PDA

View Full Version : Gay troops can be authorized up to 10 days of "marriage leave"



SomeRandomGuy
08-14-2013, 08:17 PM
When I first saw this headline I was thinking it might be a joke article from duffleblog. Then I opened the link and realized this is actually true. So now the DoD is providing benefits for Gay troops and even giving them entitlements that straight airmen are not eligible for.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130814/BENEFITS/308140021/Some-gay-troops-get-extra-marriage-leave

Silverback
08-14-2013, 08:32 PM
I just read the article. It looks like there are a bunch of rules and conditions. Not all gays will have those free days of leave though. If they are within 100 miles of a state that performs same sex marriage then they do not get the free days of leave. I am more understanding of the overseas policy vs. the stateside policy.

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 08:42 PM
Not only do they get uncharged leave, they also get retroactive bennies...wonder how much THAT will cost the DoD...

TJMAC77SP
08-14-2013, 08:47 PM
I have no problem with same-sex marriages but how is this 'equal treatment'?

20+Years
08-14-2013, 08:47 PM
Holy nut bags. So if a couple is 120 miles away from a state that has gay marriage, they get 7 days??? Let me restate... drive 2 hours, get married, and recieve 7 days of leave. Oh hell nah. That is plain and simple wrong. These blanket policies are B.S. I am not against giving them leave for a service not in the area they should be all rights be entitled too, but make it reasonable. Within 8 hrs = 3 days, ect. Basically, I see us now advocating honeymoon time for only gay troops.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-14-2013, 08:52 PM
I'm filing a mental anguish claim for having to suppress my gayness.

How much money do you think I can get?

Silverback
08-14-2013, 08:54 PM
20+Years,

I agree with you. It makes sense for overseas assignments but not for CONUS.

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 08:58 PM
Ok, after the inital reaction, wouldn't the supreme court ruling ALSO include heterosexual couples? If say you were stationed overseas and wanted to get married, you should be GIVEN 10 days of leave to go home and get hitched right? It does state that the DoD is required to treat all couples who are married under STATE law equally. So if heterosexuals have to take leave to go back to the U.S. to get married, why wouldn't a homosexual? Woudn't a heterosexual that wanted to elope and didn't live within 100 miles of NV be eligible for 7 non-chargable days of leave in Vegas? After all, it is those discrimmanatory state laws that prevent them from getting married TODAY....

TSgt"M"
08-14-2013, 09:00 PM
Wow, I'm speechless. Let them get married on their own time. That's what we all have to do.

20+Years
08-14-2013, 09:04 PM
Ok, after the inital reaction, wouldn't the supreme court ruling ALSO include heterosexual couples? If say you were stationed overseas and wanted to get married, you should be GIVEN 10 days of leave to go home and get hitched right? It does state that the DoD is required to treat all couples who are married under STATE law equally. So if heterosexuals have to take leave to go back to the U.S. to get married, why wouldn't a homosexual? Woudn't a heterosexual that wanted to elope and didn't live within 100 miles of NV be eligible for 7 non-chargable days of leave in Vegas? After all, it is those discrimmanatory state laws that prevent them from getting married TODAY....

No, it won't work both ways, as heterosexual marriage will be offered wherever we are. This only applies to the service not being offered in your location, not just choosing "where" you want to be hitched.

Once all states pass gay marriage (if they ever do), it will kill this policy stateside.

TJMAC77SP
08-14-2013, 09:05 PM
20+Years,

I agree with you. It makes sense for overseas assignments but not for CONUS.

Why does it makes sense in any case?

An AF member is assigned overseas. He/She meets a civilian (of the oppostie sex) on line (or they are dating before departure on the overseas assignment). After several months they realize they are in love and decide to get married. What do they do? Well, they can wait until the military member's DEROS and is back in the CONUS or he/she can take ordinary leave and get married...............................exactly why couldn't a same sex couple do the same (without the special considerations)?

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 09:12 PM
No, it won't work both ways, as heterosexual marriage will be offered wherever we are. This only applies to the service not being offered in your location, not just choosing "where" you want to be hitched.

Once all states pass gay marriage (if they ever do), it will kill this policy stateside.

Apparently you didn't actually read my post... If you are stationed let's say in Germany-and want to get married. A homosexual gets to go back to the states without taking (chargable) leave whereas a heterosexual has to take (chargable) leave. They could literally be getting married in the same courthouse/church but one has to take leave and the other doesn't. Either couple CAN legally get married in Germany-IF they are willing to wait at least 9 weeks and jump through dozens of hoops... Regardless of the eligibility to get married, the Supreme Court said the DoD has to recognize STATE marriages-not international.

Stateside-a homosexual can get 7 days free because state law prevents them from getting married. A heterosexual that wants to get married tomorrow doesn't get 7 free days because state law prevents them from getting married (in that timeline).... Bit more of a stretch I will grant you but either way, it is the variation in state law that prevents the marriage.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-14-2013, 09:16 PM
Why does it makes sense in any case?

An AF member is assigned overseas. He/She meets a civilian (of the oppostie sex) on line (or they are dating before departure on the overseas assignment). After several months they realize they are in love and decide to get married. What do they do? Well, they can wait until the military member's DEROS and is back in the CONUS or he/she can take ordinary leave and get married...............................exactly why couldn't a same sex couple do the same (without the special considerations)?

Are you suggesting that law makers use common sense when crafting the rules?

Now that is just preposterous! Don't you know that first you have to score points with your special interest group by attempting to reward them extra bennies, then you wait till one of your opponents objects to your legislation, then you trash them in the press for being bigoted.

Common sense has nothing to do with it. It is all kabuki theater.

SomeRandomGuy
08-14-2013, 09:19 PM
Holy nut bags. So if a couple is 120 miles away from a state that has gay marriage, they get 7 days??? Let me restate... drive 2 hours, get married, and recieve 7 days of leave. Oh hell nah. That is plain and simple wrong. These blanket policies are B.S. I am not against giving them leave for a service not in the area they should be all rights be entitled too, but make it reasonable. Within 8 hrs = 3 days, ect. Basically, I see us now advocating honeymoon time for only gay troops.

This is the craziest part to me. 100 miles is not all that far. Like you said basically gay people get honeymoon leave now. The other thing I find interesting is the retroactive benefits. That is going to be a nightmare. Let's say for example I am gay and I have been living with my boyfriend in Ohio for 5 years. Since Ohio doesn't recognize same sex marriage we are not married. This policy says I can get retroactive benefits but it doesn't mention what I need to do. In order for retroactive pay do I have to get married right now? What if because of time constraints we are unable to get married until next year? Do I still get retroactive benefits even for the time we are not married? How can that possibly be legal?

20+Years
08-14-2013, 09:29 PM
Apparently you didn't actually read my post... If you are stationed let's say in Germany-and want to get married. A homosexual gets to go back to the states without taking (chargable) leave whereas a heterosexual has to take (chargable) leave. They could literally be getting married in the same courthouse/church but one has to take leave and the other doesn't. Either couple CAN legally get married in Germany-IF they are willing to wait at least 9 weeks and jump through dozens of hoops... Regardless of the eligibility to get married, the Supreme Court said the DoD has to recognize STATE marriages-not international.

Stateside-a homosexual can get 7 days free because state law prevents them from getting married. A heterosexual that wants to get married tomorrow doesn't get 7 free days because state law prevents them from getting married (in that timeline).... Bit more of a stretch I will grant you but either way, it is the variation in state law that prevents the marriage.

Look here skippy. I read your post. My level of comprehension may be in question, but whatever. Regardless we are on the same page.

Shaken1976
08-14-2013, 09:35 PM
10 days seems a bit excessive. I drove to Texas, got married, and went back to work the next day. If I had 10 days I could have gone home and had my family witness it. I am going to blame my not getting 10 days on the failure of my marriage. Had I gotten ten days my marriage would have survived. Lol

imported_wtrwlkr
08-14-2013, 09:47 PM
This is the craziest part to me. 100 miles is not all that far. Like you said basically gay people get honeymoon leave now. The other thing I find interesting is the retroactive benefits. That is going to be a nightmare. Let's say for example I am gay and I have been living with my boyfriend in Ohio for 5 years. Since Ohio doesn't recognize same sex marriage we are not married. This policy says I can get retroactive benefits but it doesn't mention what I need to do. In order for retroactive pay do I have to get married right now? What if because of time constraints we are unable to get married until next year? Do I still get retroactive benefits even for the time we are not married? How can that possibly be legal?

I would imagine the retroactive benefits would apply to same-sex couples who were married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, yet couldn't recieve benefits normally given to military spouses due to the defense of marriage act, which goverened federal marriage benefits and defined marriage to opposite sex couples only. I agree that it's going to be a nightmare to process, but I think it's the right thing to do. I'm on the fence regarding the leave. 10 days is pretty excessive, unless you're CONUS and waiting on Space-A. I appreciate the DOD trying to reduce the hardships same-sex couples face living in a state that doesn't recognize marriage equality, but it seems like the "extra" benefit provided here might do more harm than good, and reduce the strength of the argument same-sex couples make for being equal. If I were in a same-sex relationship and wanted to get married, I'd probably decline the extra days and just use my chargable leave.

20+Years
08-14-2013, 10:16 PM
10 days seems a bit excessive. I drove to Texas, got married, and went back to work the next day. If I had 10 days I could have gone home and had my family witness it. I am going to blame my not getting 10 days on the failure of my marriage. Had I gotten ten days my marriage would have survived. Lol

Lol... when I was early in my career, we didn't get the "bonding" time a father gets now for a newborn. I say its the AFs fault I never bonded with my kid.

sharkhunter
08-14-2013, 11:56 PM
How about making it fair this way...
If a servicemember wants to get married and is currently overseas and the country they are currently stationed is a non-english speaking country (which eliminates England and Ireland), then the servicemember should be allowed 10 days PTDY to return CONUS to get married.
This is will be fair for everyone and it'll be safer too.

One question though...what if a servicemember is station in a country where homosexuality is illegal or very hostile towards it? Turkey is one country that is hostile towards homosexuality, but also many Middle Eastern countries are as well. Will the DoD make those assignments dependent restricted tours for those servicemember or give family seperation pay? That seems very unfair to heterosexual couples

technomage1
08-15-2013, 12:31 AM
Why not just make it so chaplains can give binding marriages to anybody? Problem solved....

Absinthe Anecdote
08-15-2013, 12:33 AM
How about making it fair this way...
If a servicemember wants to get married and is currently overseas and the country they are currently stationed is a non-english speaking country (which eliminates England and Ireland), then the servicemember should be allowed 10 days PTDY to return CONUS to get married.
This is will be fair for everyone and it'll be safer too.

One question though...what if a servicemember is station in a country where homosexuality is illegal or very hostile towards it? Turkey is one country that is hostile towards homosexuality, but also many Middle Eastern countries are as well. Will the DoD make those assignments dependent restricted tours for those servicemember or give family seperation pay? That seems very unfair to heterosexual couples

Why is it being a non-English speaking country a stipulation of yours? What does that matter?

How about no free marriage leave at all?

sharkhunter
08-15-2013, 12:35 AM
Why not just make it so chaplains can give binding marriages to anybody? Problem solved....

because while the Government recongizes gay marriage, many religions do not. You cannot make someone who bond by faith to perform something that goes against their teachings.

technomage1
08-15-2013, 12:40 AM
because while the Government recongizes gay marriage, many religions do not. You cannot make someone who bond by faith to perform something that goes against their teachings.

Ok then, make volunteer laypeople eligible. This can be done, I have a friend who, despite being an atheist, performs Star Wars and other science fiction themed weddings. There is paperwork to be filled out depending on the state. So make it federal.

I'd volunteer to perform such weddings. It'd be an honor to join two people who love each other in marriage.

sharkhunter
08-15-2013, 12:41 AM
Why is it being a non-English speaking country a stipulation of yours? What does that matter?

How about no free marriage leave at all?

Because servicemembers might get married to local nationals while stationed Germany, Italy, Turkey, or Holland. Unless you are fluent in the native language, you probably do no any idea what the person performing the cermoney is saying.

sharkhunter
08-15-2013, 12:47 AM
Ok then, make volunteer laypeople eligible. This can be done, I have a friend who, despite being an atheist, performs Star Wars and other science fiction themed weddings. There is paperwork to be filled out depending on the state. So make it federal.

I'd volunteer to perform such weddings. It'd be an honor to join two people who love each other in marriage.

Not sure if volunteer laypeople are recongized in the AF? My old NCOIC was a pastor to his local village church but he wasn't allowed to preach at the base chapel. In any case, the solution to that, just have the weddings off base.

technomage1
08-15-2013, 12:51 AM
Not sure if volunteer laypeople are recongized in the AF? My old NCOIC was a pastor to his local village church but he wasn't allowed to preach at the base chapel. In any case, the solution to that, just have the weddings off base.

Hence the need for TDYs in these cases, I guess.

sandsjames
08-15-2013, 12:56 AM
What if I am stationed in California but want to get married in, say, Texas (a non-alimony State). If I don't like the laws of the State I'm residing in, I should ALSO be given 10 days, or 5 days, or even 1 day.

This law is so freakin' gay. Now if we would only allow 5 year olds to decide which bathroom they use we'd be on the right track. What a fucked up country. Still better than most but going downhill fast.

technomage1
08-15-2013, 01:03 AM
What if I am stationed in California but want to get married in, say, Texas (a non-alimony State). If I don't like the laws of the State I'm residing in, I should ALSO be given 10 days, or 5 days, or even 1 day.

This law is so freakin' gay. Now if we would only allow 5 year olds to decide which bathroom they use we'd be on the right track. What a fucked up country. Still better than most but going downhill fast.

There is a big difference between not liking a law but still being allowed to marry and not be allowed to marry at all. I do feel the length of time should depend on the geographic location, but otherwise I really don't have any heartburn with it.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-15-2013, 01:04 AM
Because servicemembers might get married to local nationals while stationed Germany, Italy, Turkey, or Holland. Unless you are fluent in the native language, you probably do no any idea what the person performing the cermoney is saying.

Then you should have to cope with it on your own.

I thought our gay comrades wanted equal treatment? Hell, I want our gay comrades to be treated equally.

What is with all the extra special considerations?

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all a part of the same compost pile.

SomeRandomGuy
08-15-2013, 01:21 AM
Why not just make it so chaplains can give binding marriages to anybody? Problem solved....

