Pentagon: Same-sex spouse benefits begin Sept 3

[Pima]

However, the reasons for the free leave appear to center around the practicalities of obtaining a civil marriage license as opposed to correcting for past discrimination.

Bullet and I were married in NJ. When we got married, it was mandatory for a blood test to be drawn within 30 days prior to the wedding, and no less than 3 days prior. Bullet was in CA at the time as a UNT student. He couldn't just fly back home and get married over a weekend. He was charged leave.

So if it is not correcting the past than how is it fair? As I have stated our DS will get married over a holiday weekend next yr. He knows it will come out of his leave account. He too will be married not at his duty station in TX, but in NC. He knows he needs to have leave in his account.

In all essence of equality, than maybe the rule should be that they are allowed to go up to 10 days in the hole for leave due to the fact that they may have to go out of state. However, to say since only 37 states allow homosexual unions and many may have to travel than more than 100 miles is BS to me.

Out of all my friends during the course of Bullet's career I can count on my one hand that got married at their duty station. Our DS's AF peers are all getting married now. Not one is planning a wedding at Del Rio, they are all going back home for their wedding.

That is how most weddings go. They want love ones with them, and typically they go to the place where at least one of the couple resides.

 

[sprog]

Bullet and I were married in NJ. When we got married, it was mandatory for a blood test to be drawn within 30 days prior to the wedding, and no less than 3 days prior. Bullet was in CA at the time as a UNT student. He couldn't just fly back home and get married over a weekend. He was charged leave.
.

The difference, of course, is that the law in California did not prevent you from obtaining a license there. You made the choice to get married in New Jersey.

A gay couple stationed in Texas does not have that option; they must go somewhere else.

As I said in an earlier post, I can think of several joint-spouse couples from my Air Force time who got a civil license in North Dakota so that they could take advantage of things like base housing; however, the "white wedding" ceremony was several months later in a home state (with no need for the civil license at that time, obviously, as it had already been obtained). Of course, leave was charged for the trip home.

Now, let's say there is a gay couple stationed at Ft. Meade in the great State of Maryland. If they choose to go home to New York to get married, I fully support them being charged with personal leave for all of the time required to get a civil license. This appears to be the DOD's approach.

And guys, I'm with you that 10 days seems high. My personal reasons for not being bothered so much by it have been explained.

 

[sprog]

I don't entirely agree. Heterosexuals hide inappropriate relationships all the time. Inappropriate because the military tells them it is. Officer/enlisted relationships, affairs within commands, everyone wants to meet their "Poppa Panda Sexy Pants" but they can't. Not because society says no, but because it is against the law.

Some heterosexuals hide their UCMJ-deemed inappropriate relationships. Most active duty heterosexuals do not fall into that category.

At the time of DADT, all homosexual relationships were deemed inappropriate, and hence they all had to hide it if remaining in the military was important to them.

Sexual orientation isn't the same as having the hots for an opposite-sex NCO in your command. Your innate sexuality isn't what's illegal in that case; it's the specific object of your affection that is forbidden. Same is true if you engage in an opposite-sex adulterous affair. There are policy reasons for those restrictions that didn't exist with the all-out prohibition on homosexual relationships.

For gay servicemen or woman under DADT, no same-sex relationship could be openly disclosed. Love may be love, but love does not equal sexual orientation.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Some heterosexuals hide their UCMJ-deemed inappropriate relationships. Most active duty heterosexuals do not fall into that category.

I don't know about the "good order" of your units, but any time a UCMJ-deemed inappropriate relationship was identified, one of both of the members were discharged.

True SOME hid it, and others didn't. Many of those others are no longer serving because of their decision. The same was true of homosexual service members. Some hid it, and some didn't. Those who didn't are no longer serving.

 

[CRM114]

If the reg was changed to where EVERYONE received the 10 days (regardless of sexual orientation) I would support it.

I think hornetman's idea about making gay marriage legal on all federal property to be the best solution. No leave required for travel.

Now if only the US Naval Academy would allow their Chapel to be used.

 

[sprog]

I don't know about the "good order" of your units, but any time a UCMJ-deemed inappropriate relationship was identified, one of both of the members were discharged.

True SOME hid it, and others didn't. Many of those others are no longer serving because of their decision. The same was true of homosexual service members. Some hid it, and some didn't. Those who didn't are no longer serving.

