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.<\/p>\n
This lack of “fairness” was,\u00a0of course, always <\/em>known to be the case.\u00a0 Even the original repeal implementation plans<\/a> noted such benefits would never be recognized so long as the Defense of Marriage Act remained law.<\/p>\n Some had even said that was the point <\/em>of the homosexual movement’s focus on DADT repeal:\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 In short, some critics of DADT repeal may soon\u00a0be able to say, “I told you so.”<\/p>\n With regard to financial family benefits like housing pay, the issue is far more complex.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The actual <\/em>disparity in BAH at Fort Bragg for an E-5<\/a> — the information provided in the article — is $123.\u00a0 Different, yes, but on a far different scale than the figure cited that was 10 times as much.\u00a0 Alexander’s actual <\/em>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<\/em> housing allowance, just like every other soldier recognized as “unmarried” under federal law.<\/p>\n In addition, some single troops already <\/em>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).\u00a0 Opening that can to grant same-sex relationships the equivalent of dependent pay may rub salt in old wounds completely unrelated to sexuality.<\/p>\n With regard to issues as sensitive as death notifications, it is tragic in many regards.\u00a0 Whether someone is a “best friend,” step-relative, a “serious” girl\/boyfriend, or even a fianc\u00e9, military policies are clear:\u00a0 the spouse (as defined by law) is notified first, or in their absence, it moves to blood relatives.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n If one’s standard is based merely on granting legitimacy to homosexual relationships, then the changes can be far more focused.\u00a0 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<\/em> servicemembers who may face an equally tragic situation.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>.\u00a0 That the stories were so widely picked up indicates the attention “value” the media sees in stories of homosexual persecution.<\/p>\n That the stories were so favorably and sympathetically told is indicative of the cultural narrative that assumes homosexuality is the new normal.\u00a0 People who think otherwise — even if for moral or religious reasons — don’t seem to be worthy of respect.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n