Chaplains can give legally binding marriages. Most chaplains will be happy to officiate the ceremony if you meet their requirements. There was a catholic chaplain at WPAFB that required the couple to come to like 3 counseling sessions first. The only problem is that in order to get married you have to apply for a marriage license from the state. The person who officiates just signs the form. You would still need to be in a state that recognizes same sex marriage.

technomage1
08-15-2013, 01:38 AM
Chaplains can give legally binding marriages. Most chaplains will be happy to officiate the ceremony if you meet their requirements. There was a catholic chaplain at WPAFB that required the couple to come to like 3 counseling sessions first. The only problem is that in order to get married you have to apply for a marriage license from the state. The person who officiates just signs the form. You would still need to be in a state that recognizes same sex marriage.

Physically or just be a resident? I ask because I can become an ordained minister in less than 5 minutes. The next step is to get state approved, but that's pretty easy too.

TSgt"M"
08-15-2013, 02:52 AM
I could go to town on this but...............Just F-ING NUTS. Don't know where to even begin. PC has gone crazy over board. The "Normal" establishment of what we use to know, has to watch the newly recognized catagory of society get more benifits than the rest. I truly fear for our courntry!

Bunch
08-15-2013, 03:03 AM
So whats the deal:

1. You can only take one such leave during your military career.(And it doesn't apply to all couples)

2. Retroactive benefits can only go back to the repeal of DOMA (26 june 2013). So a gay couple could be married for 10 years but they only get retro bennies as of 6-23-13.

Unless you already have something against same sex marriage, there is nothing outrageous going on here. Is just common sense.

BRUWIN
08-15-2013, 04:40 AM
I've heard everything now.

Jumper5
08-15-2013, 04:47 AM
I don't think this policy will last. Getting married...take leave.

What? Treat everybody getting married the same? You're talking madness now.

giggawatt
08-15-2013, 06:19 AM
Because servicemembers might get married to local nationals while stationed Germany, Italy, Turkey, or Holland. Unless you are fluent in the native language, you probably do no any idea what the person performing the cermoney is saying.

If you marry at Ramstein, every local national speaks English. Even if it's "only a little bit".

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 11:52 AM
So whats the deal:

1. You can only take one such leave during your military career.(And it doesn't apply to all couples)

2. Retroactive benefits can only go back to the repeal of DOMA (26 june 2013). So a gay couple could be married for 10 years but they only get retro bennies as of 6-23-13.

Unless you already have something against same sex marriage, there is nothing outrageous going on here. Is just common sense.

The benefits issue aside, it’s anything but common sense. There is now a situation where one group is being allowed an additional benefit (10 days leave) based solely on their sexual preference. THAT is not common sense. It isn't equitable treatment and it is obviously a knee-jerk reaction by an uninformed command. This is exactly what the LGBT community has been fighting against….benefits given to one group and denied another based on sexual preference. In fact, if the community had true integrity they would be fighting against this measure. Let’s sit back and see what happens.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 01:29 PM
Not sure if volunteer laypeople are recongized in the AF? My old NCOIC was a pastor to his local village church but he wasn't allowed to preach at the base chapel. In any case, the solution to that, just have the weddings off base.

Gonna raise the :bsflag: on this one.... ANYONE can "preach" at the base chapel. Wiccans hold "services" at base chapels, athiests hold meetings... All you have to do is schedule it with the chaplain's assistant and have someone else willing to come. He may not meet the criteria to become a chaplain but a lot of (fake) pastors don't...

Giant Voice
08-15-2013, 01:55 PM
Wow, I'm speechless. Let them get married on their own time. That's what we all have to do.

Thats what I'm saying. When I got married, I had to use my PCS leave to do it. Nobody should get free leave to get married. Unless you are marrying Selena Gomez. Then I would give you free days off.

Pueblo
08-15-2013, 02:16 PM
Then you should have to cope with it on your own.

I thought our gay comrades wanted equal treatment? Hell, I want our gay comrades to be treated equally.

They would receive equal treatment if all states recognized constitutional rights. From the DoD's perspective, this is to protect them from valid lawsuits protesting the failure of the DoD to provide equal protection.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 02:26 PM
They would receive equal treatment if all states recognized constitutional rights. From the DoD's perspective, this is to protect them from valid lawsuits protesting the failure of the DoD to provide equal protection.

Interesting, you think 7 free days to travel 201 miles based on sexual preference is "equal treatment". I anxiously await clarification on what Constitutional Right the states don't recognize (except the 2nd Amendment of course)....

Bunch
08-15-2013, 02:28 PM
The benefits issue aside, it’s anything but common sense. There is now a situation where one group is being allowed an additional benefit (10 days leave) based solely on their sexual preference. THAT is not common sense. It isn't equitable treatment and it is obviously a knee-jerk reaction by an uninformed command. This is exactly what the LGBT community has been fighting against….benefits given to one group and denied another based on sexual preference. In fact, if the community had true integrity they would be fighting against this measure. Let’s sit back and see what happens.

It is common sense when its a policy made to protect a targeted group of people.

And to try to file this under "is not equal treatment" give me a break. The military is the land of nobody is equal. Officers get special benefits, enlisted have special benefits, married people get special benefits, people who have children with disabilities get special benefits, skinny people get special treatment and I could go on and on citing examples of instititional policies made to address specific need of a group of service members. This one is no different.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 02:33 PM
They would receive equal treatment if all states recognized constitutional rights. From the DoD's perspective, this is to protect them from valid lawsuits protesting the failure of the DoD to provide equal protection.

Seems to be a disconnect here. I don't believe any court ruling has said that states which don't recognize same-sex marriages are in violation of the Constitution. I actually foresee lawsuits from heterosexual military members as a result of this ruling. Well, in truth lawsuits from the civilian half of said heterosexual couples

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 02:34 PM
It is common sense when its a policy made to protect a targeted group of people.

And to try to file this under "is not equal treatment" give me a break. The military is the land of nobody is equal. Officers get special benefits, enlisted have special benefits, married people get special benefits, people who have children with disabilities get special benefits, skinny people get special treatment and I could go on and on citing examples of instititional policies made to address specific need of a group of service members. This one is no different.

Putting aside the specious argument, is your argument in defense because it is 'protecting a targeted group of people' or because RHIP? I am confused.

wxjumper
08-15-2013, 02:36 PM
When I first saw this headline I was thinking it might be a joke article from duffleblog. Then I opened the link and realized this is actually true. So now the DoD is providing benefits for Gay troops and even giving them entitlements that straight airmen are not eligible for.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130814/BENEFITS/308140021/Some-gay-troops-get-extra-marriage-leaveOnly the bitch, or "female" role player of the relationship will get those 10 days. The "Man" of the relationship will have to take ordinary leave.

Desk Pilot
08-15-2013, 02:38 PM
Plain and simple, this is stupid and wrong. Getting married is a choice. Yes, I get that not all states allow it, but there is no difference traveling to another state because of that and traveling to another state because that's where the bride has decided she wants the wedding. Even those saying that from overseas that it makes sense, I have to disagree. I have an Airman about to get married, having to travel from his overseas assignment. I'm sure he'd love to get these free days instead of burning his personal leave. Stupid idea that is not needed, or if given, needs to be given to all. After all, isn't that what equality is about?

Bunch
08-15-2013, 02:48 PM
Putting aside the specious argument, is your argument in defense because it is 'protecting a targeted group of people' or because RHIP? I am confused.

My arguement is that the DoD and Air Force as institutions have made policies that give special benefits/treatment to a specific group of people and people are acting here like this is the first time such action is taken. Not only is not the first time but IMO is a common sense policy.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 03:18 PM
My arguement is that the DoD and Air Force as institutions have made policies that give special benefits/treatment to a specific group of people and people are acting here like this is the first time such action is taken. Not only is not the first time but IMO is a common sense policy.

Well, if you equate a parking space with leave then your argument makes perfect and common sense. Obviously as I have stated this is anything BUT a common sense policy. A simple apples to apples comparison bears that out.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 03:31 PM
Plain and simple, this is stupid and wrong. Getting married is a choice. Yes, I get that not all states allow it, but there is no difference traveling to another state because of that and traveling to another state because that's where the bride has decided she wants the wedding. Even those saying that from overseas that it makes sense, I have to disagree. I have an Airman about to get married, having to travel from his overseas assignment. I'm sure he'd love to get these free days instead of burning his personal leave. Stupid idea that is not needed, or if given, needs to be given to all. After all, isn't that what equality is about?

Hmmm.....I wonder if he could say he is going to marry a dude, get his free leave, come back with a chick, say he "found" Jesus and decided he was straight, and get to keep the free leave....?

AF_IT
08-15-2013, 03:31 PM
Now I understand the leave is odd for some of you, but the whole "we want to get married in X state too, but we don't get free leave" doesn't hold water. Understand this, we are not "choosing" to travel from one location to another to get married, we have to. We DO NOT have the option of going to the courthouse anywhere in certain states or the surrounding states to get married. Hell, most of us don't want to have to take leave and go to another state to get married, we just want to get married locally and have it done asap.

We have a long way to go before we can say that we are all on equal footing when it comes to this, in the meantime, policies like one helps those of us who are in the minority get the help we need to have something all the rest of you have had for years, and can get done now anytime, at any state, at your pleasure.

Bunch
08-15-2013, 03:32 PM
Well, if you equate a parking space with leave then your argument makes perfect and common sense. Obviously as I have stated this is anything BUT a common sense policy. A simple apples to apples comparison bears that out.

I was thinking more along the line of BAH with dependents, EFMP considerations, Patient travel, special pay and bonuses.

SomeRandomGuy
08-15-2013, 03:36 PM
Hmmm.....I wonder if he could say he is going to marry a dude, get his free leave, come back with a chick, say he "found" Jesus and decided he was straight, and get to keep the free leave....?

Sure why not? In fact couldn't everyone use this awesome new benefit? The next time you have leave planned just inform your supervisor you plan on getting married while you are home. When you get back you can just explain that things didn't work out and he/she left you at the alter. Bam! Free leave. This would also work great for those times when your supervisor is trying to deny your leave for mission reasons. Just pull the gay card and there is no way they will deny your leave. What supervisor wants to be on CNN as the guy who refused to let his gay troop take leave to get married?

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 03:36 PM
Now I understand the leave is odd for some of you, but the whole "we want to get married in X state too, but we don't get free leave" doesn't hold water. Understand this, we are not "choosing" to travel from one location to another to get married, we have to. We DO NOT have the option of going to the courthouse anywhere in certain states or the surrounding states to get married. Hell, most of us don't want to have to take leave and go to another state to get married, we just want to get married locally and have it done asap.

We have a long way to go before we can say that we are all on equal footing when it comes to this, in the meantime, policies like one helps those of us who are in the minority get the help we need to have something all the rest of you have had for years, and can get done now anytime, at any state, at your pleasure.

:bsflag: Man...I have been hoisting it a LOT today... If you are stationed in Germany, you CAN get married in Germany yet you get 10 days to go home to get hitched. A heterosexual CAN get married in Germany, gets ZERO days to go home to get hitched...


Sure why not? In fact couldn't everyone use this awesome new benefit? The next time you have leave planned just inform your supervisor you plan on getting married while you are home. When you get back you can just explain that things didn't work out and he/she left you at the alter. Bam! Free leave. This would also work great for those times when your supervisor is trying to deny your leave for mission reasons. Just pull the gay card and there is no way they will deny your leave. What supervisor wants to be on CNN as the guy who refused to let his gay troop take leave to get married?

Better yet, two people that live in the dorms in overseas could say they are gay, get 10 days free to go back to the states, get married, come back, move out of the dorm AND get retroactive bennies, get an annulment and have had 10 days free vacation, be out of the dorm, and a stack of cash.... Just for claiming to be gay...can't PROVE they weren't now can you?

AF_IT
08-15-2013, 03:39 PM
Sure why not? In fact couldn't everyone use this awesome new benefit? The next time you have leave planned just inform your supervisor you plan on getting married while you are home. When you get back you can just explain that things didn't work out and he/she left you at the alter. Bam! Free leave. This would also work great for those times when your supervisor is trying to deny your leave for mission reasons. Just pull the gay card and there is no way they will deny your leave. What supervisor wants to be on CNN as the guy who refused to let his gay troop take leave to get married?

I think anyone with a brain knows this would never work. It's not like this free leave is going to be a get out of jail free card that can be used at any time and with no credbility.

BOSS302
08-15-2013, 03:43 PM
I think anyone with a brain knows this would never work. It's not like this free leave is going to be a get out of jail free card that can be used at any time and with no credbility.

You need to take your Sarcasm Detection Meter to PMEL for re-calibration.

AF_IT
08-15-2013, 03:46 PM
:bsflag: Man...I have been hoisting it a LOT today... If you are stationed in Germany, you CAN get married in Germany yet you get 10 days to go home to get hitched. A heterosexual CAN get married in Germany, gets ZERO days to go home to get hitched...



So if you are saying that this policy is bullshit only on the grounds thta those who are in oversea locations that do perform same sex marriages still get free leave to the States while heterosexuals don't, I agree. That is an unfair advantage. However, for those of us who are stateside and do not have the option in our State or surrounding States, this argument still doesn't hold water.

AF_IT
08-15-2013, 03:48 PM
You need to take your Sarcasm Detection Meter to PMEL for re-calibration.

I apologize, ha-ha. I have had a long couple of weeks hearing arguments over DOMA and etc., and how unfair it is, and how the US is going straight to shit because of "my kind", etc.,

tiredretiredE7
08-15-2013, 03:52 PM
I think anyone with a brain knows this would never work. It's not like this free leave is going to be a get out of jail free card that can be used at any time and with no credbility.

Wrong. Airmen have been getting married just to get out of the dorms for atleast the past 20 years. This policy is open to being exploited by people dropping the gay card. Imagine the possibilities when compared to heterosexuals who get married and divorced 3 times on average over 20 years. The possibilities are even greater for those claiming to be bisexual.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 03:54 PM
I was thinking more along the line of BAH with dependents, EFMP considerations, Patient travel, special pay and bonuses.

Pay is always different. It is dependent on all sorts of reasons, none of which are based on a group they belong to (as in 'protected group' as you cited).

BAH is similar. Having no spouse or wife is not a protected group. (although there are some here which would argue against the BAH rates being different)

Special pay is based on job and experiance...a very common and universal practice, again not based on membership to a group but rather a skill.

EFMP? Really?! I suppose you could argue that a program should be developed where homosexual members can apply to be stationed in states where same sex marriages are allowed. Otherwise not a valid comparison.

Leave is a universal benefit, until recently with universal allowance and limitations.

Bunch
08-15-2013, 03:55 PM
Wrong. Airmen have been getting married just to get out of the dorms for atleast the past 20 years. This policy is open to being exploited by people dropping the gay card. Imagine the possibilities when compared to heterosexuals who get married and divorced 3 times on average over 20 years. The possibilities are even greater for those claiming to be bisexual.

