Don't Ask, Don't Tell fails Senate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pima said:
I wonder what the fiscal cost will be, because if you assume that 10-20% of military members are homosexual, and if 50% of them are in a committed relationship, the benefits side will implode from a fiscal stance.

Housing alone could be insane. If the avg is 800 a month in BAH, or 10K a yr for each of these members, that could be millions within the 1st yr.

That does not include health benefits, especially now when many military dependents are being forced off base for their health care.

Then finally add in PCS pay and you add another strain on the DoD budget that is already overburdened.

I do see social issues hit the fan minute one the ink dries on the repeal. Either way there will be lawsuits filed because of the civil union issue not being resolved from a federal standpoint.

If the military acknowledges the civil unions, than those members from states that do not will sue from a civil rights issue. If they do not acknowledge the civil unions, than it would be a discrimination case. Either way it is not a path that I think will be good for morale.
Click to expand...

I don't think the benefits issue will be as big a fiscal burden as expected. how many members get married in a year? How many new members enter per year that are married? While you might have a 1-2 years "surge" in benefits collecting, I don't think you'll see as large of a strain as we think.

Plus, once they solve this issue, whether in a year or 5 years, the questions of money for benefits will not be an issue I think. Anyway, anyone (not saying you've said this, its a general statement) who wants to hold back on a civil rights issue because it will strain the budget is nuts IMO. 1950: I'm sorry African-American man, we can't afford to take your race at the moment. Try again once we have more money! :yllol:
 
I agree, I am just stating that it will have a fiscal issue, but to me that is water off a ducks back. I was just addressing the fact that this will need to be addressed for fiscal reasons prior to implementation.

The issue that did not exist in the country back with the integration of AA military members was not a federal law that would prohibit the AA member from being married and having a spouse. In this scenario it is a very real deal.

I can't see how the military will not be entangled in a federal lawsuit within minutes if civil unions are not acknowledged from a federal standpoint.

Nobody has yet to be able to explain why there wouldn't be a lawsuit immediately from a homosexual member who because of their HOR would not qualify for dependent benefits. The military cannot give the benefits with out a valid marriage license. It is a quandry that needs to be addressed. Honestly, I don't care if they do it before or on a concurrent track. I care that they do it because I think the morale damage could be a great impact upon the services. It could create resentment...GEE, thanks I can now say I am gay, but I am still a second class citizen because my spouse is not recognized since we are gay!
 
The military does tend to follow local state laws. E.g. When there were still states that had drinking age of 18 and some where drinking was 21, the military, at that local base, many times followed the local law. The military could simply allow gay relationships; however, the only civil/married unions that they will recognize, are those who have been legally married in a state where it's legal and recognized. That's not to say that many gay military members wouldn't change their state of legal residency to Vermont, but that is what they'd have to do to be recognized as married in the military. People do it for tax purposes all the time. Change residency to a state that doesn't collect state income tax. However, most states have a certain residency requirement. Most who change for tax purposes were stationed in that state.

Anyway; while this wouldn't seem fair to everyone, it is a viable option. The military simply says: "We don't make state/federal laws". If you're "LEGALLY" married, (Marriage is done at the state level), then we will recognize it for military benefit purposes. If you aren't legally married, then we don't consider you married. This then forces the issue back onto the states and the federal government. Most military policies have been in response to national/state social norms. This should be no different. The military shouldn't be establishing their own gay/marriage policies.
 
Yes, they could change their legal residence, but as you stated it is not easy or a given.

Bullet and I did that yrs ago from NJ to AK. Some states have very stringent laws for residency. In AK, you had to have the following:
1. DL
2. Voter reg
3. PHYSICAL ADDRESS
4. Bank account.

If you're "LEGALLY" married, (Marriage is done at the state level), then we will recognize it for military benefit purposes. If you aren't legally married, then we don't consider you married. This then forces the issue back onto the states and the federal government. Most military policies have been in response to national/state social norms. This should be no different. The military shouldn't be establishing their own gay/marriage policies.
Click to expand...

Correct, it forces it back on the states and the fed. Why should the military be the ones that force the govt to address this issue when their lives are at risk?

Reid is the leader of the Senate, Pelosi is the leader of the House, they could have done a direct route by creating a bill that recognizes homosexual unions from a federal standpoint. They control the agenda.

Reid placed this as an amendment on a bill that was sure to fail because of the NOM issue. Total pandering!

