{"id":25920,"date":"2013-11-11T02:00:40","date_gmt":"2013-11-11T05:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=25920"},"modified":"2016-11-26T00:26:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T03:26:53","slug":"homosexuals-complain-of-denial-of-marriage-leave","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/11\/11\/homosexuals-complain-of-denial-of-marriage-leave\/","title":{"rendered":"Military Homosexuals Complain of Denial of Marriage Leave"},"content":{"rendered":"

The LA Times<\/em>, repeated in the Stars and Stripes<\/a><\/em>, reports that some homosexuals in the US military have complained they were denied access to the leave to which they were entitled.<\/p>\n

The special leave — subsequently renamed an “administrative absence” — for homosexuals to travel to areas they can obtain a marriage license was ordered by the DoD to “level the playing field” with heterosexuals who, presumably, were allowed to marry in the immediate locale of a military facility.<\/p>\n

While the repeal of DADT was previously<\/em> described as a “non-event,” the LA Times<\/em> now (dramatically) describes the military as struggling<\/em> with the changes:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

The uncertainty illustrates the sweeping changes that the military is grappling with since the Obama administration and Congress lifted the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in 2012 and the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The article notes the services have yet to fully explain how they are implementing the “administrative absence” authorized by the Secretary of Defense.\u00a0 The Air Force didn’t publicize its plan<\/a> for its “same sex marriage policy” until mid-October — and subsequently republished the guidance to emphasize<\/a><\/p>\n

The rules apply equally to same sex and opposite sex couples.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Army continued to emphasize the leave was accessible only to homosexuals<\/a>.\u00a0 A Keesler Airman was denied the pass but allowed to use personal leave; her response:<\/p>\n

She said: \u201cLet\u2019s say I married a man, I\u2019m sure I wouldn\u2019t be having any of these holdups.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That’s an odd statement, given that a heterosexual would have only<\/em> had personal leave to use, not a unique “administrative absence.”<\/p>\n

The article also cites two homosexuals who were\u00a0denied leave while they were deployed, which is common policy\u00a0for all deployed servicemembers.\u00a0 Normally,\u00a0only emergency leave is\u00a0authorized for immediate family members who are dying.\u00a0 Apparently, the appeals for leave in the AoR were poorly received by fellow Soldiers, with one Lieutenant saying [emphasis added]<\/p>\n

\u201cmany people\u201d in her unit \u201chad commented negatively<\/strong>\u201d since the Pentagon announced the policy. \u201cI actually have been told that \u2018your situation shouldn\u2019t make you special<\/strong>,\u2019\u201d she said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That statement, combined with the LA Times<\/em> characterization of a military “grappling” with changes, is a stark contrast to the 2 years of “non-event” news coverage of homosexuals in the US military to date.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n