The article states that a gay military member can only use this leave ONCE during their entire military career.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 03:56 PM
I think anyone with a brain knows this would never work. It's not like this free leave is going to be a get out of jail free card that can be used at any time and with no credbility.

Interesting...so now instead of a CC having to be able to prove you are a Packers fan to kick you out, you now think that you will have to PROVE you are a Packers fan to get free leave? You honestly think that ANY CC out there will question someone that claims to be gay no matter how much they doubt that claim? I have a hard time believing that ANY CC would open themselves up to that kind of complaint. That is a quick ticket to retired land if I have ever seen one....

AF_IT
08-15-2013, 03:57 PM
Wrong. Airmen have been getting married just to get out of the dorms for atleast the past 20 years. This policy is open to being exploited by people dropping the gay card. Imagine the possibilities when compared to heterosexuals who get married and divorced 3 times on average over 20 years. The possibilities are even greater for those claiming to be bisexual.

How many people do you honestly know are gonna "drop the gay card?" That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have never met anyone, personally, whoever claimed to be gay just for a benefit of any kind. For years Airman have claimed to be in love and get married to receive benefits, I agree. But claiming to be gay is different beast altogether. Yeah im sure the possibility is their, but realy ask yourself, is any heterosexual you know really willing to keep up the facade that he or she is gay, for years, or even just a year, to receive federal benefits (and without suspicion of fraud from coworkers.)

Bunch
08-15-2013, 03:57 PM
Pay is always different. It is dependent on all sorts of reasons, none of which are based on a group they belong to (as in 'protected group' as you cited).

BAH is similar. Having no spouse or wife is not a protected group. (although there are some here which would argue against the BAH rates being different)

Special pay is based on job and experiance...a very common and universal practice, again not based on membership to a group but rather a skill.

EFMP? Really?! I suppose you could argue that a program should be developed where homosexual members can apply to be stationed in states where same sex marriages are allowed. Otherwise not a valid comparison.

Leave is a universal benefit, until recently with universal allowance and limitations.

My point still stands... Special considerations are all around our institution.

fog
08-15-2013, 03:58 PM
It seems everywhere you turn there are more stories about being gay than about the mission.

Is this true or am I overreacting?

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 04:06 PM
I've been retired for a couple of years, but has the Air Force become the Gay Force?

It seems everywhere you turn there are more stories about being gay than about the mission.

Is this true or am I overreacting?

Overreacting. Just because something is viewed as more newsworthy doesn't mean it is more prevelant.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 04:12 PM
Now I understand the leave is odd for some of you, but the whole "we want to get married in X state too, but we don't get free leave" doesn't hold water. Understand this, we are not "choosing" to travel from one location to another to get married, we have to. We DO NOT have the option of going to the courthouse anywhere in certain states or the surrounding states to get married. Hell, most of us don't want to have to take leave and go to another state to get married, we just want to get married locally and have it done asap.

We have a long way to go before we can say that we are all on equal footing when it comes to this, in the meantime, policies like one helps those of us who are in the minority get the help we need to have something all the rest of you have had for years, and can get done now anytime, at any state, at your pleasure.

While I agree that there is a long way to go for the equal footing you desire, your argument is as porous as you claim the opposite side's is.

Location of military assignment is not a good enough reason for this additional benefit. When I was in Israel, had I been single (if only……sigh) and met a Jewish girl and desired to marry her, I simply couldn’t. Israel law does not allow for non-Jews and Jews to marry. Most who desire to do so go to Cyprus or some other location. Should someone in that situation be given 10 days of leave to allow them to get married?

There are as many similar examples which could be given, all of which have a common thread….the circumstance of the location of your military service do not warrant an extra leave benefit if it isn’t applied universally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status, sexual orientation or gender identity.

I guess I won’t be holding my breath to see the LGBT community condemning this patently unfair policy.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 04:12 PM
My point still stands... Special considerations are all around our institution.

And your point is still flawed.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 04:17 PM
The article states that a gay military member can only use this leave ONCE during their entire military career.

I see this as an additional fallacy. A troop uses this benefit, gets married and like over 50 percent of his/her straight fellow citizens gets a divorce. Finds themself again in a state where same-sex marriage is not allowed but falls in love and wants to remarry. Now they have to use part of their normal 30 days of leave like everyone else. In the past that wasn't fair but now it is because they used their 'once in a career' choice.

If the benefit is valid because it is fair then it by definition stays fair (until all 50 states or at least those with military bases allow same-sex marriage). It's pretty obvious someone in Big Blue did not take critical thinking in their schooling

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 04:19 PM
Overreacting. Just because something is viewed as more newsworthy doesn't mean it is more prevelant.

I agree. I wasn't around the AF in 1948 but I imagine there were many comments about desegregation flying about. Mind you I don't see a 100% valid comparison but it is similar enough to make a point.

Mjölnir
08-15-2013, 04:43 PM
Thread moved since this is a DoD policy and not unique to the Air Force.

Anon
08-15-2013, 05:27 PM
No, it won't work both ways, as heterosexual marriage will be offered wherever we are. This only applies to the service not being offered in your location, not just choosing "where" you want to be hitched.

Once all states pass gay marriage (if they ever do), it will kill this policy stateside.

Still BS. Basically allowing people a way around the laws of the state they live in. If we're going down this road, I'm gonna need some leave to go home and get a concealed weapon permit (since the state I live in makes it nearly impossible). I'll also need the federal government to force whatever state I go to (as part of military service) to accept the permit from my state of residence.

Pullinteeth
08-15-2013, 05:32 PM
Still BS. Basically allowing people a way around the laws of the state they live in. If we're going down this road, I'm gonna need some leave to go home and get a concealed weapon permit (since the state I live in makes it nearly impossible). I'll also need the federal government to force whatever state I go to (as part of military service) to accept the permit from my state of residence.

That would be pretty sweet huh? However, it isn't the same. They aren't forcing the state in which you reside to recognize the marriage-just the DoD...

Pueblo
08-15-2013, 06:23 PM
there is no difference traveling to another state because of that and traveling to another state because that's where the bride has decided she wants the wedding.

There is indeed a difference. One is determined by legal boundaries preventing nuptuals from taking place in a given state, and accomodation is necessary to provide the equal protection granted by the Supreme Court.

Pueblo
08-15-2013, 06:27 PM
Hmmm.....I wonder if he could say he is going to marry a dude, get his free leave, come back with a chick, say he "found" Jesus and decided he was straight, and get to keep the free leave....?

That is better known as fraud.

TJMAC77SP
08-15-2013, 08:18 PM
There is indeed a difference. One is determined by legal boundaries preventing nuptuals from taking place in a given state, and accomodation is necessary to provide the equal protection granted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court does not provide equal protection, the Constitution does and you are attaching the wrong inference from the SCOTUS ruling regarding the DOMA. It wasn't in relation to the 14th amendment but rather in relation to the 5th amendment.

Rusty Jones
08-15-2013, 08:25 PM
I think the reason that they get 10 days, is because it's considered PTDY. PTDY is always 10 days.

Anon
08-15-2013, 09:56 PM
That would be pretty sweet huh? However, it isn't the same. They aren't forcing the state in which you reside to recognize the marriage-just the DoD...

So, are you suggesting that there are NOT benefits at the state level that you get from being married? One example, unemployment benefits for military spouses due to a PCS. Entitlements vary by state, but some states do provided benefits in these cases. Some of these states may be states that do not allow gay marriage, but will have to provide this benefit to gay spouses just as any other mil spouse. This effectively forces the state to accept that marriage as legal and binding and thus recognize the marriage.

MisterBen
08-16-2013, 12:44 AM
Shouldn't the mods rename this thread from DADT to LGBT?

TJMAC77SP
08-16-2013, 11:52 AM
I think the reason that they get 10 days, is because it's considered PTDY. PTDY is always 10 days.

In the Navy? Can't say that is true in the AF (perhpas an active Airman can answer that)

Mjölnir
08-16-2013, 12:04 PM
Shouldn't the mods rename this thread from DADT to LGBT?

I agree with you & I have been trying to figure that part out.

Pullinteeth
08-16-2013, 01:42 PM
So, are you suggesting that there are NOT benefits at the state level that you get from being married? One example, unemployment benefits for military spouses due to a PCS. Entitlements vary by state, but some states do provided benefits in these cases. Some of these states may be states that do not allow gay marriage, but will have to provide this benefit to gay spouses just as any other mil spouse. This effectively forces the state to accept that marriage as legal and binding and thus recognize the marriage.

If you got that from any of my posts, your reading skills SUCK.
No it doesn't. All it does is force the DoD to recognize them. The state doesn't have to give them any bennies because they got married in another state but the DoD DOES.


I think the reason that they get 10 days, is because it's considered PTDY. PTDY is always 10 days.

You think wrong and no it isn't. PTDY can be almost any lenght though (at least in the AF) a Commander cannot approve PTDY of more than 30 days-that requires higher approval. A VERY typical PTDY that ISN'T 10 days is PTDY taken for househunting AFTER you have relocated. That is (up to) eight days). For separation or retirement, you are authorized up to 20 days (30 if overseas).

Class5Kayaker
08-16-2013, 03:50 PM
Now I understand the leave is odd for some of you, but the whole "we want to get married in X state too, but we don't get free leave" doesn't hold water. Understand this, we are not "choosing" to travel from one location to another to get married, we have to. We DO NOT have the option of going to the courthouse anywhere in certain states or the surrounding states to get married. Hell, most of us don't want to have to take leave and go to another state to get married, we just want to get married locally and have it done asap.

We have a long way to go before we can say that we are all on equal footing when it comes to this, in the meantime, policies like one helps those of us who are in the minority get the help we need to have something all the rest of you have had for years, and can get done now anytime, at any state, at your pleasure.

Seriously flawed logic on your part. Even if someone agrees with your argument (which I do agree....you don't choose where you're assigned so right now you might have to travel to get married), at MOST a gay servicemember should be given 2 days free travel time. One day to fly there, one day to fly back...no matter where they are in the world. Any additional time for the ceremony, honeymoon, etc. should be on their own "dime" (i.e. chargeable leave) just like any heterosexual who gets married. Hell, I'd argue that probably close to half (if not more) of the people in the military who get married travel over 100 miles to get hitched (usually to the bride or groom's hometown so the bulk of the friends/family don't have to travel).

This is one of the most ridiculous knee-jerk reaction policies I've seen in my 21+ years in the AF. It is blatant reverse-discrimination. I wonder how long it will be before a staight member has the testicle fortitude to file an IG complaint, congressional complaint, or lawsuit. If you're going to give permissive TDY to gays in order to get married, then give it to heterosexuals as well. That's the only fair way to do it.

Anon
08-16-2013, 05:11 PM
If you got that from any of my posts, your reading skills SUCK.
No it doesn't. All it does is force the DoD to recognize them. The state doesn't have to give them any bennies because they got married in another state but the DoD DOES.

Maybe so....or your assessment is just different than mine. You suggest that states will not be forced to recognize the marriage from another state, and provide some benefits and/or exceptions to state laws. I see it differently. There are benefits that come from the states that are for both active duty and their dependents. Once folks are legally married in another state, I don't see how the state they live in can not recognize their status as a dependent or mil spouse. Maybe this is the missing piece of the discussion. Gay marriage aside, they are becoming dependents of active duty personnel, which comes with it benefits at the state level, which I don't see how the state can not recognize their status and provide benefits/exceptions to state laws. I see this as an indirect recognition of the marriage.

Bumble78
08-16-2013, 05:14 PM
The best solution is obvious. Only allow single people to join the military, at the end of basic training/boot camp or whatever, you are teamed up with someone going to the same career field as you. You are now issued your same sex life partners. That way you can't have babies, you don't have to worry about dependapotimi, you always have a wingman, and if one of you gets in trouble, you both get the punishment. Everyone wins.

Pueblo
08-16-2013, 06:40 PM
The Supreme Court does not provide equal protection, the Constitution does and you are attaching the wrong inference from the SCOTUS ruling regarding the DOMA. It wasn't in relation to the 14th amendment but rather in relation to the 5th amendment.

If that were true, then gay marriages wouldn't be recognized and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

sandsjames
08-16-2013, 06:50 PM
If that were true, then gay marriages wouldn't be recognized and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Exactly!!!!!!! That's why the whole decision is BS! It is true.

TJMAC77SP
08-16-2013, 07:23 PM
If that were true, then gay marriages wouldn't be recognized and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not sure what your referencing as to what is true or not but what I said is true and what you said is wrong. More specifically your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling on the DOMA is wrong.

The equal protection amendment is the 14th. The SCOTUS ruling on DOMA specifically referenced the 5th amendment. In fact, critics have called the court out on this because they DIDN'T address the overarching equal protection argument with their ruling on California's Prop 8. That ruling has not effect outside of California.

efmbman
08-18-2013, 09:55 PM
Seems there is some talk about this in our nation's capitol...


WASHINGTON — Conservative critics are blasting the Defense Department for giving gay troops an early wedding gift: up to 10 days uncharged leave time for same-sex marriages.
Pentagon officials say it’s about fairness, not generosity. Only 13 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriages, creating a hardship for U.S. servicemembers stationed in many parts of the world.

Link to story: http://www.stripes.com/dod-leave-for-same-sex-marriage-criticized-1.236004

Anyone here think a change to the leave policy is forthcoming?

imnohero
08-18-2013, 11:08 PM
Not as long as the whining is restricted to conservative political action groups.

AJBIGJ
08-19-2013, 09:09 PM
I am beginning to think everything that comes from our Federal Government is specifically and carefully designed to fracture and divide us under the holy altar of "diversity" and political correctness. It's as if certain entities have aligned to derive benefit both in their economic status and clout by having us perpetually associating with a collective group of individuals and at the throats of representatives of a collective espousing different philosophies. It is certainly a contributing factor that many individuals' ideologies center on collectivist groupthink and envy. To be fair, most of us generally get sucked into the flow of the dialogue regardless, and play our roles as directly and predictably as pawns on a chessboard.

This is mostly just another example I think here as well. I think there are powerful entities at play here who want LGBT issues at the forefront even when we reach the point where the majority of the opportunities and recognized rights and protections are truly equal. Much like the way certain entities would have us believing the "racial divide" is anywhere close to what was experienced during the Jim Crow era. It is definitely not balanced or fair as policies go, nor do I expect it to be the last one of the like we see in the next decade.

garhkal
08-19-2013, 10:52 PM
When I first saw this headline I was thinking it might be a joke article from duffleblog. Then I opened the link and realized this is actually true. So now the DoD is providing benefits for Gay troops and even giving them entitlements that straight airmen are not eligible for.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130814/BENEFITS/308140021/Some-gay-troops-get-extra-marriage-leave

I agree. It does look like they are trying to give a benefit to Gays that straights don't enjoy. BUT would it be this way if all states allowed gay marriage? Who's to say.


