials have said that gay servicemembers with children can live on base with their same-sex partner if that partner is the designated caregiver, since military regulations allow that caregiver to be someone besides a spouse (a sister or grandparent, for example).
They’re right.
Current military policy allows, for example, a military member to host his mother-in-law as a dependent, or a sister as a nanny. Since “anyone” can be granted access to military housing, even if they’re not “married” to the servicemember, the SLDN argues homosexuals can, too. While this is a far cry from the original intent of the policy, it certainly falls within its scope.
The group is encouraging the military to write all of its policies this way. This would essentially “skirt” the Defense of Marriage Act by removing marriage from the equation.
Of course, when questions like this were asked during the “training” leading to repeal, the unanimous answer from military leadership was that DOMA made it moot, therefore it wasn’t worth discussing.
Seems the SLDN disagrees.
How is this a ‘far cry from the original intent’?
You’re suggesting the intent was to allow some Americans to serve, but not allow them the rights that other Americans enjoy, because certain other Americans have religious beliefs that must be respected?
How is it that a religious belief has the power to take away someone else’s rights?
@gwen hughes
The original intent of the policy at issue — the one that allows persons not married to the military member to live in their on-base house — was to allow those military members to sponsor parents, siblings, or other family members as dependents or as caregivers for their minor children. It is a “far cry” from that intent to use it to allow people to live in a sexual relationship in base housing outside of marriage.
To address your other point, if it is being read correctly, there is no absolute right to sexual conduct. Society has recognized “the power to take away” what you seem to consider a “right.”
Hi JD. Thank you for your post.
Of course there is an absolute, inalienable right to sexual conduct. Society has no right to take away a person’s sexuality. A person may choose to deny himself for whatever reason, but whether he expresses himself sexually or not is his choice. Obviously, in restricted environments, choosing to be sexual could have unwanted consequences; but now we’re arguing punishment and not volition.
Now, replace sexuality with religion in the paragraph above.
I do recognize limits to sexual behavior, such as unwanted and abhorrent sexual advances. These of course are illegal assaults or batteries or rape. Even so, initially, society offers information about what could happen to the individual should he behave sexually; the punishment (or not) comes after the act. In fact we recognize that punishment, though always a possibility, is not a certainty.
Again, swap out sexual and replace with religion.
In the first paragraph, about DOMA, I just see it differently. If gay troops may not marry, then they may *never* enjoy this right that married heterosexuals couples do. The intent is that only married couples should have these privileges. Yes, SLDN will press the issue of caregiver rights, and probably prevail, because the rules were already existent.
But this is unsatisfactory and would only be a temporary solution. It requires a gay couple to have children in order to share quarters; it allows gay couples with children to co-habitate without being married; and it does not allow unmarried straight couples with children to co-habitate. So the standard would be different for each group: Children for one, marriage for the other.
At some point, some smart person will ask, “Why do gay people need to produce children in order to prove their commitment to each other, but straight people don’t?”
But we might not agree about most of this. It’s okay, I don’t expect to persuade you. Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope I haven’t offended you in any way.
Oh noes! Imagine the horror of children growing up with both their parents! This is an outrage and must be stopped. It is obviously far better for a child to be separated from one parent and placed in some sort of facility while the other one works.
Once again, we see the “protect the family” crowd do everything they possibly can to break up actual families that really do exist. It is downright evil.
Pingback: God and Country » DADT: Gray Areas and Military Benefits