And most active duty heterosexual relationships are not deemed inappropriate by UCMJ. Some, as you have identified, clearly are.

At the time of DADT, all homosexual activity was deemed inappropriate. With the repeal, there are still some homosexual relationships that are still forbidden (adultery, frat, etc.).

 

[LineInTheSand]

And most active duty heterosexual relationships are not deemed inappropriate by UCMJ. Some, as you have identified, clearly are.

At the time of DADT, all homosexual activity was deemed inappropriate.

Which do you think is more common?

 

[LineInTheSand]

If the reg was changed to where EVERYONE received the 10 days (regardless of sexual orientation) I would support it.

I wouldn't.

"Get the federal government out of my bedroom....."

Ok. Sounds good. But now you want the federal government to give you 10 free days? Explain to me how that works.


No, no one should get 10 days free leave for a marriage. Save and use your leave like the private sector. You already have 30 days of leave a year.

 

[sprog]

Which do you think is more common?

I have no idea, and I don't think it matters (I might guess that there are more gay people on a base than those engaged in frat, but I have no way of substantiating such a claim).

I think a ban on a frat/adultery relationship and the former ban on same-sex sexual orientation involve two wholly separate policy considerations. The policy considerations surrounding a ban on gays serving openly, via the repeal of DADT and the declaration of DOMA as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, are clearly no longer relevant to the military of 2013. Arguably, the considerations surrounding the frat/adultery ban still are, although I'm willing to listen to arguments against such a proposition.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .

Now if only the US Naval Academy would allow their Chapel to be used.

I disagree, although the Naval Academy Chapel is a federal property and more than likely built by tax payer funding, certain aspects of religious practices should be respected. We wouldn't ask a mosque to allow Christians to hold a prayer service or I don't think Muslims will ask a church to allow them to hold prayer service in the church.

West Point O club is very nice, big enough to hold a decent size wedding and reception.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I think a ban on a frat/adultery relationship and the former ban on same-sex sexual orientation involve two wholly separate policy considerations. The policy considerations surrounding a ban on gays serving openly, via the repeal of DADT and the declaration of DOMA as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, are clearly no longer relevant to the military of 2013. Arguably, the considerations surrounding the frat/adultery ban still are, although I'm willing to listen to arguments against such a proposition.

No longer relevant in 2013, except that earlier someone said they were bothered BECAUSE DADT did exist at one time... as if this some how "pays" them off.

 

[sprog]

I disagree, although the Naval Academy Chapel is a federal property and more than likely built by tax payer funding, certain aspects of religious practices should be respected. We wouldn't ask a mosque to allow Christians to hold a prayer service or I don't think Muslims will ask a church to allow them to hold prayer service in the church.

West Point O club is very nice, big enough to hold a decent size wedding and reception.

I would agree that a military chaplain should not be forced to perform a same-sex marriage if such an act would conflict with his/her own beliefs, but I do not agree that a federal building otherwise available for opposite-sex couples to marry should be denied to same-sex couples on religious grounds. Such an act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Is the USNA chapel a Christian church?

 

[sprog]

No longer relevant in 2013, except that earlier someone said they were bothered BECAUSE DADT did exist at one time... as if this some how "pays" them off.

In my view, 10 days of free leave is a pretty de minimus way to "pay off" the institutionalized discrimination of the very recent past; however, at least ostensibly, that isn't why the current policy regarding the marriage leave exists.

I'm with you that it's a lot of days, man, but I just can't get too upset about it. To me, the impact of this policy to the rest of the force and on the DOD budget is negligible. At any rate, if there is enough push-back from the AD community on the admitted inequity (including from gay servicemen who may not like being treated in such a way), maybe the free leave will go away.

 

[Christcorp]

Yeah, they kinda need to know why blood is being drawn. If blood is drawn, a provider will indicate what test is needed. Plus, if there isn't a good reason to perform a medical procedure, insurance companies will scream fraud.

Historically, any major policy change that results in an increase in spending due to a minority group has always been met with grumblings...

I could literally replace the complaint about the increase spending with another minority group (women, blacks, etc) and the conversation wouldn't be THAT different.

Allowing (women, blacks) to serve = increased spending...
Allowing (women, blacks) to commission = increased spending...