Holy nut bags. So if a couple is 120 miles away from a state that has gay marriage, they get 7 days??? Let me restate... drive 2 hours, get married, and recieve 7 days of leave. Oh hell nah. That is plain and simple wrong. These blanket policies are B.S. I am not against giving them leave for a service not in the area they should be all rights be entitled too, but make it reasonable. Within 8 hrs = 3 days, ect. Basically, I see us now advocating honeymoon time for only gay troops.

Agreed. 1-2 days i can see being "Reasonable". BUT 7 (or 10 days for overseas people) is imo NUTS!.



I agree with you. It makes sense for overseas assignments but not for CONUS.

Why? A lot more overseas countries allow gay marriage. That plus it does not take 7+ days to plan a trip to country X, go there, get married and get back. 3 days i can see, possibly even 5. But 10? Nope.


How about making it fair this way...
If a servicemember wants to get married and is currently overseas and the country they are currently stationed is a non-english speaking country (which eliminates England and Ireland), then the servicemember should be allowed 10 days PTDY to return CONUS to get married.
This is will be fair for everyone and it'll be safer too.

Or just look at the country they are in. Most of Europe allows gay marriage. So if they are stationed in a country allowing it, no need to 'Travel stateside to get married'.



One question though...what if a servicemember is station in a country where homosexuality is illegal or very hostile towards it? Turkey is one country that is hostile towards homosexuality, but also many Middle Eastern countries are as well. Will the DoD make those assignments dependent restricted tours for those servicemember or give family seperation pay? That seems very unfair to heterosexual couples

Damn good question. Imo those who Are gay/lesbian should be restricted from those duty stations "for their own protection".


because while the Government recongizes gay marriage, many religions do not. You cannot make someone who bond by faith to perform something that goes against their teachings.

Very true. But are not 'chaplains supposed to be "Non denominational">


It is common sense when its a policy made to protect a targeted group of people.

And to try to file this under "is not equal treatment" give me a break. The military is the land of nobody is equal. Officers get special benefits, enlisted have special benefits, married people get special benefits, people who have children with disabilities get special benefits, skinny people get special treatment and I could go on and on citing examples of instititional policies made to address specific need of a group of service members. This one is no different.

True, the only real group of people in the mil imo who Don't get any special benefits are straight out single folk.

Married or single parents - priority for leave (from my experience)
Got kids - get a lot more leway in getting into work on time depending on when you muster up cause of 'day care'.
Got kids (or any dependants) get leway in when you get time off to take them where ever..
And so on.


I think anyone with a brain knows this would never work. It's not like this free leave is going to be a get out of jail free card that can be used at any time and with no credbility.

I disagree. Look at all the other instances people have gamed the system and NOT gotten done for it.

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 08:13 PM
I agree. It does look like they are trying to give a benefit to Gays that straights don't enjoy. BUT would it be this way if all states allowed gay marriage? Who's to say?

Me. Unless overseas is now considered a state. Homosexuals get 10 days PTDY if overseas-heterosexuals get ZERO.

garhkal
08-24-2013, 03:33 AM
And as mentioned above, many overseas countries DO allow gay marriage. So why give them 10 days?

sharkhunter
08-25-2013, 12:40 AM
Okay, so let's say a servicemember is serving in a country where being homosexual is illegal (few and far but some still exist). The servicemember decides to take the 10 days leave to get married to their partner, officially being reconginzed as a gay couple now. Does that servicemember have to return to his position or is the servicemember given an emergency assignment out of that country? They legally cannot return to that country without breaking the host country's law. Plus, will this policy now start affecting who gets selected for deployments since the AF now has to ask "Are you straight or not?"

garhkal
08-25-2013, 04:40 AM
Me thinks they didn't think that far.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 06:25 AM
Okay, let's clear this up:

1) There's a certain subset of people who are now allowed to get married, but can only get married in certain states.

2) Military grants them right to take leave so they can travel to one of those states and get married.

Someone please explain to me what the problem is.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 03:42 PM
Okay, let's clear this up:

1) There's a certain subset of people who are now allowed to get married, but can only get married in certain states.

2) Military grants them right to take leave so they can travel to one of those states and get married.

Someone please explain to me what the problem is.

The unique status of the leave being non-chargeable mainly is the issue. Nobody else gets that non-chargeable status for their weddings. It could be worse of course, if this scenario applied more than once for an individual and you suddenly had servicemembers having same-sex marriages and divorces every other week we'd have a much bigger problem (Anyone who tells me "They wouldn't do that" has never witnessed the perpetually pregnant female who has been in desk jobs a full career).

It's imbalanced, probably overcompensating in this instance, apparently the new method of making circumstances fair and equitable is by instituting policies that are unfair and not equitable.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 05:10 PM
The unique status of the leave being non-chargeable mainly is the issue. Nobody else gets that non-chargeable status for their weddings. It could be worse of course, if this scenario applied more than once for an individual and you suddenly had servicemembers having same-sex marriages and divorces every other week we'd have a much bigger problem (Anyone who tells me "They wouldn't do that" has never witnessed the perpetually pregnant female who has been in desk jobs a full career).

It's imbalanced, probably overcompensating in this instance, apparently the new method of making circumstances fair and equitable is by instituting policies that are unfair and not equitable.

It might be overcompensating, and I understand your reasoning - you seem to be one of the more level-headed characters here. But really, why is it something to get upset over? In fact - I imagine that the people loudly complaining in this thread are the same type of people who whine when the sergeant let's PFC Smith go home a little early to spend time with his wife. IMHO they need to get the heck over themselves.

I also find it interesting that the same individuals who talk about competition in the free market and all that stuff - are often the same people who insist the military regiment everything to be equal and 100% fair in all respects, and are totally unable to accept the fact that it doesn't work like that.

Heck, when I was lurking a while back I saw one person - apparently a guy who normally embraces the free market - insist that if the military wants him to have a cell phone, they should give him one for free and pay the monthly bill.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 05:57 PM
It might be overcompensating, and I understand your reasoning - you seem to be one of the more level-headed characters here. But really, why is it something to get upset over? In fact - I imagine that the people loudly complaining in this thread are the same type of people who whine when the sergeant let's PFC Smith go home a little early to spend time with his wife. IMHO they need to get the heck over themselves.

I also find it interesting that the same individuals who talk about competition in the free market and all that stuff - are often the same people who insist the military regiment everything to be equal and 100% fair in all respects, and are totally unable to accept the fact that it doesn't work like that.

Heck, when I was lurking a while back I saw one person - apparently a guy who normally embraces the free market - insist that if the military wants him to have a cell phone, they should give him one for free and pay the monthly bill.

That last is a very strange argument for a free market advocate to make, certainly.

As to the former questions, I guess it depends how upset people are actually getting over this. Me personally not very. Honestly I was more upset when they started giving new dad's paternity leave less than half a year after my son was born while I was smack in the middle of the Gulf, and not throwing in a grandfathering clause. I definitely don't think giving a previously underprivileged subgroup more privileges than everyone else as a form of "compensation" for past broken policies is very sensible. Couple that with the fact that the DOD is in effect assuming responsibility for the different policies that different states have on the issue, which I guess is partially what the role of the Federal Government could be interpreted to be, and isn't unprecedented (BAH differentiating works that way as well).

My honest opinion is that it's really not the DOD's responsibility to help a person deal with personal stuff such as getting married (and so on). It assumes such a role (hence there are different BAH rates for w/ and w/o dependents). To me this is just extra crap that keeps piling on that ensures everyone else gets the short end of the stick so one servicemember can receive benefits they feel they're entitled to get but appears nowhere on their enlistment contract and should not be the obligation of the American taxpayer to specifically subsidize. For me, if I were controlling the DOD budget and my options for a next round of cuts would be either A: This or B: Tenuring thousands of servicemembers' careers earlier than expected, forcing them into new career plans and leaving the rest of us a little more shorthanded, it's crystal clear which of the two would get sacrificed.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 06:20 PM
That last is a very strange argument for a free market advocate to make, certainly.

As to the former questions, I guess it depends how upset people are actually getting over this. Me personally not very. Honestly I was more upset when they started giving new dad's paternity leave less than half a year after my son was born while I was smack in the middle of the Gulf, and not throwing in a grandfathering clause. I definitely don't think giving a previously underprivileged subgroup more privileges than everyone else as a form of "compensation" for past broken policies is very sensible. Couple that with the fact that the DOD is in effect assuming responsibility for the different policies that different states have on the issue, which I guess is partially what the role of the Federal Government could be interpreted to be, and isn't unprecedented (BAH differentiating works that way as well).

My honest opinion is that it's really not the DOD's responsibility to help a person deal with personal stuff such as getting married (and so on). It assumes such a role (hence there are different BAH rates for w/ and w/o dependents). To me this is just extra crap that keeps piling on that ensures everyone else gets the short end of the stick so one servicemember can receive benefits they feel they're entitled to get but appears nowhere on their enlistment contract and should not be the obligation of the American taxpayer to specifically subsidize.

Military members have the unique situation of not being paid hourly, but 24/7. That means we can go home at noon if we're not needed, or stay out in the field for two months straight, or deploy for a year. Obviously with a crazy schedule like that, its in the military's interest to ensure as many of those members are 100%ready for duty - that includes family problems. That's why it absolutely infuriates me when when other NCOs complain that its not their job to "babysit" the junior enlisted. YES, it is - if your team is combat ineffective because you weren't looking out for them, that harms the whole organization.

For this very reason, the military is a very generous employer, providing benefits that are rare or non-existent in the civilian world. So to me, it sounds petty when people complain about some benefit or another that they don't get. Every single service member is getting a fairly generous deal - it really sounds like a bunch of kids bickering over what flavor of ice cream they're getting that day.


For me, if I were controlling the DOD budget and my options for a next round of cuts would be either A: This or B: Tenuring thousands of servicemembers' careers earlier than expected, forcing them into new career plans and leaving the rest of us a little more shorthanded, it's crystal clear which of the two would get sacrificed.

This is such a tiny group of people, only a portion of which will even use this benefit, I doubt the expense will even be noticable. Our budget problems run much larger than that. Its the equivalent of the Dad who just bought a new RV, car, and motorcycle going into his kids' room and unscrewing all the lightbulbs to "balance the budget".

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 06:53 PM
Military members have the unique situation of not being paid hourly, but 24/7. That means we can go home at noon if we're not needed, or stay out in the field for two months straight, or deploy for a year. Obviously with a crazy schedule like that, its in the military's interest to ensure as many of those members are 100%ready for duty - that includes family problems. That's why it absolutely infuriates me when when other NCOs complain that its not their job to "babysit" the junior enlisted. YES, it is - if your team is combat ineffective because you weren't looking out for them, that harms the whole organization.

For this very reason, the military is a very generous employer, providing benefits that are rare or non-existent in the civilian world. So to me, it sounds petty when people complain about some benefit or another that they don't get. Every single service member is getting a fairly generous deal - it really sounds like a bunch of kids bickering over what flavor of ice cream they're getting that day.

This is such a tiny group of people, only a portion of which will even use this benefit, I doubt the expense will even be noticable. Our budget problems run much larger than that. Its the equivalent of the Dad who just bought a new RV, car, and motorcycle going into his kids' room and unscrewing all the lightbulbs to "balance the budget".

Probably my final comparison was a little bit of an exaggeration, we'll call it hyperbole because it was intended to make a point in principle.

Usually all of these benefits you allude to are there for exactly the reasons you stated, i.e. there is some level of intangible benefits the government receives from offering these tangible benefits in the first place. If a servicemember can't pay his rent for the larger house they have to support a growing family, he won't be as effective a servicemember while he is dealing with these personal issues. Usually the service provides the level of accommodation necessary to resolve this personal business. If it were to get to the point where the person was to become a financial liability, lose a clearance, and face massive legal penalties as a result of "letting it get worse", the DOD tends to lose that servicemember as effectively as if the person was killed in combat or a safety mishap. It's obviously difficult, especially with military manpower, to determine a monetary cost associated with putting an individual in a leave status.

For me, that's where this doesn't quite pass the litmus test, there really isn't a whole lot of intangible returns for the DOD just by the act of a servicemember's ability to get married on the spot this week or next week or next Christmas standown leave period. So with no ROI, why enact the changes in the first place, and why in such a fashion. I wouldn't be one to make a mountain of this molehill discussion, I won't lose sleep over this, I can tell you that much. To me though, it seems to be a very strong argument when someone asks "Why not have exactly the same policy that was discussed, but make the leave chargeable instead?" There really isn't a strong answer supporting the non-chargeable leave element in this circumstance.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 06:57 PM
Probably my final comparison was a little bit of an exaggeration, we'll call it hyperbole because it was intended to make a point in principle.

Usually all of these benefits you allude to are there for exactly the reasons you stated, i.e. there is some level of intangible benefits the government receives from offering these tangible benefits in the first place. If a servicemember can't pay his rent for the larger house they have to support a growing family, he won't be as effective a servicemember while he is dealing with these personal issues. Usually the service provides the level of accommodation necessary to resolve this personal business. If it were to get to the point where the person was to become a financial liability, lose a clearance, and face massive legal penalties as a result of "letting it get worse", the DOD tends to lose that servicemember as effectively as if the person was killed in combat or a safety mishap. It's obviously difficult, especially with military manpower, to determine a monetary cost associated with putting an individual in a leave status.

For me, that's where this doesn't quite pass the litmus test, there really isn't a whole lot of intangible returns for the DOD just by the act of a servicemember's ability to get married on the spot this week or next week or next Christmas standown leave period. So with no ROI, why enact the changes in the first place, and why in such a fashion. I wouldn't be one to make a mountain of this molehill discussion, I won't lose sleep over this, I can tell you that much. To me though, it seems to be a very strong argument when someone asks "Why not have exactly the same policy that was discussed, but make the leave chargeable instead?" There really isn't a strong answer supporting the non-chargeable leave element in this circumstance.

There's always going to be that element of "second guessing." If the military takes #A, there's going to be those who say, "Well why didn't they go with #B?" It seems to me the leadership predicted a potential issue arising from gay marriage, so this policy was put into place proactively to make sure such issues don't happen. Is this a perfect solution? Probably not, but I still applaud the foresight. Too often, as we all know, the military tends to stumble into problems by surprise with no preparation or forethought whatsoever.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 07:15 PM
There's always going to be that element of "second guessing." If the military takes #A, there's going to be those who say, "Well why didn't they go with #B?" It seems to me the leadership predicted a potential issue arising from gay marriage, so this policy was put into place proactively to make sure such issues don't happen. Is this a perfect solution? Probably not, but I still applaud the foresight. Too often, as we all know, the military tends to stumble into problems by surprise with no preparation or forethought whatsoever.

