{"id":21443,"date":"2013-02-12T02:12:52","date_gmt":"2013-02-12T05:12:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=21443"},"modified":"2016-11-26T01:52:15","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T04:52:15","slug":"secretary-of-defense-outlines-new-benefits-for-homosexuals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/12\/secretary-of-defense-outlines-new-benefits-for-homosexuals\/","title":{"rendered":"Secretary of Defense Outlines New Benefits for Homosexuals"},"content":{"rendered":"

Woe to those who call evil good
\nand good evil,
\nwho put darkness for light
\nand light for darkness,
\nwho put bitter for sweet
\nand sweet for bitter!
\nIsaiah 5:20<\/a> (ESV)<\/em><\/p>\n

As part of the effort to ensure everyone gets treated “with equal dignity and respect,” outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has announced<\/a> access to military benefits available only to homosexuals:<\/p>\n

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…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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

According to the SecDef memo<\/a> (PDF<\/a>),<\/p>\n

These [new] benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners and, where applicable, children of same-sex domestic partners, once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The new DoD policy emphasizes these benefits are available only to homosexuals<\/em>.\u00a0 Heterosexuals cannot <\/em>sign the same statement and gain access to military benefits.<\/p>\n

The Defense of Marriage Act<\/a> defines both “marriage” and “spouse” in heterosexual terms, so to meet the letter of the law, the DoD had to grant these benefits without regard to either “marriage” or “spouse.”\u00a0 Thus, they simply created a form people can sign to say they are in a “committed relationship,” allowing benefits to be granted irrespective of those terms.<\/p>\n

But…you can only do that if you are a\u00a0homosexual<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Heterosexual troops are not <\/em>permitted to attest to a “committed relationship” and gain access to military benefits.\u00a0 While this may seem a small issue to those not associated with the military, the issue of marriage and military benefits has long been a sore spot for heterosexuals, too.<\/p>\n

In just one example, many military couples actually have two <\/em>wedding dates:\u00a0 One for the Justice of the Peace, one for the “church wedding.”\u00a0 Most often, the JoP wedding was done to get the necessary paperwork (marriage license) to get a “future” spouse on some type of military\u00a0orders (for household moves, wait lists, etc.).\u00a0 Troops today would probably love <\/em>to avoid that complexity and simply sign a sheet of paper saying they are “committed.”<\/p>\n

But they can’t.\u00a0 Unless they’re homosexual.<\/p>\n

Same goes for the long-term live-in girlfriend.\u00a0 If her military better-half is a homosexual woman, she can get military benefits.\u00a0 If her other half is a heterosexual man, she can’t.<\/p>\n

Intentionally or not, the military may have placed itself in the position of granting special <\/em>rights to a select <\/em>group\u00a0based solely on their sexuality — something it was reportedly trying to avoid.\u00a0 The services have until October 1st to implement this policy change.<\/p>\n

The intentions of the policy are certainly understandable.\u00a0 Once an institution openly accepts behavior it once decried<\/a>, it undermines any reason it may have had for treating the two groups (those who behaved thusly, and those who did not) differently.<\/p>\n

Thus, the policy\u00a0may be\u00a0logical — but it is a logic that should not have been necessary.\u00a0 When Jesus was questioned about divorce, he gave an explanation that follows this same theme, saying divorce was never intended to be an option:<\/p>\n

[Jesus] answered, \u201cHave you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, \u2018Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh\u2019? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate<\/strong>.\u201d (Matthew 19<\/a>, ESV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When the Pharisees pressed him on why, then,\u00a0Moses created policies on divorce, Jesus basically says their own sinfulness made the rules necessary <\/em>— they didn’t make divorce right<\/em>.\u00a0 In other words, the complexities of divorce would never have been necessary if man had followed God to begin with.<\/p>\n

Another modern similarity is the moral quagmire of stem cells.\u00a0 Whether or not a stem cell line should be used or destroyed is suddenly a morally complex question — but only because no one stopped at the first <\/em>moral question: whether it is right to create a life for the sole purpose of destroying it.<\/p>\n

Modern society’s machinations around homosexuality are little different.\u00a0 It is “necessary” to create complex rules about what names go on birth certificates, who gets access to what benefits, and the “fairness” of treating diametrically opposed behaviors “equally” only because society has abandoned God’s original plan.<\/p>\n

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God…Claiming to be wise, they became fools…<\/p>\n

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie…<\/p>\n

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men… (Romans 1<\/a>, ESV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This observation is actually fairly common, as with Dr. Benjamin Carson who recently recounted at the National Prayer Breakfast the immorality of Rome contributing to its destruction<\/a>.\u00a0 While many see it, most simply sigh in disappointment over the direction American society has gone.\u00a0 Ironically, this “disappointment” may be common not only in society, but also within the military: The Christian Post <\/em>says Secretary Panetta declined to allow homosexuals to use military housing not for legal reasons — but because it would be “unpopular within the ranks<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

In society, what was once forbidden eventually became ignored, then tolerated, accepted, protected, and finally promoted.\u00a0 In less than a generation homosexuality has transited the scale from being considered unnatural to\u00a0celebrated.\u00a0 What was once called “evil” is now called “good.”\u00a0 It is a telling commentary on the righteousness of mankind.<\/p>\n

The opposite path can be true, too, of course.\u00a0 Christianity was once promoted, then protected, accepted, now barely tolerated…<\/p>\n

With reference to AF.mil<\/a>\u00a0and the Military Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n