DADT Repeal tomorrow - Academies Respond

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by temp, Sep 19, 2011.

  1. temp

    temp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://online.wsj.com/article/APf934a65b873c40b9861902d39c39bda7.html

    Should be an uneventful day for cadets and midshipmen.
     
  2. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
  3. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    930
    Never thought of that Member.

    In a way I disagree with the article, because it insinuates that the AD world had issues with it. I don't think on the most part the AD ever had an issue with it, they had the same opinion as long as you do your job, I don't care about who you are attracted to. Honestly, it wasn't as if within the unit people didn't know, they just didn't out them. The people who did, did it for personal issues, and not professional reasons.

    Let's be honest, homosexuals are not sexual deviants who want to "change" heterosexuals. It is a little pompous/arrogant to believe they will hit on you or harass you. That is akin to assuming every heterosexual male is going to want to sleep with every woman. There are the jerks that will, but on a whole, that is not the norm.

    Let them serve openly.

    This does not change my opinion that we have problems looming due to the fact that our country does not recognize homosexual unions, but states do, and to get a military i.d. for a spouse you do not submit your 1040, but the marriage license from your HOR. We now have about 50% of states recognizing these unions, and so it places the military in a quagmire. The state recognizes their union, but the fed. doesn't. How will we deal with housing, medical, BAH, etc.?

    I wish the govt would just acknowledge that there is no reason for not giving homosexuals the same marital rights as a heterosexual couple. To me this is now insane. Before you flame me, remember you cannot or should not use religion because we have that little thing called separation of Church and State. If you believe they shouldn't have the same right do it without religion.
     
  4. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    930
    TPG,

    1. I agree it is not a fight they want, but let's agree this society is a litigious society, and we will see lawsuits right away from members who can now serve openly and are married according to their HOR...just like lawsuits flew right after the DADT.

    That is the problem and why we should not use the military as guinea pigs. We should have passed a federal law recognizing homosexual unions before we went down this path.

    2. I doubt that even from a grad school POV that they would understand the fiscal finesse.. I guess if you said to them that your pay is tied to being married, it would assist in framing the issue, but most people in the bus. world do not comprehend that their company expects you to use part of your salary for rent/mtg, yet the military actually says this is what we pay depending on your status. I would think if you also framed it that 5K work for the company and they have 350 homes to live in free of charge, but you must prove you are legally married, tax returns don't count, they may see it differently.

    It is all about how you frame it.

    I do agree that with the talk of hitting the retirees and their bennies, RIF and SERB, medical system overtaxed and burdened, there is going to be an issue to now pay more bennies.

    Let's remember this is not just BAH, it is medical, it PCS DLA and TLA. It is not just saying let women serve in combat. This is a fiscal issue and because our govt did not have the fore sight to do this right, we are probably looking at lawsuits which will cause division and money.

    Honestly, I don't think the majority of AD members actually thought about the big picture. The older troops who understand the system have placed these issues into the equation. It was never to them about not allowing them to serve openly, it was always about the other issues that comes with it. Like I said, does MPC now have to have a checklist of states that the marriage is legal when making a dep. ID or enrolling in DEERS? I would assume that the computer system will have to be re-worked so it does not allow them to move forward for the states that don't acknowledge civil unions. How much does that cost? How often will they have to update it because states do vote on this 1 by 1?
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  5. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    I don't think the "addition" is going to be so outrageously high to overwhelm the system. The numbers of those who actively participate in a gay relationship while on active duty is most likely much smaller than the civilian estimate of 10%.

    In fact, these men who will be adding another male to their benefit package are simply doing so in lieu of adding a female, so the net increase is zilch.

    In fact, without the addition of children, the costs may be lower.
     
  6. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,750
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    It could be very bumpy...


    but alas....I don't have to worry about these things.

    it's been a political process since it was added to campaign promises...
     
  7. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    930
    1. Single members do not get BAH with dependents. SO it will never be net increase of zilch. They now have a dependent. A dependent that gets claimed for PCS, a dependent that gets employment priorities, family separation allowance, weight allowances, a dependent that gets dental and medical.

    DADT these members did not have this luxury/benefit.

    BAH for an E6 without dep. is 1440/mo, and 1920 with in AK. That is @5500 a yr just in BAH. O4 is a 582/mo difference. Earle in NJ is even higher. Add per diem for PCSing per mile from Bragg to Ft Rich, and you are talking thousands just or the PCS. Weight allowance without dep. is lower than with, which will incur costs.

    There are @ 3million AD members, let's say 5% are homosexual, that is 150K. 50% are in a committed relationship, that is 75K. 75K added onto the roles. Start doing the math it is probably in just direct costs, in the millions.

    2. Adoption

    Guess what homosexual couples do have children. OBTW the military also supports adoption and has a program to financially support them

    http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/adoptionreimbursement.html

    That's the thing...it is about the devil in the details, and unless you understand that how it impacts bennies fiscally, you don't get it. If the AD member dies the military will pay them a monthly stipend, but what if the country does not acknowledge the union, while the state does? Where does leave them? Has the military even addressed this yet before repealing DADT?