I kind of agree with you there mostly however that non-chargeable leave portion is what upsets the balance and seems to serve no purpose except to fan the flame of envy for those that do get it and the rest that do not. I personally married on my own time and my own dime before re-entering the service and obviously I do not intend to do so again (One goes into marriage with the expectation that it will last, hopefully), so it's not really that big a concern about whether or not I'd be receiving equitable treatment in this scenario. I can just see their point, there's just really no point to that leave being non-chargeable.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 07:23 PM
I kind of agree with you there mostly however that non-chargeable leave portion is what upsets the balance and seems to serve no purpose except to fan the flame of envy for those that do get it and the rest that do not. I personally married on my own time and my own dime before re-entering the service and obviously I do not intend to do so again (One goes into marriage with the expectation that it will last, hopefully), so it's not really that big a concern about whether or not I'd be receiving equitable treatment in this scenario. I can just see their point, there's just really no point to that leave being non-chargeable.

In the grand scheme of things ten extra days in a whole career isn't a big deal.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 08:04 PM
In the grand scheme of things ten extra days in a whole career isn't a big deal.

I agree, but to many that's ten whole days the other side does not, hence the dilemma and the point of contention.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 08:06 PM
I agree, but to many that's ten whole days the other side does not, hence the dilemma and the point of contention.

True, and that goes back to my point that people are too wrapped up around being envious, instead of just being grateful for what they have.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 08:30 PM
True, and that goes back to my point that people are too wrapped up around being envious, instead of just being grateful for what they have.

Maybe to a degree, but it is a certain degree of justified envy nonetheless.

garhkal
08-25-2013, 08:30 PM
The unique status of the leave being non-chargeable mainly is the issue. Nobody else gets that non-chargeable status for their weddings. It could be worse of course, if this scenario applied more than once for an individual and you suddenly had servicemembers having same-sex marriages and divorces every other week we'd have a much bigger problem (Anyone who tells me "They wouldn't do that" has never witnessed the perpetually pregnant female who has been in desk jobs a full career).

It's imbalanced, probably overcompensating in this instance, apparently the new method of making circumstances fair and equitable is by instituting policies that are unfair and not equitable.

Exactly.. The powers that be, see what they feel is an injustice, and in attempting to correct it to make things more equitable, make things more UN-equitable.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 10:52 PM
Exactly.. The powers that be, see what they feel is an injustice, and in attempting to correct it to make things more equitable, make things more UN-equitable.

The underlying question is... how are you harmed by this? It seems to me you're angry that someone else got an icecream cone and you didn't.

To be honest, if I had to spend the last 7 years of my life concealing who I am, out of fear of ridicule, punishment, and other than honorable discharge... all to get ten days of free leave IF I want to get married... uh yeah, not worth it.

garhkal
08-25-2013, 11:00 PM
Whether it harms me or not is not reason to NOT be angry about a freebie being handed out to one 'demographic' of society though.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 11:07 PM
Whether it harms me or not is not reason to NOT be angry about a freebie being handed out to one 'demographic' of society though.

And why is that?

garhkal
08-26-2013, 06:41 AM
Cause to me it's wrong to give something to one group and not others. Regardless of what it is (unless its based on sex due to what they are ie cervical medication to women only).

sandsjames
08-26-2013, 12:58 PM
This John Drake character is starting to remind me of somebody.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 08:40 PM
Okay, let's clear this up:

1) There's a certain subset of people who are now allowed to get married, but can only get married in certain states.

2) Military grants them right to take leave so they can travel to one of those states and get married.

Someone please explain to me what the problem is.

That didn't clear shit up and if you want to know what the problem is, maybe you should learn to read because it has been clearly stated MULTIPLE times...


Military members have the unique situation of not being paid hourly, but 24/7.

If you actually believe that, your stupidity knows no bounds....... As a matter of fact, you might want to wear a helmet-AT ALL TIMES.


In the grand scheme of things ten extra days in a whole career isn't a big deal.

Sweet. Would you like my address so you can send me a check for ten days pay?


This John Drake character is starting to remind me of somebody.

an idiot?

Class5Kayaker
08-26-2013, 09:38 PM
This John Drake character is starting to remind me of somebody.

He even argues/discusses the exact same way. Splitting up someone's paragraph into individually quoted sentences/points. A few on here do that (not many) but the KEY GIVEAWAY is that he quotes the name in the first quote and then leave the name out of the follow-on quotes while countering the OPs points.

Also location says "NATO." My bet is JB deployed and decided to create a new username since he has access to a different IP.

Could be wrong though.....but he does seem awfully familiar.

kool-aid
08-26-2013, 10:34 PM
This John Drake character is starting to remind me of somebody.

And this guy has already almost posted half as many times as me and I have been on here for over a year.

sharkhunter
08-27-2013, 12:16 AM
The underlying question is... how are you harmed by this? It seems to me you're angry that someone else got an icecream cone and you didn't.

.

The fact that I would have to take leave to go get married to my gf and I won't be given these 10 free days as an option. That bothers me more than anything. If you want to make it fair, give everyone the same amount of PTDY for getting married (straight or gay) or give everyone nothing and force them to take leave (as I have to). That way the option is there for people to take it or not. Marriage (straight or gay) is a huge milestone in a person's life and those 10 days can really help in the adjustment to it. Unfortuantely, when I do apply for this PTDY, I will be denied, in which case I will go straight to the congressman/IG and file a disrimination claim against the AF for being unfair to me. The AF should be blind to marriages as it is to other things.
Look at the PTDY more deeply and you'll see there are lots of programs that are open for everyone (regardless of sex, rank, etc). Recruiter's assistant program, WEAR program, etc. We all have the opportunity to these PTDYs once a year every year for as long as we serve. How many have actually taken it? Very few, but its there as an option.
A PCS is another significant change in a servicemember's career and the AF offers PTDY for house hunting, how many actually take it? I personally never have, but the option was there if I really wanted.

sharkhunter
08-27-2013, 12:27 AM
Now here's the flip side to this issue...
Okay, the AF has given gay servicemembers free PTDY to get married. Let's say a few month/years down the line, the relationship doesn't work out. Would they ask for another PTDY to get divorce as well? There are states/countries that do not recongize gay marriages, so they won't recongize gay divorces either. Therefore, they would have to go back to wherever they got married (or somewhere where gay marriage is recongized) in order to get divorce. For heterosexual couples, that's not usually the case. My friend got married in Italy and she was able to get divorced in Germany, remarried in Germany and divorced again in Texas, remarried in Texas and divorced in Colorado. Plain and simple

AF offered them 10 free days to tie the knot and now to untie the knot, they'll have to use up annual leave? Someone is going to cry foul on that one!
Again, in my point of view, it should go back to everyone being offered the same benefit: Want to get married/divorce...take leave. AF should be blinded to that issue

John Drake
08-27-2013, 03:33 AM
The fact that I would have to take leave to go get married to my gf and I won't be given these 10 free days as an option. That bothers me more than anything. If you want to make it fair, give everyone the same amount of PTDY for getting married (straight or gay) or give everyone nothing and force them to take leave (as I have to). That way the option is there for people to take it or not. Marriage (straight or gay) is a huge milestone in a person's life and those 10 days can really help in the adjustment to it. Unfortuantely, when I do apply for this PTDY, I will be denied, in which case I will go straight to the congressman/IG and file a disrimination claim against the AF for being unfair to me. The AF should be blind to marriages as it is to other things.
Look at the PTDY more deeply and you'll see there are lots of programs that are open for everyone (regardless of sex, rank, etc). Recruiter's assistant program, WEAR program, etc. We all have the opportunity to these PTDYs once a year every year for as long as we serve. How many have actually taken it? Very few, but its there as an option.
A PCS is another significant change in a servicemember's career and the AF offers PTDY for house hunting, how many actually take it? I personally never have, but the option was there if I really wanted.

You don't have to travel to another state to get married.

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 04:05 AM
You don't have to travel to another state to get married.

OK. Mods, seriously? What did John Drake do? I've been back and forth with him non-stop for a day and a half, yet the conversations were quite civil and if anything the harassing comments were towards this individual and not from them. I have to wonder if this is a suddenly political stance, and not a violation of the TOS issue.

Cerberus
08-27-2013, 04:12 AM
"john drake" was an alternate account that "tak" was using to circumvent his ban. He was warned earlier today by Bourne to discontinue it's use. Since he did continue this account was also banned.

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 04:15 AM
"john drake" was an alternate account that "tak" was using to circumvent his ban. He was warned earlier today by Bourne to discontinue it's use. Since he did continue this account was also banned.

Ok, well I guess that answers my question at least. I'm still unclear of the original ban but I don't expect to suddenly be brought up to speed on what I missed over several months of deployment.

garhkal
08-27-2013, 05:37 AM
Now here's the flip side to this issue...
Okay, the AF has given gay servicemembers free PTDY to get married. Let's say a few month/years down the line, the relationship doesn't work out. Would they ask for another PTDY to get divorce as well? There are states/countries that do not recongize gay marriages, so they won't recongize gay divorces either. Therefore, they would have to go back to wherever they got married (or somewhere where gay marriage is recongized) in order to get divorce. For heterosexual couples, that's not usually the case. My friend got married in Italy and she was able to get divorced in Germany, remarried in Germany and divorced again in Texas, remarried in Texas and divorced in Colorado. Plain and simple

AF offered them 10 free days to tie the knot and now to untie the knot, they'll have to use up annual leave? Someone is going to cry foul on that one!
Again, in my point of view, it should go back to everyone being offered the same benefit: Want to get married/divorce...take leave. AF should be blinded to that issue

Exactly. That is fair imo. All get it or none get it.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 11:45 AM
"john drake" was an alternate account that "tak" was using to circumvent his ban. He was warned earlier today by Bourne to discontinue it's use. Since he did continue this account was also banned.

I suspected the situation but would have lost money betting on the ID. I still do not understand the establishment of accounts for the sole purpose of posting thoughts and positions which you clearly don't hold simply to troll. As I have said before though, I don't cheat at solitaire either so perhaps that explans my puzzlement.

Class5Kayaker
08-27-2013, 03:02 PM
"john drake" was an alternate account that "tak" was using to circumvent his ban. He was warned earlier today by Bourne to discontinue it's use. Since he did continue this account was also banned.

Man....I had him pegged as being JB, not Tak

technomage1
09-05-2013, 11:29 PM
I just read an article on gay marriage on msnbc this morning. It seems the mayor of Minneapolis, MN - where gay marriage is legal - is courting gay couples in Chicago to go there and tie the knot since they want the revenue (hotels, food, wedding venues, etc) this will bring.

https://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20339643-marry-me-in-minneapolis-mayor-woos-gay-couples

Which brings me to wonder why people are protesting the leave. Say a heterosexual couple wants to get married on Guam (which I've picked because of it's isolation). It will cost them $30 and maybe a half a day of leave. If they so chose, they can go off island but it is a choice.

A homosexual couple has to go off island since Guam doesn't allow gay marriage. They don't have a choice. The closest place that will perform gay marriage is either California or Washington state. It doesn't matter where they want to get married, their options are severely limited. It will cost them three days of leave (international date line) just for travel alone, not to mention the $2,600 airfare, a minimum hotel stay of $65 at the cheapo motel, and the $35-$65 license fee.

So 1/2 day of leave and $30 vs. $2,700 and four days of leave. Now with this policy they get the leave for free but still have to pay the travel costs. Again, they don't have a choice if they want to get married. This is the main difference and why I have no heartburn with them getting the leave for free. They still incur more of a far more of a burden than a heterosexual couple would. The heterosexual couple may chose to incur that financial cost but they don't have to.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 02:23 PM
Which brings me to wonder why people are protesting the leave.


Here you are..



Apparently you didn't actually read my post... If you are stationed let's say in Germany-and want to get married. A homosexual gets to go back to the states without taking (chargable) leave whereas a heterosexual has to take (chargable) leave. They could literally be getting married in the same courthouse/church but one has to take leave and the other doesn't. Either couple CAN legally get married in Germany-IF they are willing to wait at least 9 weeks and jump through dozens of hoops... Regardless of the eligibility to get married, the Supreme Court said the DoD has to recognize STATE marriages-not international.

Stateside-a homosexual can get 7 days free because state law prevents them from getting married. A heterosexual that wants to get married tomorrow doesn't get 7 free days because state law prevents them from getting married (in that timeline).... Bit more of a stretch I will grant you but either way, it is the variation in state law that prevents the marriage.

sandsjames
09-06-2013, 02:25 PM
"john drake" was an alternate account that "tak" was using to circumvent his ban. He was warned earlier today by Bourne to discontinue it's use. Since he did continue this account was also banned.

I do hope you guys realized your error on this. John Drake was definitely NOT Tak. I hope the ban came from the fact that it was just an alt for anybody and not the fact that it was specifically Tak, otherwise it seems you have a little egg on your face.

Mjölnir
09-06-2013, 02:35 PM
I do hope you guys realized your error on this. John Drake was definitely NOT Tak. I hope the ban came from the fact that it was just an alt for anybody and not the fact that it was specifically Tak, otherwise it seems you have a little egg on your face.

John Drake was not an alt for Tak, John Drake was an account created by a different banned former member.

Any alt account will be banned when it is discovered, regardless of who it is.

Sorry for the error and let's get back on topic.

sandsjames
09-06-2013, 02:38 PM
John Drake was not an alt for Tak, John Drake was an account created by a different banned former member.

Any alt account will be banned when it is discovered, regardless of who it is.

Sorry for the error.

Glad to see the apology.

technomage1
09-06-2013, 06:42 PM
Here you are..

Actually Germany only recognizes civil partnerships, which offer most but not all the benefits of marriage. A heterosexual couple there just has to get their state of residence attorney general's department to recognize the marriage. There is some paperwork, yes. Or the couple can use the chaplain too. There is more paperwork if the person is a LN.

A gay couple can do all of that, they're still not married, and thier state may not recognize the partnership anyway. Once again they have limited choices and far more of a burden.

20+Years
09-06-2013, 06:49 PM
I haven't seen this benefit utilized first hand yet. Our CC stated to me we will support (as he/we should), but we are only 20 mins away from a legalized state... so I guess I won't see any takers. Ah hell, nevermind.

technomage1
09-06-2013, 11:08 PM
So, if a non-Jewish guy is stationed in Israel and wants to get married to a local Jewish woman. The only marriages performed in Israel are Orthodox Jewish weddings, they do not perform inter-faith marriages.