Someone needs to explain to me why this route? I would love to hear from the homosexual community why the repeal of DADT is more important than civil unions? Why the brouhaha over this in the media, while they remain silent over civil unions?

If the majority of Americans support civil unions, wouldn't that have been an easier route? The military follows the laws set forth by the govt. DoD would have no other option, but to accept EVERY homosexual union if this occurred, instead, now they have to say...Yes to some and No to others when it comes to the bennies.
 
Right now I don't think they'd recognize any union. For the purposes of federal law, which would include military benefits, marriage is only man-woman. Immediately at least, I don't think the military would owe any gay couples anything. Also their were complicated financial/benefits isues with AA integration.

As for morale - with dadt, homosexuals are prevented from even having open, normal relationships. In a lot of commentary from gay service members, this is one of the big issues. It's not just that they can't get married, they can't even safely have a boyfriend or girlfriend. So in youe morale question, I think that at least allowing gays to serve openly, even without marriage benefits, is a vast improvement morale-wise. If you disagree, I'll pass on to my gay friends that we're just not going to give them any improvement because we think it might hurt their currently wonderful morale to not fully solve all discrimination at once.
 
SteveHolt243 said:
If you disagree, I'll pass on to my gay friends that we're just not going to give them any improvement because we think it might hurt their currently wonderful morale to not fully solve all discrimination at once.
Click to expand...



Please do, thanks. :wink: I'm assuming they're out of the service, and their actions aren't being condoned...as it is still policy.

I'm hoping this doesn't come down to "let's just make people happy" or "lets make sure a minority of the serving public are happy while looking past the issues that affect the vast majority."

I think a large part of the resistance, is the way the discussion was undertaken, being inserted in an authorization bill, without initially consulting the military. And then inserting immigration related pieces. Yes, Congress tags on extra fun to bills, but a repeal of DADT is a little big to just hike up to an authorization bill.
 
Personally, I hope it comes down to "lets protect the rights of minorities even if it may be difficult or inconvenient for the majority."
 
Steve,

I don't disagree that the majority would love to just serve openly. However, there will always be that one person, who is not going to be happy with status quo, or in this case serve openly, but no marriage benefits.

Heck, I am sure the SLDN and the ACLU are preparing for the next step, which would be to have a military member that is from a state that recognizes civil unions get married and apply for a military i.d card that day.

The military does not ask for any federal form for marital benefits...i.e. tax return. You show your valid marriage certificate and that is it. To demand that homosexuals show a federal marriage certificate would be discrimination especially from a civil rights perspective. Again, there is no federal paperwork that you must show to prove your marital status. When Bullet and I married, we were months out from the IRS tax day. I got my i.d. the first day I showed up at his base. We showed 3 things...marriage license, social security card and my DL. He showed his CAC. He didn't even have to show orders. 15 minutes later I had an i.d., 30 minutes later his LES was changed to show dependent 1. Again, nothing was required from a federal standpoint.

I would hope the Pentagon is trying to unravel that mess now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when DADT was created, within hours they had lawsuits going. The thought back then, was sim to Steve's thought, they would be happy with anything. WRONG! DADT has been a thorn in the military's side because they took that mental approach.

OBTW, I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge we never did pass an amendment that states from a federal law marriage is between a man and a woman, thus it can be fought that way too.
 
Last edited:
It's not that they'll be happy with anything. It's that incremental change is significantly better than no change.

I just want to make sure I understand you right:

You support gays serving openly; however, there may be a financial cost, so let's keep putting it off.

You support gays serving openly; however, there's some other discriminatory laws (DOMA, for example) that someone might sue over, so let's keep putting it off. Gays will probably be happier serving closeted with no relationships than serving openly with long-term relationships that just aren't recognized anyways.

If I'm misrepresenting your stance, tell me. But the former stance is just disgusting (balancing equal rights with financial cost - hey integrating schools would be fun, but it'll be expensive, so let's just put that on hold too) and the latter just strikes me as, well, stupid (We can't solve all problems today, so let's just give them nothing).


Side note: no, there's no amendment. There is DOMA, which would specifically prevent same-sex couples from getting benefits. It's irrelevant whether they have a valid marriage certificate. Now it probably will (and should) go away, but even then - so what? So the government gets sued for discrimination that you seem to agree is not only wrong, but also bad for morale.
 
You are wrong. I support homosexuals and the repeal of DADT, but it is not a fiscal issue at all. It is totally about their rights from a benefits issue.

