Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month

Far out. The times, they really are a-changin'. Well done, President Obama.

Last summer, gays in the military dared not admit their sexual orientation. This summer, the Pentagon will salute them, marking June as gay pride month just as it has marked other celebrations honoring racial or ethnic groups.

In the latest remarkable sign of change since the military repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy, the Defense Department will soon hold its first event to recognize gay and lesbian troops. It comes nine months after repeal of the policy that had banned gay troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.

Before the repeal, gay troops could serve but couldn’t reveal their orientation. If they did, they would be discharged. At the same time, a commanding officer was prohibited from asking a service member is he or she was gay.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-14/news/32238425_1_gay-troops-gay-service-members-gay-pride-month

What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Gay service personnel are coming out in droves. Now that they have visibility and a voice, you can expect the inequities to be addressed in short order.

salinsky wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Gay service personnel are coming out in droves. Now that they have visibility and a voice, you can expect the inequities to be addressed in short order.

In order for that to happen the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage at the federal level, after all housing , medical, and monetary allowances are for legally married couples and I don't think Obama wants to touch that issue just quite yet.

alecto wrote:

salinsky wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Gay service personnel are coming out in droves. Now that they have visibility and a voice, you can expect the inequities to be addressed in short order.

In order for that to happen the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage at the federal level, after all housing , medical, and monetary allowances are for legally married couples and I don't think Obama wants to touch that issue just quite yet.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Allowances for military families are significant, at a time when there is a lot of discussion about cutting existing retirement and medical benefits for military members.

Bombs and missiles are just Phallasses...thw whole military is a phallic worshipping religion...

salinsky wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Gay service personnel are coming out in droves. Now that they have visibility and a voice, you can expect the inequities to be addressed in short order.

How are gays coming out in droves if they make up less than 5% of the population?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Bombs and missiles are just Phallasses...thw whole military is a phallic worshipping religion...

I'm not sure everyone will understand what you said. And I'm not sure some of those that do understand it will agree(like it).
But what you say is in fact felicitous to the au courant.

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?

alecto wrote:

salinsky wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Gay service personnel are coming out in droves. Now that they have visibility and a voice, you can expect the inequities to be addressed in short order.

In order for that to happen the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage at the federal level, after all housing , medical, and monetary allowances are for legally married couples and I don't think Obama wants to touch that issue just quite yet.

Are you sure about this? I don't know about the military, but I do know there are corporations that consider gay relationships to be traditional with regard to insurance and other benefits.

Slicef18 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Bombs and missiles are just Phallasses...thw whole military is a phallic worshipping religion...

I'm not sure everyone will understand what you said. And I'm not sure some of those that do understand it will agree(like it).
But what you say is in fact felicitous to the au courant.

Felits to the what?

PBulldog2 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?

A military member does not have to be married in order to get benefits for his/her dependent children, but has to produce a marriage license in order to get benefits for a spouse.

I may be wrong, but I believe that it correct.

PBulldog2 wrote:

alecto wrote:

salinsky wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Gay service personnel are coming out in droves. Now that they have visibility and a voice, you can expect the inequities to be addressed in short order.

In order for that to happen the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage at the federal level, after all housing , medical, and monetary allowances are for legally married couples and I don't think Obama wants to touch that issue just quite yet.

Are you sure about this? I don't know about the military, but I do know there are corporations that consider gay relationships to be traditional with regard to insurance and other benefits.

Corporations can do as they please the Military budget is governed by law and appropriated through the federal budget which means politicians have their hands in it so with a sharply divided governing body (Repub/Dems) and the massively shrinking military budget it will be a politics as usual for same sex couples to receive the same benefits. I think I read some where that Obama authorized benefits for federal civilian employees but they fall in to a different category in the budget.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?

A military member does not have to be married in order to get benefits for his/her dependent children, but has to produce a marriage license in order to get benefits for a spouse.

I may be wrong, but I believe that it correct.

You are correct, they have to produce a marriage license for benefits.