Will he get free leave to go get married elsewhere?

How many people does this affect? Seriously, the only permanent party in Israel I know of are the embassy personel. Marine guards must be e5 or below and single, the only people who can get or be married are the guard unit NCOIC and the attaché. So that's two people. If anyone there has ever been affected by this I'd be suprised.

This reminds me of terminal lance a few days back. It was about a different subject but in the comments section explaining the cartoon, the artist wrote:

"It’s kind of like a white guy saying, 'Yeah, I know what it’s like to be black, someone called me a cracker once.'

No, you privileged shit, it’s not the same."

http://terminallance.com/2013/08/30/terminal-lance-290-the-difference-terminology/

Just because something may effect a couple of heterosexuals but does affect the 98% of homosexuals that are stationed outside of areas they can marry - its not the same.

Having said that, if the wording if the policy was changed to that any member who was stationed in an area where they could not marry due to local laws - that would cover everyone. And I do mean could not - not that it's difficult or you have to do paperwork with your home state or whatever. Of course, anyone marrying an LN needs to expect some paperwork, etc. that's just the process.

TJMAC77SP
09-08-2013, 02:07 AM
How many people does this affect? Seriously, the only permanent party in Israel I know of are the embassy personel. Marine guards must be e5 or below and single, the only people who can get or be married are the guard unit NCOIC and the attaché. So that's two people. If anyone there has ever been affected by this I'd be suprised.

This reminds me of terminal lance a few days back. It was about a different subject but in the comments section explaining the cartoon, the artist wrote:

"It’s kind of like a white guy saying, 'Yeah, I know what it’s like to be black, someone called me a cracker once.'

No, you privileged shit, it’s not the same."

http://terminallance.com/2013/08/30/terminal-lance-290-the-difference-terminology/

Just because something may effect a couple of heterosexuals but does affect the 98% of homosexuals that are stationed outside of areas they can marry - its not the same.

Having said that, if the wording if the policy was changed to that any member who was stationed in an area where they could not marry due to local laws - that would cover everyone. And I do mean could not - not that it's difficult or you have to do paperwork with your home state or whatever. Of course, anyone marrying an LN needs to expect some paperwork, etc. that's just the process.

Actually there is a staff of at least 7 (in addition to the attaches) and the AF guy who runs the post office as well as the (usually) three cleared Americans who work the post office who when I was there had to go to Cyprus to get married (well two of the three the third was married and the SSgt was married when he got there). BTW: The two that went to Cyprus had to take vacation to do it.

So, the small numbers negate any of the argument? Can I take that argument over to the Voter ID thread? We might be able to kill two birds with one stone here.

technomage1
09-08-2013, 04:39 AM
Actually there is a staff of at least 7 (in addition to the attaches) and the AF guy who runs the post office as well as the (usually) three cleared Americans who work the post office who when I was there had to go to Cyprus to get married (well two of the three the third was married and the SSgt was married when he got there). BTW: The two that went to Cyprus had to take vacation to do it.

So, the small numbers negate any of the argument? Can I take that argument over to the Voter ID thread? We might be able to kill two birds with one stone here.

OK, so it actually affected some people. Prior to this policy, where was the widespread cry for change? No where, because it only affected a very, very small proportion of the population. Since gays are now allowed to serve and get equal benefits, this affects a large portion of their population. Hence the attention.

Now some heterosexuals are complaining about free leave, as if massive numbers of us had to travel to get married. Again, this isn't the case. Our lot in life is pretty darn easy most of the time and has been for years. We didn't have to hide who we were. We didn't have to pay out of pocket for our partners to relocate, etc. We weren't in danger of losing our jobs because of who we were.

If you read most of the comments, they're "I want to travel to where I want to get married" not "I had to travel to get married". Big, big difference. The two people you mentioned have a legit beef with the policy, as is anyone who is stationed somewhere like that that is affected by it. Anyone else complaining about it is making a mountain out of a molehill and I file their complaints under, "Whining, Pathetic".

If you read my comments closely you'll note I favor changing the policy to include any member - homosexual or heterosexual - that is stationed somewhere they CAN'T get married. This will cover the .05% of heterosexuals affected and the 98% of homosexuals affected. I'm guessing at the numbers, admittedly, but they're probably in the ballpark.

To my mind, the leave should cover the minimum travel time to and from the closest possible destination for the couple to get married. If they are stationed at Dover, that's New Jersey, not California, for example. If they want to take more time to go to a further destination of their choice or take a honeymoon (which is fine) that needs to be regular leave in conjunction with the TDY days.

AJBIGJ
09-08-2013, 01:53 PM
If you read my comments closely you'll note I favor changing the policy to include any member - homosexual or heterosexual - that is stationed somewhere they CAN'T get married. This will cover the .05% of heterosexuals affected and the 98% of homosexuals affected. I'm guessing at the numbers, admittedly, but they're probably in the ballpark.

To my mind, the leave should cover the minimum travel time to and from the closest possible destination for the couple to get married. If they are stationed at Dover, that's New Jersey, not California, for example. If they want to take more time to go to a further destination of their choice or take a honeymoon (which is fine) that needs to be regular leave in conjunction with the TDY days.

I think this would be a better way of handling it yes, and less prone to fraud. I think, another part of the greater contention is the appearance of bending over backwards in the name of political correctness. It just has that atmosphere to it. Kind of like SAPR in the way it has been continually portrayed as a "violence against women" issue and thus the justice, to some people at least, is believed to be very one sided between the genders. I personally find both of those opinions to be a little bit simplistic and generally hyperbolic overall, but I do think there's some validity to the concerns.

TJMAC77SP
09-09-2013, 03:20 PM
OK, so it actually affected some people. Prior to this policy, where was the widespread cry for change? No where, because it only affected a very, very small proportion of the population. Since gays are now allowed to serve and get equal benefits, this affects a large portion of their population. Hence the attention.

Now some heterosexuals are complaining about free leave, as if massive numbers of us had to travel to get married. Again, this isn't the case. Our lot in life is pretty darn easy most of the time and has been for years. We didn't have to hide who we were. We didn't have to pay out of pocket for our partners to relocate, etc. We weren't in danger of losing our jobs because of who we were.

If you read most of the comments, they're "I want to travel to where I want to get married" not "I had to travel to get married". Big, big difference. The two people you mentioned have a legit beef with the policy, as is anyone who is stationed somewhere like that that is affected by it. Anyone else complaining about it is making a mountain out of a molehill and I file their complaints under, "Whining, Pathetic".

If you read my comments closely you'll note I favor changing the policy to include any member - homosexual or heterosexual - that is stationed somewhere they CAN'T get married. This will cover the .05% of heterosexuals affected and the 98% of homosexuals affected. I'm guessing at the numbers, admittedly, but they're probably in the ballpark.

To my mind, the leave should cover the minimum travel time to and from the closest possible destination for the couple to get married. If they are stationed at Dover, that's New Jersey, not California, for example. If they want to take more time to go to a further destination of their choice or take a honeymoon (which is fine) that needs to be regular leave in conjunction with the TDY days.



Actually I believe there was never an outcry because people accepted it as normal everyday part of life, particularly in the military. Had a nephew get married in Pittsburg last month. Very few of his family was there because they couldn't or chose not to make the trip from NC.

I can't count the number of cases I know of where couples had to make sacrifices of a similar nature while in the military. Had to marry away from family to get married at a duty station far from their home town. Couples that had to get married away from friends so they could marry where their families were.

Regardless of how you wrap this, it is a knee-jerk overreaction to a problem that is not unique. At least not unique enough to warrant granting an additional universal benefit to some and not to others. Particularly because when you strip away all the rhetoric this benefit it being granted based on sexual identity.

sandsjames
09-09-2013, 05:00 PM
We will consider to kiss the ass of the gay community because that's the current fad. They have a blank check right now.

technomage1
09-09-2013, 11:34 PM
Actually I believe there was never an outcry because people accepted it as normal everyday part of life, particularly in the military. Had a nephew get married in Pittsburg last month. Very few of his family was there because they couldn't or chose not to make the trip from NC.

I can't count the number of cases I know of where couples had to make sacrifices of a similar nature while in the military. Had to marry away from family to get married at a duty station far from their home town. Couples that had to get married away from friends so they could marry where their families were.

Regardless of how you wrap this, it is a knee-jerk overreaction to a problem that is not unique. At least not unique enough to warrant granting an additional universal benefit to some and not to others. Particularly because when you strip away all the rhetoric this benefit it being granted based on sexual identity.

Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of choice vs. cannot, let me give you an example. Say there is a couple stationed in Guam, and one is from Ohio and one from Florida. Now, if they're staright, they can get married in guam with their friends or fly back to Ohio or Florida to be with family. Or they could pick somewhere in the middle like Tennessee to help their families minimize travel costs. Or they could chuck it all and go to Hawaii instead.

Now lets assume its a gay couple, Their options are only 13 states. They will be spending the air fare and hotel costs, as will all their friends and family who wish to be there. No Hawaii. No middle ground. Much, much more limited options a d much more mandatory expense.

This is why I don't begrudge them a few days leave. They have a 50lb burden while mine is 1lb.

sandsjames
09-09-2013, 11:36 PM
Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of choice vs. cannot, let me give you an example. Say there is a couple stationed in Guam, and one is from Ohio and one from Florida. Now, if they're staright, they can get married in guam with their friends or fly back to Ohio or Florida to be with family. Or they could pick somewhere in the middle like Tennessee to help their families minimize travel costs. Or they could chuck it all and go to Hawaii instead.

Now lets assume its a gay couple, Their options are only 13 states. They will be spending the air fare and hotel costs, as will all their friends and family who wish to be there. No Hawaii. No middle ground. Much, much more limited options a d much more mandatory expense.

This is why I don't begrudge them a few days leave. They have a 50lb burden while mine is 1lb.

Awwwwww...the poor people...pretty sad when the importance of the principle is put above the importance of marrying the one you supposedly love.

technomage1
09-09-2013, 11:53 PM
Awwwwww...the poor people...pretty sad when the importance of the principle is put above the importance of marrying the one you supposedly love.

BS

If this was about principle, then you should be supporting the policy that makes life a little more equal for these folks.

technomage1
09-10-2013, 12:07 AM
I still think getting married is personal business...and it should be done while on leave.

I agree that it is unfortunately that personal business for these folks is more inconvient than it is for others...I still don't think that justifies the policy though.

Not a big deal to me if a guy gets 10 free days of permissive, really,...I just don't think it's necessarily right.

I can see your point, but we give days for all kinds of personal reasons. House hunting, education, paternity, conventions, etc. All of which are personal business. Where do you draw the line is the question.

TJMAC77SP
09-10-2013, 12:14 PM
Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of choice vs. cannot, let me give you an example. Say there is a couple stationed in Guam, and one is from Ohio and one from Florida. Now, if they're staright, they can get married in guam with their friends or fly back to Ohio or Florida to be with family. Or they could pick somewhere in the middle like Tennessee to help their families minimize travel costs. Or they could chuck it all and go to Hawaii instead.

Now lets assume its a gay couple, Their options are only 13 states. They will be spending the air fare and hotel costs, as will all their friends and family who wish to be there. No Hawaii. No middle ground. Much, much more limited options a d much more mandatory expense.

This is why I don't begrudge them a few days leave. They have a 50lb burden while mine is 1lb.

Actually my difficultly lies with your moving the target........is your argument that it is fair because it only affects a small number.............it is a larger burden..............or that it is a matter of choice and cannot?

TJMAC77SP
09-10-2013, 12:17 PM
I can see your point, but we give days for all kinds of personal reasons. House hunting, education, paternity, conventions, etc. All of which are personal business. Where do you draw the line is the question.

Where the line isn't drawn by sexual identity.

(and can be universally applied......such as your examples)

technomage1
09-10-2013, 06:11 PM
Actually my difficultly lies with your moving the target........is your argument that it is fair because it only affects a small number.............it is a larger burden..............or that it is a matter of choice and cannot?

My argument has been the same since my first post on the subject.


I just read an article on gay marriage on msnbc this morning. It seems the mayor of Minneapolis, MN - where gay marriage is legal - is courting gay couples in Chicago to go there and tie the knot since they want the revenue (hotels, food, wedding venues, etc) this will bring.

https://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20339643-marry-me-in-minneapolis-mayor-woos-gay-couples

Which brings me to wonder why people are protesting the leave. Say a heterosexual couple wants to get married on Guam (which I've picked because of it's isolation). It will cost them $30 and maybe a half a day of leave. If they so chose, they can go off island but it is a choice.

A homosexual couple has to go off island since Guam doesn't allow gay marriage. They don't have a choice. The closest place that will perform gay marriage is either California or Washington state. It doesn't matter where they want to get married, their options are severely limited. It will cost them three days of leave (international date line) just for travel alone, not to mention the $2,600 airfare, a minimum hotel stay of $65 at the cheapo motel, and the $35-$65 license fee.

So 1/2 day of leave and $30 vs. $2,700 and four days of leave. Now with this policy they get the leave for free but still have to pay the travel costs. Again, they don't have a choice if they want to get married. This is the main difference and why I have no heartburn with them getting the leave for free. They still incur more of a far more of a burden than a heterosexual couple would. The heterosexual couple may chose to incur that financial cost but they don't have to.

The only time I've brought up numbers is to explain why the policy is in effect now. Suddenly there is a polpulation that is affected by this in large numbers. There was not before. I'd be willing to bet it never even crossed the minds of whomever made this policy that there are places heterosexuals can't get married. It's that universal that we can.

TJMAC77SP
09-10-2013, 06:40 PM
My argument has been the same since my first post on the subject.



The only time I've brought up numbers is to explain why the policy is in effect now. Suddenly there is a polpulation that is affected by this in large numbers. There was not before. I'd be willing to bet it never even crossed the minds of whomever made this policy that there are places heterosexuals can't get married. It's that universal that we can.

But you also brought up numbers to defend your orginal position when the fallacies of it were illustrated. Bottom line is that a universal benefit should not be granted based on sexual identity.

sandsjames
09-10-2013, 06:45 PM
Hell, I wasn't even allowed 3 days emergency leave when my grandfather died because he wasn't consider a "close" family member. Now people are given free leave to get married. Let them take leave, like everyone else.

technomage1
09-10-2013, 10:02 PM
But you also brought up numbers to defend your orginal position when the fallacies of it were illustrated. Bottom line is that a universal benefit should not be granted based on sexual identity.

And I've already said the benefit should be extended to the very, very few heterosexuals who can't marry at their duty location. The only thing I was wrong about was the fact that it affects heterosexuals at all. Other than that, you haven't demonstrated jack.