I stated the fiscal issue because that is one more aspect that the DoD will need to address as SOON as they allow it. It was more of a question where they will find the money than anything else if it goes into effect in Nov. or Dec. which is after the FY 11 bill is passed. That means they need to address that issue too, just for FY11, but it is a fiscal issue for the yr when $$$ is already tight.

It would only be for FY11 since FY12 would be proposed knowing they have the fiscal issue.

This really is not about homosexual dorms, or the fiscal budget. To me this is about the fact that by pushing a bill through for election pandering they could do much more damage to the civil unions aspect. Let's go with they don't have to acknowledge the union from a federal standpoint. What stops the dependent not recognized by the military from a benefits standpoint for bringing in their own lawsuit against the federal govt.

The military should never be used as guinea pigs. Obama and Reid and anyone else who supports homosexual rights, should stand up and create a bill where their union is acknowledged by the fed. govt. The military would fall in step with it, instead, they are forcing the issue to be resolved as a way to force the govt. JMHO.

My godmother lost her life partner of 27 yrs 1 day after NJ recognized civil unions, she spent a yr in court and umpteen thousands of dollars just to protect her assets against her partner's children. The house was in her (godmother's) name, the car was in her name, etc. etc, yet they wanted 50% of the home and the cars because in their eyes that was their mother's estate. Want to make it worse, the children refused to allow her into the room as she died. It was my godmother who called these children who turned their backs yrs earlier on their own mother for openly announcing she was gay. Trust me, my opinion is based on the injustices of the law when it comes to homosexuals. I do not want to see one homosexual partner lose lifelong medical benefits or military benefits because of the loophole that the military never recognized their marriage.

I hope you can see I am some one who hopes for the best, but expects the worst and that would clear it up for you why I feel this way.

In case you missed it on drudge today

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68M5X220100924

However, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that the government's filing "in no way diminishes the president's firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal ... indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy."

"Don't ask, don't tell" was introduced in 1993 by President Bill Clinton and enacted into law, overturning a previous policy of excluding gay men and women altogether based on a premise that homosexuality was incompatible with the military.

But U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips declared the law to be unconstitutional, ruling in an 86-page opinion on September 9 that it violates the First and Fifth amendments.

Phillips said then that she intended to issue an injunction restricting the government from enforcing the policy.

But Obama's lawyers asked in Thursday's motion that Phillips refrain from applying her ruling nationally, or to the military overseas. Instead, the Department of Justice argued that the immediate effect of her decision should be to prohibit the military from expelling openly gay service members who belong to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Regardless of how broadly or narrowly Phillips ultimately applies her ruling, the administration asked for more time to assess the consequences of her decision.

"A court should not compel ... an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations," the department wrote, "particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe."
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the clarification - I agree on what sort of federal marriage law should exist (although I suppose technically I'd just prefer DOMA were repealed and the federal government simply honored state same-sex marriages, but that's getting a bit in the weeds).

I simply don't think the fiscal issue is nearly as serious as you make it out to be. Just spitballing, but if you have 60000 gay service members (roughly what SLDN states as the numbers), and 80% of them came out (which judging by foreign experiences, would be high), and through some magic half of those lived in states that allowed gay marriage and chose to get married, we could estimate yearly cost at somewhere in the tens of millions. It's just not very much. Considering estimates of the cost of separations since DADT began (somewhere between 90 and 390 million over the 16 years, depending on who you ask), we're really not talking about much money.

As for the article link - I would agree that a legislative change to DADT is preferable (not to mention that I don't think SCOTUS would rule the way I like), and I don't think this court case is going to go very far.
 
Steve,

The fiscal is only for yr 1. It really is no issue at all, except for jigging and jagging the budget that is set. There is always discretionary funding that can be used, or they can go to Congress and request more $$$.

I think, and I may be wrong, but you are grabbing onto an issue where I have stated already it is minute and has little to no bearance on the repeal of DADT. I have stated multiple times, the fiscal issue impact is only going to be for yr 1 IF the repeal occurs AFTER the budget is passed.

I am sure we are having a mis-communication.

In the end of the day we both agree homosexuals should have every right in the military as the heterosexual military member. I just personally think repealing it half arsed tomorrow and living with it for another 17 yrs until they correct it one more time, is not worth the wait of 3-6 months and doing it properly where they have 100% of the benefits they deserve.