    Again, in this world, that is an issue.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  8. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    I think Luigi's point was that if the single member was to get married to a woman in service, he would be allowed to, and the govt. would pay him as having one dependent. Instead, he gets married to another man and the cost would be the same (it's just a male dependent instead of a female).

    As Luigi pointed out, the estimate is that about 10 percent of the population is homosexual. It probably is less than that in the military (but maybe close to this average). I have no statistical data to prove it, but it seems a reasonable enough presumption. Thus, the cost of adding a few dependents to the rolls would not be overwhelming to the system. Especially, as Luigi points out, when the service members would have the right to marry a woman and add her to the rolls if they were heterosexual. One might argue that a single military member eventually becoming married is something that the military should budget for once they accept that member for enlistment.

    The Army Times explained that DOMA is the legal barrier for the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses. Until we have an answer on that, everything else is academic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  9. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Winner.
     
  10. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I agree that it shouldn't be a major financial burden. Just because a person is gay, doesn't mean they are going to marry. I'm a heterosexual and I dated a lot of women before I settled down and married. Half of these women were military and the other half were civilians. Not one of them received any military benefits.

    And as pointed out, military members get married all the time. Some military members marry each other specifically so they can move onto the local economy, receive BAQ/BAS, and make more money. Some homosexuals will marry. Just like some heterosexuals will marry. And there will be some homosexuals that will simply date; just like there are many heterosexuals who just date. Just because a person is a homosexual doesn't mean they are more prone to marriage than a heterosexual.

    And for those homosexuals who do want to get married; visit a state that allows homosexual marriages and don't worry about it. The military shouldn't have any problem accepting a legal marriage certificate. It's not going to be a large portion of the military. Once the novelty wears off; Yes, it's a LEGAL NOVELTY; demanding the right to get married and live openly gay will no longer be an issue. Homosexuals will be single, date, break up, start new relationships, marry, possibly divorce, have new relationships, etc... just like heterosexual people do.
     
  11. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    930
    First off, the point I had is you can't say "what's the difference because if we had a 100% hetero force it would be the same", but in the same breath say 10% of our society is homosexual. It would put us back at to the status of life prior to DADT. If you acknowledge 10% of society is homosexual, you can't theorize that 100% of the military is heterosexual.

    Yes, I get what is being stated, but my point is you are adding more people into the system due to the fact that now there is this option. That is the game changer.

    Again, let's go with 10%, but only 5% are open, and 50% of them have a committed relationship. With 3 million AD, that number is 75K. Multiply that by a difference of 6K a yr for BAH, and let's say 4K for bennies like medical, dental, etc. 75K X 10K a yr, is not pennies. It is 750,000,000 million per year.

    Again, we are adding people into the pool because we opened up another option. I think 5% is actually a very low number. I would put it at least 7%, which would put 210K AD, and 100K in committed.

    Secondly, my point is and was we need a federal decision, without at it we place our services in a quagmire regarding how to handle it.

    Yes, homosexuals date and break up like heterosexuals. I do not expect all of them to marry, and that is why I did 50%.

    Also remember, there is that other bennie...10 yrs as a spouse allows them to get a % of their retirement pay as long as you don't re-marry. Honestly, I have a lot of friends that are forever engaged so she can keep her military bennies. Again, yes, it happens in the hetero world, but now you have added more people to the pool that would not have been in it in the 1st place.

    I am not saying that I support not having homosexuals in the military, that is the furthest thing from the truth. I am saying you just added more people and that will cost money.

    We can play the 100% hetero game, that's not the issue. The issue is there now will be more people eligible for more bennies, which costs money. This is not a ethical/moral/sexual issue. It is a dollar and cents issue.

    Tell me how I am wrong...tell me that my numbers for BAH difference and medical will not cost millions to the military for homosexual couples that now get bennies. Tell me this is not going to cause issues that an AD gets base housing in Germany because they are from NY, and the couple from CA can't even get their name on their orders and must fly back to the states every 6 months, because their union is not recognized? That is on top of the fact that they get preference for jobs as a military spouse, or at least long ago get Spousal Tuition Assistance, plus many spouse organizations hold firm to spouse.

    There is a lot more to this than just money when it comes to AD life.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  12. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129

    Allow me to provide some statistics a la RAND: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG1056.pdf

    Estimate is 3.7% of the military is gay: 2.2% of men and 10.7% of women.

    Entire us population is also 3.7%, with 3.2% male and 4.2% female.

    The benefits question, IMHO, is a red herring in the larger debate on the issue.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  13. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    No argument from me.

    DOMA is the reason the military is not providing benefits to same-sex spouses. It has nothing to do with costs. The service departments aren't making the argument that providing benefits is an economically unfeasible reality, they are stating that federal law prohibits them from recognizing same-sex marriages.

    Only a court case will solve this one, I'm afraid.
     