And you do realize that for years we've extended benefits based on sexual identity, right? Higher housing allowances, family sep pay, etc are all based on marriage, which only heterosexuals could do. Paternity leave is also based on sexual identity since you need to be married to the mother to take it. Maternity leave too since only the birth mother in a lesbain couple could take it. The other mother would need to take leave, she couldn't get paternity leave. Now maybe you don't think that was right either and everything should be fair and equal. Doesn't change the fact we had - and still have - a giant pile of candy in front of us and now they've got 1 piece. And you're complaining about it.

Pullinteeth
09-10-2013, 10:05 PM
And I've already said the benefit should be extended to the very, very few heterosexuals who can't marry at their duty location. The only thing I was wrong about was the fact that it affects heterosexuals at all. Other than that, you haven't demonstrated jack.

And you do realize that for years we've extended benefits based on sexual identity, right? Higher housing allowances, family sep pay, etc are all based on marriage, which only heterosexuals could do. Paternity leave is also based on sexual identity since you need to be married to the mother to take it. Maternity leave too since only the birth mother in a lesbain couple could take it. The other mother would need to take leave, she couldn't get paternity leave. Now maybe you don't think that was right either and everything should be fair and equal. Doesn't change the fact we had - and still have - a giant pile of candy in front of us and now they've got 1 piece. And you're complaining about it.

You contradicted yourself there.... BTW, since the Gov is recognizing civil unions, you are also incorrect. Homosexuals are allowed 10 days to come back to the states even if they can legally be joined in the country in which they are stationed....

technomage1
09-10-2013, 10:22 PM
You contradicted yourself there.... BTW, since the Gov is recognizing civil unions, you are also incorrect. Homosexuals are allowed 10 days to come back to the states even if they can legally be joined in the country in which they are stationed....

Not sure what you mean. Dependent status, maybe? Only children or spouses, in most cases could be dependents. And gays weren't allowed spouses until recently. In any event, I certainly haven't contradicted myself that I can see.

And the policy only allows members who are stationed in areas where they can't marry to take the leave. The policy is already under review to include heterosexuals in that category too.

Http://nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/military_update_department_of_defense_reviews_new_ policy_allowing_leave_for_same-sex_marriages.html

kool-aid
09-11-2013, 04:30 AM
Hell, I wasn't even allowed 3 days emergency leave when my grandfather died because he wasn't consider a "close" family member. Now people are given free leave to get married. Let them take leave, like everyone else.

When my dad died just a couple months after I started duty at Fort Greely, Alaska, I wasn't given leave to go home to the funeral, or even any Red Cross help to get me home for it. I know that goes off topic, bad leadership and all, but still, I didn't even get leave advanced to me to go to my father's funeral.

TJMAC77SP
09-11-2013, 11:48 AM
And I've already said the benefit should be extended to the very, very few heterosexuals who can't marry at their duty location. The only thing I was wrong about was the fact that it affects heterosexuals at all. Other than that, you haven't demonstrated jack.

And you do realize that for years we've extended benefits based on sexual identity, right? Higher housing allowances, family sep pay, etc are all based on marriage, which only heterosexuals could do. Paternity leave is also based on sexual identity since you need to be married to the mother to take it. Maternity leave too since only the birth mother in a lesbain couple could take it. The other mother would need to take leave, she couldn't get paternity leave. Now maybe you don't think that was right either and everything should be fair and equal. Doesn't change the fact we had - and still have - a giant pile of candy in front of us and now they've got 1 piece. And you're complaining about it.

If you believe that granting 10 days leave based on sexual identity (33% of normal benefit) is '1 piece' from a 'giant pile' then so be it.

BTW: Since I am long retired I wouldn't really characterize my opposition as complaining. Merely pointing out what I believe to be a bad decision.

Pullinteeth
09-11-2013, 03:37 PM
Not sure what you mean. Dependent status, maybe? Only children or spouses, in most cases could be dependents. And gays weren't allowed spouses until recently. In any event, I certainly haven't contradicted myself that I can see.

And the policy only allows members who are stationed in areas where they can't marry to take the leave. The policy is already under review to include heterosexuals in that category too.

Http://nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/military_update_department_of_defense_reviews_new_ policy_allowing_leave_for_same-sex_marriages.html

Lets see if this helps;


And I've already said the benefit should be extended to the very, very few heterosexuals who can't marry at their duty location. The only thing I was wrong about was the fact that it affects heterosexuals at all. Other than that, you haven't demonstrated jack.

And you do realize that for years we've extended benefits based on sexual identity, right? Higher housing allowances, family sep pay, etc are all based on marriage, which only heterosexuals could do. Paternity leave is also based on sexual identity since you need to be married to the mother to take it. Maternity leave too since only the birth mother in a lesbain couple could take it. The other mother would need to take leave, she couldn't get paternity leave. Now maybe you don't think that was right either and everything should be fair and equal. Doesn't change the fact we had - and still have - a giant pile of candy in front of us and now they've got 1 piece. And you're complaining about it.

Those items are NOT based on sexual preference, they are based on marital/dependency status which you clearly stated 10 words after claiming these bennies were based on "sexual identity." That is a contradiction my friend.

technomage1
09-11-2013, 05:39 PM
Lets see if this helps;



Those items are NOT based on sexual preference, they are based on marital/dependency status which you clearly stated 10 words after claiming these bennies were based on "sexual identity." That is a contradiction my friend.

"Which only heterosexuals could do" follows right after. In the past, only heterosexuals could get married and have it recognized by the military and gain all those bennies. Homosexuals who tried wouldve been kicked out under DADT. No contradiction, only a description of the past.

Pullinteeth
09-11-2013, 05:55 PM
"Which only heterosexuals could do" follows right after. In the past, only heterosexuals could get married and have it recognized by the military and gain all those bennies. Homosexuals who tried wouldve been kicked out under DADT. No contradiction, only a description of the past.

You are telling me only heterosexuals can have kids?

technomage1
09-11-2013, 05:57 PM
If you believe that granting 10 days leave based on sexual identity (33% of normal benefit) is '1 piece' from a 'giant pile' then so be it.

BTW: Since I am long retired I wouldn't really characterize my opposition as complaining. Merely pointing out what I believe to be a bad decision.

And you're certainly allowed to do that. I see this as no different than any other PTDY we grant to special groups. Free leave to attend conferences, sports, or having a kid only applies to people in those categories. I've never figured out why we grant someone leave to play sports, for example - it gives nothing to the mission - but figure its probably a morale thing. You could especially argue this with paternity leave, and to a lesser extent maternity leave. Why should you get off work for having a kid? That's a strictly personal decision. Maternity leave is longer than is strictly medically necessary to recover from childbirth, though that of course can vary based in the difficulty of the birth. Why isn't mama back to work or on ordinary leave when she has physically recovered?

I don't begrudge the days to those categories, simply pointing out a fact.

BTW, your math is off. The etc indicated a long list I wasn't interested in typing out. Higher moving allowances, free health care for dependents, schooling for dependents overseas, CDC, and youth programs are a few more that immediately aping to mind. Not to mention the ability to reside in base housing. There are probably more - picture everything singles have been complaining about as unequal for years - and that pile of candy looks a lot more un equal by the minute.

technomage1
09-11-2013, 06:04 PM
You are telling me only heterosexuals can have kids?

I suppose a gay guy could adopt or a lesbian could get inseminated. Singles adopting, gay or straight, is pretty difficult, especially single men. As far as the lesbians, she'd only be recognized as a single mother and her partner wouldn't have been recognized.

Marriage is the "normal" route to gain those bennies, gay or staright.

sandsjames
09-11-2013, 06:27 PM
I suppose a gay guy could adopt or a lesbian could get inseminated. Singles adopting, gay or straight, is pretty difficult, especially single men. As far as the lesbians, she'd only be recognized as a single mother and her partner wouldn't have been recognized.

Marriage is the "normal" route to gain those bennies, gay or staright.

As I've said before, nobody, gay or straight, should gain any "benefits" for getting married, having kids, etc.

20+Years
09-11-2013, 06:28 PM
Ok... so are we going to now prosecute a "married" gay couple for adultery if they cheat on thier partner? THAT will be one hell of a case to see!

#2. Also, will we prosecute a female "married" to same sex partner for adultery if we are told she recieved a "donation" from other than insemination?

I want to see FULL RIGHTS given, even those administered under the UCMJ.

Pullinteeth
09-11-2013, 07:19 PM
I suppose a gay guy could adopt or a lesbian could get inseminated. Singles adopting, gay or straight, is pretty difficult, especially single men. As far as the lesbians, she'd only be recognized as a single mother and her partner wouldn't have been recognized.

Marriage is the "normal" route to gain those bennies, gay or staright.

And marriage is a LEGAL term not one related to individual sexual preference... So there is no merit to your statement that we gave bennies based on sexual identity and you were correct when you said that dependency status/marital status resulted in the conferring of those bennies.


Ok... so are we going to now prosecute a "married" gay couple for adultery if they cheat on thier partner? THAT will be one hell of a case to see!

#2. Also, will we prosecute a female "married" to same sex partner for adultery if we are told she recieved a "donation" from other than insemination?

I want to see FULL RIGHTS given, even those administered under the UCMJ.

Sure...as long as it meets the same level as for heterosexuals-can be PROVEN to be prejudicial to good order and disipline. Probably not as exciting as you might think since it is generally an ancillary charge.

That is IMPOSSIBLE. Insemination is the act of impregnating an ovum. Can't get preggers if insemination doesn't happen-except maybe the virgin Mary...

What "rights" exactly do you think are conferred by the UCMJ?

technomage1
09-11-2013, 10:57 PM
[QUOTE=Pullinteeth;652718]And marriage is a LEGAL term not one related to individual sexual preference... So there is no merit to your statement that we gave bennies based on sexual identity and you were correct when you said that dependency status/marital status resulted in the conferring of those bennies.[\QUOTE]

And in the past only heterosexuals could get married and have it legally recognized by the military. Therefore it was based on sexuality. The defense of marriage act made that clear. It was only when the Supreme court overturned DOMA and DADT was repealed that this changed. Prior to DOMA, the benefits of marraige were conferred only to heterosexuals, making it de facto based on sexuality. DOMA made it legally so.

The only gays given dependent bennies were those that had children by whatever means, therefore excluding the majority of ther population.

garhkal
09-12-2013, 06:54 AM
I can see your point, but we give days for all kinds of personal reasons. House hunting, education, paternity, conventions, etc. All of which are personal business. Where do you draw the line is the question.

House hunting is when you get out and then is also required by law.
Leave for education i have not heard of.
We do give days off for births though, which is across the board for all work (both the mom and dad)..


Free leave to attend conferences, sports, or having a kid only applies to people in those categories. I've never figured out why we grant someone leave to play sports, for example - it gives nothing to the mission

Never heard that before. Is it given to anyone wanting to play sports or only a select few (like those going into competitions?


BTW, your math is off. The etc indicated a long list I wasn't interested in typing out. Higher moving allowances, free health care for dependents, schooling for dependents overseas, CDC, and youth programs are a few more that immediately aping to mind. Not to mention the ability to reside in base housing. There are probably more - picture everything singles have been complaining about as unequal for years - and that pile of candy looks a lot more un equal by the minute.

Exactly.. Most of those listed benefits apply only to those who are MARRIED. So yet again single folk get boned!

technomage1
09-12-2013, 07:39 AM
House hunting is when you get out and then is also required by law.
Leave for education i have not heard of.
We do give days off for births though, which is across the board for all work (both the mom and dad)..



Never heard that before. Is it given to anyone wanting to play sports or only a select few (like those going into competitions?



Exactly.. Most of those listed benefits apply only to those who are MARRIED. So yet again single folk get boned!

You can get 8 days for house hunting when you PCS now. This may be new, I only heard about it a few years back.

Sports can be to any dod sponsored event and can be up to 30 days. So if you wanted to run the AF marathion, the CC could grant you a PTDY for that too.

The leave AFI lists it all in table 7. Http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3003/afi36-3003.pdf#page1

As for singles getting boned, that's a different subject but at least heterosexuals had a choice.

20+Years
09-12-2013, 01:34 PM
What "rights" exactly do you think are conferred by the UCMJ?

The right to be prosecuted when you screw up. You know, the opposite of the right to have special rules made to accomodate your lifestyle.

Just my personal opinion, if either half of a gay couple gets prosecuted for adultery and the "community" gets onboard, it will become a media circus. You know, just the opposite of the normal heterosexual adutery conviction.

And yes, I know adultery is usually an add-on charge. I personally think they need to get rid of it altogether.

Pullinteeth
09-12-2013, 02:16 PM
And in the past only heterosexuals could get married and have it legally recognized by the military. Therefore it was based on sexuality. The defense of marriage act made that clear. It was only when the Supreme court overturned DOMA and DADT was repealed that this changed. Prior to DOMA, the benefits of marraige were conferred only to heterosexuals, making it de facto based on sexuality. DOMA made it legally so.

The only gays given dependent bennies were those that had children by whatever means, therefore excluding the majority of ther population.

Wrong on all counts. The bennies were based on legal status not sexual preference. Homosexuals have ALWAYS been allowed to get married and HAVE gotten married and by doing so, they were also given these bennies=based on legal status opposed to sexual preference.

No shit sherlock. The only heterosexuals that have children are those that had children by whatever means.... How else would you get them other than by getting them?


You can get 8 days for house hunting when you PCS now. This may be new, I only heard about it a few years back.

As for singles getting boned, that's a different subject but at least heterosexuals had a choice.

Been around forever. You get 10 days PTDY if you go house huning BEFORE you sign out and 8 if you go after you sign in.

So did homosexuals and lots of 'em chose to get married. Just like some single servicemembers choose to get married.

Pullinteeth
09-12-2013, 02:22 PM
The right to be prosecuted when you screw up. You know, the opposite of the right to have special rules made to accomodate your lifestyle.

Just my personal opinion, if either half of a gay couple gets prosecuted for adultery and the "community" gets onboard, it will become a media circus. You know, just the opposite of the normal heterosexual adutery conviction.

And yes, I know adultery is usually an add-on charge. I personally think they need to get rid of it altogether.

You think the ability to be prosecuted is a right? So you think illegal aliens shouldn't be prosecuted because they aren't citizens? Interesting...

technomage1
09-12-2013, 05:38 PM
Wrong on all counts. The bennies were based on legal status not sexual preference. Homosexuals have ALWAYS been allowed to get married and HAVE gotten married and by doing so, they were also given these bennies=based on legal status opposed to sexual preference.

