A veritable plethora of articles were published over the weekend highlighting the fact “spouses” of homosexual service members don’t have access to the benefits of heterosexual married families.

• On January 19th, multiple media sites noted homosexual Ashley Broadway had declined the invitation of the Fort Bragg spouse’s group to be a “special guest.”  Broadway doesn’t meet the group’s criteria for membership as she isn’t a military spouse.
• The same day, the New York Times told the story of US Army Lt Nakisha Hardy, who was awkwardly asked to leave a chaplain-run marriage retreat because she was a homosexual.
• The next day, the Associated Press highlighted US Army Sgt Karen Alexander’s financial struggles, as she doesn’t get family pay rates that married troops do.
• On the same day, the Stars and Stripes republished a local paper’s article noting homosexual National Guard member SSgt Tracy Dice is “not considered war widow,” though her “wife” was killed in Afghanistan.

This lack of “fairness” was, of course, always known to be the case.  Even the original repeal implementation plans noted such benefits would never be recognized so long as the Defense of Marriage Act remained law.

Some had even said that was the point of the homosexual movement’s focus on DADT repeal:  Their goal was to use the “tragedy” of the military homosexual as a “wedge issue” to advance an otherwise stagnated pursuit of “rights” based on sexuality.

The story of the homosexual asked to leave a chaplain’s retreat — presumably a US Army “Strong Bonds” event — bears further examination at a future date.  In short, some critics of DADT repeal may soon be able to say, “I told you so.”

With regard to financial family benefits like housing pay, the issue is far more complex.  For one thing, the NYT quoted a $1,300 per month disparity between married and single pay — a figure so unlikely as to be laughable.  The actual disparity in BAH at Fort Bragg for an E-5 — the information provided in the article — is $123.  Different, yes, but on a far different scale than the figure cited that was 10 times as much.  Alexander’s actual issue is that, as a single Soldier, she hasn’t been approved to live off base — meaning if she chooses to do so, she receives no housing allowance, just like every other soldier recognized as “unmarried” under federal law.

In addition, some single troops already complain it is “unfair” for a single servicemember to get less housing allowance than one with dependents (or none at all, if they are required to live in the barracks).  Opening that can to grant same-sex relationships the equivalent of dependent pay may rub salt in old wounds completely unrelated to sexuality.

With regard to issues as sensitive as death notifications, it is tragic in many regards.  Whether someone is a “best friend,” step-relative, a “serious” girl/boyfriend, or even a fiancé, military policies are clear:  the spouse (as defined by law) is notified first, or in their absence, it moves to blood relatives.

If one’s standard for changing that process is compassion for the “most important person in their life,” then the changes must be wide-ranging — not merely based on current events focused on sexuality.

If one’s standard is based merely on granting legitimacy to homosexual relationships, then the changes can be far more focused.  In that case, however, advocates lose the moral high ground, because they are motivated to benefit solely a group that identifies based on sexuality — rather than trying to benefit all servicemembers who may face an equally tragic situation.

The overlapping stories in the articles seem to indicate they were produced from the same public relations push, likely from one of the military homosexual advocacy groups like OutServe-SLDN or the AMPA.  That the stories were so widely picked up indicates the attention “value” the media sees in stories of homosexual persecution.

That the stories were so favorably and sympathetically told is indicative of the cultural narrative that assumes homosexuality is the new normal.  People who think otherwise — even if for moral or religious reasons — don’t seem to be worthy of respect.

ADVERTISEMENT