  14. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I know that when I first entered active duty, enlisted members lived in the dormitory if they were single. And it was not uncommon for E-5/E-6 to live in the dorm. Only toward the late 90's did it appear that more dorms were single occupancy and more E-3/4 were being allowed to live off base. However; throughout this whole time, there were plenty of single folks in the dorm who would get married as a "Matter of Convenience". Many were both military members. This allowed them to each live off base with BAQ(BHA). They'd get an apartment together without any real marital/romantic relationship. Just like there are divorced spouses who are perpetually engaged, simply so they can continue receiving retired military pay, there are those in the military who are married simply for convenience and to make extra money.

    But I agree that the actual number of gays in the military; who will marry; and expect dependent support and additional benefits will be quite small in number. Probably pretty insignificant.
     
  15. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Winner.
     
  16. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    930
    Exactly!

    The military because of the federal govt is boffed and we will need a court case to resolve it. I bet in days there will be a lawsuit from a military member regarding discrimination for bennies.

    I am not saying we will not take a fiscal hit, but I am saying and have always stated that we have both issues...fiscal and legal.

    Sorry, but Obama could have made this a non-issue by creating an EO recognizing homosexual unions. I don't get supporting the repeal of DADT and not supporting their right to marry. Either you support them as an equal with all rights or you don't.

    As a President that studied Constitutional Law, I don't get it when we have separation between Church and State. What exactly is the reason to not legalize federally homosexual marriages and give all the same benefits that a heterosexual couple has.

    Somebody please enlighten me.
     
  17. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    The problem is, there is no "Federal Marriages" to legalize. Marriage is licensed in the states, not the federal courts. But Obama and his minions could simply say: "If a military member is LEGALLY married, recognized by one of the 50 U.S. States or territories, then they are thus legal for the purpose of military dependents/benefits/etc... But the federal government doesn't perform legal contracts for marriages. Just like there's no federal law that says you have to be 21 years old to drink. That's a state law.
     
  18. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    With regard to a challenge to DOMA, which I'm certain is being litigated in numerous federal courts:

    I'm not sure the First Amendment is the best place to begin, as that implies that DOMA has a solely religious grounding in its enactment which would be violative of the Establishment Clause per Lemon v. Kurtzman. As much as I think religious ideology may underpin the enactment of DOMA, I think it can be argued, albeit via creative lawyering, that the establishment of marriage as between a man and woman has existed, traditionally, outside of religion, and that there is a secular purpose to the legislation. What that might be, I'd leave that to others to speculate.

    With regard to the Equal Protection argument, sexual orientation is not a protected class, so it isn't the best way to go forward.

    Indeed, In my view, the best argument for invalidating DOMA would be through a challenge on what is called the "substantive due process" portion of the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause (since we are discussing a federal law). Starting with a case called Griswold v. Conn. in the 60s, the Court has recognized that individuals have certain "fundamental rights" in dealing with their personal matters (particularly when it comes to matters involving sexuality). The Court has said that such protections are in the 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process clauses, and are matters of "substantive due process" as opposed to "procedural due process." With regard to these personal relations, it is something that has origins in the Warren Court. The idea isn't new, however, as the Court "invented" a "right to contract" under a similar theory in the earlier part of the 20th Century (Lochner v. New York). That "economic right" has been subsequently overturned. With regard to non-economic substantive due process, which is still good law, legal minds differ as to it being a bit of a stretch, and it certainly is one of the more controversial positions the Court has taken over the years. Under this logic, cases like Roe v. Wade were decided.

    In 2003, the Court invalidated a Texas criminal statute prohibiting "sodomy" on these grounds as an extension of case law that dates to Griswold. It's 14th Amendment in that case, because it was a State law. Regardless, in a 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion states that there is a fundamental right to engage in intimate consensual sexual conduct. From here, knowing that part of marriage should include sexual relations, I am of the opinion that DOMA violates the 5th Amendment on substantive due process grounds. I am not on the Court, however.

    If this goes to the enlightened nine, it will be a 5-4 decision one way or the other. Substantive due process is controversial on the Court, and Justice Scalia and other conservative Justices despise it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  19. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    It doesn't have to be a protected class, as the legal proceeding of "marriage" (or any other "legal" proceeding) is already covered by the Constitution

    If any one state legally performs and recognizes a marriage (hetero or gay), then the Full Faith & Credit Clause of Article IV Section 1 would apply, thus legalizing the marriage in all states.

    I cannot see any other interpretation to any legal challenge due to this pesky document getting in the way again.

    :cool:
     
  20. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    Yes, I forgot the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A solid argument there, indeed.

    That requires States to recognize legal instruments/judgments issued in other states. This is why an Indiana Driver license is accepted in Vermont. DOMA specifically excuses states from doing this (I think?), but DOMA is a federal statute and hence under the Constitution in authority.

    I'm not super-familiar with DOMA, but if it allows the federal government to specifically not recognize same-sex marriages, it isn't a FF&C matter. Still, we have what I said earlier about the 5th Amendment.


    Good catch.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011

Share This Page