No shit sherlock. The only heterosexuals that have children are those that had children by whatever means.... How else would you get them other than by getting them?



Been around forever. You get 10 days PTDY if you go house huning BEFORE you sign out and 8 if you go after you sign in.

So did homosexuals and lots of 'em chose to get married. Just like some single servicemembers choose to get married.

I really think you need to read what DOMA was. It specifically defined marriage as between one man and one woman & said states didnt have to recognize homosexual marraige and the federal government would not.

An Act

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

Not to mention anyone claiming to be married to someone of the same sex would've been discharged anyway under DADT.

Http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/dontasklaw.html

garhkal
09-12-2013, 07:32 PM
You can get 8 days for house hunting when you PCS now. This may be new, I only heard about it a few years back.

Sports can be to any dod sponsored event and can be up to 30 days. So if you wanted to run the AF marathion, the CC could grant you a PTDY for that too.

The leave AFI lists it all in table 7. Http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3003/afi36-3003.pdf#page1


Either it is new or its AF specific. I know in the Navy i only ever heard about house hunting for out processing people (whether retiring or otherwise).


And yes, I know adultery is usually an add-on charge. I personally think they need to get rid of it altogether.

Or actually enforce it.

sandsjames
09-12-2013, 10:30 PM
AF has had househunting for PCS for a long time.

IME, I rarely or never used it because usually the unit will just give you some time to find a house when you arrive...if you actually take the PTDY then all your billeting comes out of your pocket vs. getting temporary housing allowance.

You can also use this up to several months before PCSing...so in theory you could go PTDY to your new duty station for a week, find a house, go back to your old duty station, finish up whatever...then have your house waiting for you...again, the expense of the travel and lodging I never found to be worthwhile.

Nope...not worth it...especially when every shop I've been in gave me all the time I needed to find a house...

Pullinteeth
09-13-2013, 05:33 PM
I really think you need to read what DOMA was. It specifically defined marriage as between one man and one woman & said states didnt have to recognize homosexual marraige and the federal government would not.

An Act

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

Not to mention anyone claiming to be married to someone of the same sex would've been discharged anyway under DADT.

Http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/dontasklaw.html

And? There are plenty of homosexuals that got married to the opposite gender for whatever reason. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that the DoD didn't give them any bennies because of their sexual preference? If not....you are still as wrong as two boys fucking in church... The policy was based on dependency status not on sexual preference. Just like I said. Was there an inordinate impact on homosexuals? Absolutely but that isn't the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that YOU said the policy was based on gender identity and that is simply not true and never was. This is the first policy that I am aware of that awards extra bennies simply based on sexual preference.

technomage1
09-13-2013, 09:25 PM
And? There are plenty of homosexuals that got married to the opposite gender for whatever reason. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that the DoD didn't give them any bennies because of their sexual preference? If not....you are still as wrong as two boys fucking in church... The policy was based on dependency status not on sexual preference. Just like I said. Was there an inordinate impact on homosexuals? Absolutely but that isn't the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that YOU said the policy was based on gender identity and that is simply not true and never was. This is the first policy that I am aware of that awards extra bennies simply based on sexual preference.

Lets review what I said. "And you do realize that for years we've extended benefits based on sexual identity, right? Higher housing allowances, family sep pay, etc are all based on marriage, which only heterosexuals could do."

There is absolutely nothing false about either of those statements. Where you're getting confused is the de facto result of the policy vs. its stated results. The dod certainly didn't give gay married folks benefits, for which they sued and eventually overturned DOMA. That it, after the repeal of DADT when they could serve openly,

Pullinteeth
09-16-2013, 02:06 PM
Lets review what I said. "And you do realize that for years we've extended benefits based on sexual identity, right? Higher housing allowances, family sep pay, etc are all based on marriage, which only heterosexuals could do."

There is absolutely nothing false about either of those statements. Where you're getting confused is the de facto result of the policy vs. its stated results. The dod certainly didn't give gay married folks benefits, for which they sued and eventually overturned DOMA. That it, after the repeal of DADT when they could serve openly,

Still wrong. The bennies were extended because of dependency status. Or are you arguing that single heterosexuals with no dependants were also given these bennies just because they were straight?

technomage1
09-17-2013, 02:39 AM
Still wrong. The bennies were extended because of dependency status. Or are you arguing that single heterosexuals with no dependants were also given these bennies just because they were straight?
No, they were not. But they had the option to get married. single or even married homosexuals did not receive the benefits based on their sexuality.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 02:07 PM
No, they were not. But they had the option to get married. single or even married homosexuals did not receive the benefits based on their sexuality.

Wrong, not based on their sexuality. Based on their choice of partner. I've known a few people who got married just for the bennies, as an "agreement" with their "spouse". This had nothing to do with sexuality.

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. Anyone who cares about the benefits when they get married is getting married for the wrong reason and is going to fail. Take them all away. Everyone gets single rate everything and pays to support their spouse/partner if they choose to get married. Other than command sponsoring/health care (as in the civilian world) the rest is up to the couple to figure out how to support themselves and a family. Time to quit rewarding people for making a choice.

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 04:39 PM
No, they were not. But they had the option to get married. single or even married homosexuals did not receive the benefits based on their sexuality.

So did homosexuals. Show me one example of a homosexual that was legally qualified for bennies and was denied based on sexuality.... Just one...married to someone of the opposite gender OR with kids that was denied bennies because of sexuality....

technomage1
09-17-2013, 04:59 PM
So did homosexuals. Show me one example of a homosexual that was legally qualified for bennies and was denied based on sexuality.... Just one...married to someone of the opposite gender OR with kids that was denied bennies because of sexuality....

Sure.

A1C Daniel Hendersen was denied $29k in benefits for his legally married spouse. http//.m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3853149

Or Tracey Cooper-Harris. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/07/justice/same-sex-doma/index.html?c=&page=2

Im sure a google search would reveal more. my internet is down so im on my smart phone & its kind of a pain to search for stuff.

technomage1
09-17-2013, 05:35 PM
Wrong, not based on their sexuality. Based on their choice of partner. I've known a few people who got married just for the bennies, as an "agreement" with their "spouse". This had nothing to do with sexuality.

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. Anyone who cares about the benefits when they get married is getting married for the wrong reason and is going to fail. Take them all away. Everyone gets single rate everything and pays to support their spouse/partner if they choose to get married. Other than command sponsoring/health care (as in the civilian world) the rest is up to the couple to figure out how to support themselves and a family. Time to quit rewarding people for making a choice.

I would love to receive equal pay for equal work. so no argument there.

But choice of partners is absolutely a result of sexuality.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 06:08 PM
I would love to receive equal pay for equal work. so no argument there.

But choice of partners is absolutely a result of sexuality. It is indeed. So give homosexuals the same benefits if the nation insists on reward all who choose to get married and have a family. But don't give them extra benefits because their partner is same sex. If they choose to get married, they know if the state they live in allows it. If not, then they need to make the time, on their own, to get it taken care of. Just as I really dislike the 10 days of "paternity leave". I know it's kind of a cliché, but the military did not ask you to get married/have children. I know a guy (worked with him) who's wife is now pregnant with their 8th child. The leave wasn't around for the first few, but if it was that's 80 days when others have had to pick up the slack because they choose to have kids.

This isn't about sexuality. This is about being given extra benefits/being rewarded for making choices that aren't necessary ones.

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 07:33 PM
Sure.

A1C Daniel Hendersen was denied $29k in benefits for his legally married spouse. http//.m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3853149

Or Tracey Cooper-Harris. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/07/justice/same-sex-doma/index.html?c=&page=2

Im sure a google search would reveal more. my internet is down so im on my smart phone & its kind of a pain to search for stuff.

Neither one was legally married in the eyes of the Federal Government so.....still waiting for one that was legally married and denied bennies because of sexual identity OR one that had kids and was denied bennies because of sexual identity. You are confusing the legal definition of marriage as defined by DOMA with DoD policy... YOU said the policy for BAH etc was based upon sexual identity and it isn't/wasn't.... It was based on dependency status which was defined by the Federal Gov-NOT the DoD....


But choice of partners is absolutely a result of sexuality.

And? I am still waiting for you to explain how the DoD denied BAH etc to a homosexual with kids or one that was married to someone of the opposite gender based upon thier sexuality.... Just one....

CaliMC
09-17-2013, 10:21 PM
Wrong, not based on their sexuality. Based on their choice of partner. I've known a few people who got married just for the bennies, as an "agreement" with their "spouse". This had nothing to do with sexuality.

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. Anyone who cares about the benefits when they get married is getting married for the wrong reason and is going to fail. Take them all away. Everyone gets single rate everything and pays to support their spouse/partner if they choose to get married. Other than command sponsoring/health care (as in the civilian world) the rest is up to the couple to figure out how to support themselves and a family. Time to quit rewarding people for making a choice.


I couldn't agree more! Time to disincentivize all personal choices (including marriage). BAH rates should be based on paygrade only and should be the same for married and single folks. Want to be able to afford a nicer house? Promote! Also, let's get out of the housing market completely. (Former) Military Family Housing should be available to anyone who is willing to forego their BAH or for whatever the going rate is in the area. Family Separation Allowance should be done away with.

technomage1
09-18-2013, 03:32 AM
Neither one was legally married in the eyes of the Federal Government so.....still waiting for one that was legally married and denied bennies because of sexual identity OR one that had kids and was denied bennies because of sexual identity. You are confusing the legal definition of marriage as defined by DOMA with DoD policy... YOU said the policy for BAH etc was based upon sexual identity and it isn't/wasn't.... It was based on dependency status which was defined by the Federal Gov-NOT the DoD....



And? I am still waiting for you to explain how the DoD denied BAH etc to a homosexual with kids or one that was married to someone of the opposite gender based upon thier sexuality.... Just one....

You didnt ask for that nor is it relevant.

The federal government and therefore dod policy was based on dependancy status - and for marriage that was based on sexuality. yes, a homosexual could marry someone of the opposite gender - but why would they want to? i could guarantee that as a heterosexual there would be no way id marry someone of my gender, no matter what benefits were offered.

technomage1
09-18-2013, 03:38 AM
It is indeed. So give homosexuals the same benefits if the nation insists on reward all who choose to get married and have a family. But don't give them extra benefits because their partner is same sex. If they choose to get married, they know if the state they live in allows it. If not, then they need to make the time, on their own, to get it taken care of. Just as I really dislike the 10 days of "paternity leave". I know it's kind of a cliché, but the military did not ask you to get married/have children. I know a guy (worked with him) who's wife is now pregnant with their 8th child. The leave wasn't around for the first few, but if it was that's 80 days when others have had to pick up the slack because they choose to have kids.

This isn't about sexuality. This is about being given extra benefits/being rewarded for making choices that aren't necessary ones.

As long as youre ok with wiping all other non necesary leaves or benefits - then thats fine by me.

But i would have heartburn denying this while people are still allowed up to 30 days to participate in sports, for example.

Pullinteeth
09-18-2013, 01:35 PM
You didnt ask for that nor is it relevant.

The federal government and therefore dod policy was based on dependancy status - and for marriage that was based on sexuality. yes, a homosexual could marry someone of the opposite gender - but why would they want to? i could guarantee that as a heterosexual there would be no way id marry someone of my gender, no matter what benefits were offered.

Fine...then give me one example of a homosesexual with kids that was denied bennies based upon their sexual preference... If the benefits were based on sexual identity as you claim, that should be pretty easy....

technomage1
09-18-2013, 03:57 PM
Fine...then give me one example of a homosesexual with kids that was denied bennies based upon their sexual preference... If the benefits were based on sexual identity as you claim, that should be pretty easy....

My post specifically referred to marriage and you know it.

This is getting pointless. You're not seeing the forest for the trees & its a minor point that is detracting from the overall topic. Moving on.

spirit_eyes
10-03-2013, 04:27 PM
I have a question. A friend and I got into a good natured fight about this.
Are gay people actually getting the leave, or is it just a proposal? Is it happening, or just being talked about?

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 12:51 AM
I have a question. A friend and I got into a good natured fight about this.
Are gay people actually getting the leave, or is it just a proposal? Is it happening, or just being talked about?

It's a no shit policy, service-wide guidance has been disseminated with this item on the list.

spirit_eyes
10-04-2013, 04:02 PM
So, it is actually happening, and not just being talked about?
( forgive my chemo brain. This lasts for quite a while)

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
10-04-2013, 04:07 PM
I think two travel days is all they should get, with all the rest chargeable to annual leave.

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 04:07 PM
Yes

spirit_eyes
10-04-2013, 04:13 PM
Yes, it's happening. Or yes, they should be treated EQUAL and get leave just like straight people?

AJBIGJ
10-04-2013, 04:38 PM
Yes, it's happening. Or yes, they should be treated EQUAL and get leave just like straight people?

Yes it's happening. My opinion on the latter is yes as well, but it's not what's being done.

Class5Kayaker
10-07-2013, 09:09 PM
Gay couples in military having trouble getting leave to get married

Stars and Stripes http://www.stripes.com/news/gay-couples-in-military-having-trouble-getting-leave-to-get-married-1.245630

From the article:


An enlisted woman in the Air Force stationed at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, who asked that her name not be used for fear of reprisal, said she asked for the leave earlier this month but was told authorization to grant the time off hadn’t “trickled down” yet.

She used personal leave to go to New York to get married, and her spouse successfully registered for benefits on the base after the couple returned.

Even so, she said: “Let’s say I married a man, I’m sure I wouldn’t be having any of these holdups.”

Um, yes...yes you would have those "hold-ups." You'd have to us personal leave to go to New York to marry your male spouse if you weren't gay.

She inadvertantly pointed out the insanity of the policy in a round-about way.

Pullinteeth
10-08-2013, 02:36 PM
I like this one....

"The frustrations are palpable for soldiers such as Spc. Jodie Harper, an Ohio National Guard member and Army supply clerk stationed in Kuwait. When he heard about the new policy, he immediately applied for 10 days of leave to wed his longtime companion, Craig Roberts, in Washington, D.C., where gay marriage is legal."

Who the fuck gets to take leave when they are deployed? Fucking crybaby.

"Nor, Pentagon officials now say, is the leave available to troops deployed in Kuwait, Afghanistan and other bases in the Middle East that the Pentagon uses to support the war in Afghanistan."

Yet....

"Lt. Sheila McCabe, an Army air defense officer deployed to Kuwait, said her application to go home to get married was turned down by her battalion commander, who said he had never heard of the new leave policy. She said he told her she could take personal leave to go home.

McCabe said “many people” in her unit “had commented negatively” since the Pentagon announced the policy. “I actually have been told that ‘your situation shouldn’t make you special,’” she said."