Are you sure about this? I don't know about the military, but I do know there are corporations that consider gay relationships to be traditional with regard to insurance and other benefits.[/quote]

Corporations can do as they please the Military budget is governed by law and appropriated through the federal budget which means politicians have their hands in it so with a sharply divided governing body (Repub/Dems) and the massively shrinking military budget it will be a politics as usual for same sex couples to receive the same benefits. I think I read some where that Obama authorized benefits for federal civilian employees but they fall in to a different category in the budget.[/quote]

OK, thanks Alecto.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?

Like I said, we're in a time where there is talk of greatly reducing existing military benefits. This is about the federal government recognizing gay marriage in the same way it recognizes traditional marriage. We're talking about everything from social security benefits to family benefits for military families.
How do you propose to pay for all these extra benefits for gays and their families, while at the same time telling existing traditional military families that their benefits will be cut?
How do you think this will affect readiness? Morale? For those who say that I "hate gays" because of my stance, I will say that for many of the same reasons that I do not believe that women should serve in combat zones, I think there are going to be problems with openly gays serving. And I sure don't hate women! I understand that there are gays who proudly and bravely serve in the military and they have served for years. But I believe that "don't ask don't tell" was working. And I do not know if the military can afford this kind of change and shake up in morale and readiness at a time when significant cuts of benefits are coming.
The bottom line for me, regarding the military, is not what is "fair". Serving in the military is not about fairness or equality. The military is, by design, selective. Not everyone is eligible to serve. Not everyone has an automatic "right" to be in the military. This is not a civil rights issue. Decisions about military funding and military selection should be about performing the mission and about military readiness. That is the bottom line.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?

A military member does not have to be married in order to get benefits for his/her dependent children, but has to produce a marriage license in order to get benefits for a spouse.

I may be wrong, but I believe that it correct.

I'm not sure what kind of benefits you're talking about but I'm talking housing allowance, military family housing, etc.

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?

A military member does not have to be married in order to get benefits for his/her dependent children, but has to produce a marriage license in order to get benefits for a spouse.

I may be wrong, but I believe that it correct.

I'm not sure what kind of benefits you're talking about but I'm talking housing allowance, military family housing, etc.

If you have an authorized dependent whether it be a child or a spouse, you are entitled to all the benefits of housing or a housing allowance, medical and dental if provided if the service member can produce a marriage license for a spouse or a birth certificate/adoption papers in the case of a dependent child(children). As far as I know, getting allowances is not conducive on being married. You must have authorized dependents.

This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0718/Military-benefits-Not-for-gay-couples-in-armed-forces

Nekochan wrote:This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0718/Military-benefits-Not-for-gay-couples-in-armed-forces

I understand what you are saying and I was just trying to clear up for PB why benefits would be denied to gay couples. But if a gay couple has a child either through natural birth or adoption, the military member would be eligible for an allowance for housing as well as health care for the child.

I'm a little too angry to respond right now. I'll give it a day or so.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0718/Military-benefits-Not-for-gay-couples-in-armed-forces

I understand what you are saying and I was just trying to clear up for PB why benefits would be denied to gay couples. But if a gay couple has a child either through natural birth or adoption, the military member would be eligible for an allowance for housing as well as health care for the child.

Right. If the child is adopted or a natural birth. That makes sense.
But what we're mostly talking about in terms of gay marriage is spousal benefits.

PBulldog2 wrote:I'm a little too angry to respond right now. I'll give it a day or so.

You know, we all have different experiences, different opinions.
Some people think I'm in the dark ages regarding women serving in the military but that is the way I think after seeing the problems caused by females serving in some areas. The military should not be a social experiment. The main issue should not have to do with anyone's rights. It's about military readiness and the mission.

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0718/Military-benefits-Not-for-gay-couples-in-armed-forces

I understand what you are saying and I was just trying to clear up for PB why benefits would be denied to gay couples. But if a gay couple has a child either through natural birth or adoption, the military member would be eligible for an allowance for housing as well as health care for the child.

Right. If the child is adopted or a natural birth. That makes sense.
But what we're mostly talking about in terms of gay marriage is spousal benefits.

I understand and after reading the article that you linked I now see it in a completely different light. The article stated that the Obama administration would not challenge the DOMA if it is challenged in court. I take that to mean that he is for benefits for gay couples.

It's an emotional issue. I understand that.
My point is: The military should not be run based on emotions.