There is absolutely nothing in the books that states they will get 100% of the same benefits if DADT is repealed. I am sorry, AND dense. I just don't get why the homosexual community is not putting all of their might (Log Cabin and SLDN) into making Obama's administration and the Dems like REID or PELOSI to stand up and acknowledge homosexual unions from a federal standpoint.

I admit I didn't vote for him, but as a supporter of homosexual unions...and a CATHOLIC (OMG), I would stand up and defend all three of them if they brought this to vote.

I am so tired of hearing the pandering from elected officials. If they truly believe in this, than DO IT! There is absolutely no reason IMPO that the leaders on the Hill who control the agenda could not address this issue. 10 would you get you 20, Gates feels the same way. Instead of being in the weeds, because the Hill refuses to approach he could have resolved this issue if they recognized civil unions.

Again, DOMA does not play into the military since all a military member needs to claim a member as a military dependent is a valid marriage certificate. Federal law has nothing to do with getting a military i.d. and we need to make sure we do not muddy the waters with this idea.

Ironically, Barney Frank had his hand in the repeal of DOMA
On September 15, 2009, 3 Democratic members of Congress, Jerrold Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado, introduced legislation to repeal DOMA called the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill had 91 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. However, gay Congressman Barney Frank and John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking openly gay political appointee, did not support that effort, stating that "the backbone is not there" in Congress. Frank and Berry suggested DOMA could be overturned more quickly through lawsuits such as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
Click to expand...

They too saw that there were more efficient options. It was opposite of what I propose, but it is still the same...don't put the cart before the horse just to say we did it!
 
I am not so sure. This is from CNN
An Air Force spokesman said the Air Force believes that "Major Witt's discharge was fully consistent with the law and thus appropriate."

"While we are disappointed the district court judge did not agree that important Congressionally-recognized military interests were furthered by Major Witt's discharge, we are pleased he allowed the government to develop a more detailed factual record for the appellate courts to consider," said Lt. Col. Todd Vician
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/24/military.gay.reinstatement/index.html?hpt=T2

To me that means they are going to appeal the decision, which does not mean she is back in service, she could still be sitting out on the sidelines depending on the appeal.


Either way this issue will place Obama's administration on the hot seat the minute the survey is released. The fireworks are just starting.
 
I love the total 100% pure Bull Crap that the media puts out. And sorry; but if you agree with the actual wording, then I feel the same about your opinion.

This decision puts yet another nail in the coffin of the military's attempt to discriminate against gay and lesbian service members. It is the second judge to rule against this law this month.
Click to expand...

Oh yea, the MILITARY is ATTEMPTING to discriminate against gays and lesbian service members. What a pure crock of krap. Yea, the military got all the various chief of staffs, or their counterparts, together and made this rule. Please don't try and defend this article. I am not speaking about DADT. I am not speaking about whether this major should come back into the military. I'm talking about the distorted 100% krap that the media plays, and the people who buy into it.Yea, President Clinton and Congress had NOTHING to do with DADT. It's definitely the "MILITARY'S ATTEMPT to DISCRIMINATE". The military HATES gays and lesbians. They want to see each of them die a slow horrible death.

Thank you for letting me vent about the buttholes out there that write this krap. Unfortunately, there are those who read this garbage and believe it to be true. Possibly some on this forum.
 
Then you would have loved the Rachel Maddow show the night the Senate failed to pass the DADT amendment. She made it seem as if this was the only thing in the bill.

Somehow or another she seemed to fail to grasp that the control of Noms was the real reason it died. Instead, she made it all about DADT.
 
Pima:

You must be one of the six hundred that watch Rachel in her time slot.:shake::thumb: If it wasn't for Keith (I am the most wonderful person on the earth and all you other networks that fired me must be morons) she wouldn't even have a show.
 
Federal judge orders injunction against military gay ban

October 12, 2010
3:40 P.M.

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling issued Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.
 
Gotta LOVE the media.

1: It WASN'T the "military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops". It was the PRESIDENT and CONGRESSES ban on openly gay troops.
2: A Federal District Court Judge doesn't have carte-blance over making an enforceable national decision that was put into place by congress. Especially one that affect government employees. "That would be the same as her saying that the IRS is not constitutional, and that there's an injunction on ALL TAXES and hereby tax collection is hereby suspended and can not be enforced.

Chances are, the federal judge did not rule exactly how it's being reported. That's just sensationalism by the media. I don't trust a lot of what I read in any of the media. Any changes to military policies and regulations are not going to come from the "9th CIRCUS COURT".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top