Since the Supreme Court overturned a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, many outlets have run news\u00a0stories about\u00a0homosexuals obtaining military benefits, some published by the military itself.<\/p>\n
The US Army made a point of publishing a press release highlighting that “Same-sex spouses of Soldiers now receiving benefits<\/a>.”\u00a0 It also reiterated the controversial “gay leave” policy:<\/p>\n Soldiers assigned to duty stations within the continental United States will be afforded up to seven days of non-chargeable leave to travel to a state where marriage is legal, while those outside the United States may receive up to 10 day of leave.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Senator\u00a0Jim Inhofe (R-Ok) \u00a0took the Department of Defense to task for this “benefit” granted by the military that one has to be homosexual to receive.\u00a0 The DoD responded by changing the name to “administrative absence.”<\/a>\u00a0 Inhofe was not pleased:<\/p>\n Not only does the Secretary fail to disclose his authority to create this administrative leave benefit but it still violates their own expressed policy\u2026that they will \u2018treat all military personnel equally.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n An Air Force Airman\u00a0is currently a plaintiff in a lawsuit<\/a> against the military over benefits.\u00a0 Despite the benefits now being granted, he had planned to maintain the suit until the VA likewise started granting benefits.<\/p>\n A few National Guard units<\/a> — which generally fall under State, not Federal, law — have refused to grant military benefits<\/a> to homosexuals in their states<\/a>.\u00a0 Given that their state Constitutions<\/a> do not recognize homosexual relationships as a marriage, the situation is perhaps predictable.<\/p>\n The Air Force publicized<\/a>\u00a0the first “join spouse” assignment<\/a>\u00a0for a homosexual couple<\/a>, with the DoD officially “announcing” the assignments<\/a> — something it would probably otherwise argue violates the privacy of those involved.\u00a0 “Join spouse” is the military’s attempt to station two (married) active duty members at the same location.<\/p>\n It seems the repeal of DADT was a newsworthy\u00a0“non-event<\/a>.”<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n