The "10 day" rule makes sense to travel to and from a state to practice a religious and legal ceremony. However I do agree with many of the posters, the "10 day" rule should be for everyone who wants to marry. By providing homosexuals with this benefit, the Army is further demonstrating "we view homosexuals differently from heterosexuals."

A little late to conversation but. When I got married; my wife and I got our blood tests done at 2 different times; by 2 different doctors. Yea, we said we were getting married. But the doctor(s) didn't even know about the "Other partner". And for what it's worth, I didn't go through any insurance. In new mexico, I took the form from the state, took it to the doctor (Civilian). He gave me a blood test; signed the form; and I paid them something like $20. Can't remember. But I know I didn't use the military doctors and I had no other health insurance. And it wasn't expensive. And the doctor never asked who my "Wife" was; where she was; or anything about her. He simply did a blood test on "ME".

 

[bruno]

My wife and I were both in Korea and got married in Massachusetts. We used 2 weeks leave to get home, get married and go on a honeymoon. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that we not get charged because we had to go to the US to get married. It was a personal choice on how to use my leave. What the heck is 30 days of leave for if not this kind of stuff?

If the justification ios that the Army recognizes that because of their assignments , they are forced to travel to get married and that's the responsibility of the Army to rectify, then why not go all the way and reimburse them for the travel costs? If the Army owes you the ability to get married locally or to facilitate you doing so by giving you leave above and beyond the 30 days it already gives you, and the justification is because they have stationed you in a location where that activity isn't legal, then it seems clear by that logic that the Army should pay for the transportation as well. It was not the individual who located themself in a different state than the one in which they wish to marry- so it would seem logically that the Army should pay for their transportation as well. It only seems right- after all, a straight couple could get married locally without the cost of that transportation to a different location.

 

[Packer]

In my view, 10 days of free leave is a pretty de minimus way to "pay off" the institutionalized discrimination of the very recent past; however, at least ostensibly, that isn't why the current policy regarding the marriage leave exists.

We will still be "paying this off" decades from now when those receiving the pay off were never the ones harmed. At least that is how all the rest of these "pay offs" work. Slavery, American Indians ,etc.

 

[sprog]

My wife and I were both in Korea and got married in Massachusetts. We used 2 weeks leave to get home, get married and go on a honeymoon. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that we not get charged because we had to go to the US to get married. It was a personal choice on how to use my leave. What the heck is 30 days of leave for if not this kind of stuff?

If the justification ios that the Army recognizes that because of their assignments , they are forced to travel to get married and that's the responsibility of the Army to rectify, then why not go all the way and reimburse them for the travel costs? If the Army owes you the ability to get married locally or to facilitate you doing so by giving you leave above and beyond the 30 days it already gives you, and the justification is because they have stationed you in a location where that activity isn't legal, then it seems clear by that logic that the Army should pay for the transportation as well. It was not the individual who located themself in a different state than the one in which they wish to marry- so it would seem logically that the Army should pay for their transportation as well. It only seems right- after all, a straight couple could get married locally without the cost of that transportation to a different location.

I don't remember reading as to if those stationed outside of CONUS would be eligible for the free leave. It may be somewhere in the thread, but I'm not interested in going through it all at present. The OP just says it's available for those in the 37 states where it is not currently legal.

I was single in the service so I'm not sure how it works with regard to foreign marriages. Would a South Korean or German marriage be ok, or would you need to have one in the US? I'm guessing it would need to be from the US.

 

[Pima]

I am going to put a different twist on why I think this has been decided.

Military benefits. Housing, sponsored tours overseas, on base/post privileges.

By allowing this option, it no longer is the issue; well my HOR or duty station state doesn't/wouldn't allow it. , but yours did.

The military can say we are giving you 10 days so you could have the same bennies as anyone that lives in the 37 states. Homosexual couples if they want can get every bennie a heterosexual couple. It was their decision not to marry.

It is good for morale in one way. It is bad in the other way as it has been stated over and over again...you get 2.5 days per month. If you have even 2 months of leave stored, you can do it without the 10 days offered.

They are creating a level playing field for all homosexual couples, and I respect that fact. I just think some AD members will resent it when it comes to their own wedding planning, especially if they are going to do a 5 and dive around the same time. Most people that are going to leave, save up their leave, to the point they want the 60 days to exit with. That 10 days is really in pay one pay period. It would be a nicer cushion financially.

I am pretty sure if I recall correctly, LITS had already signed his papers to dive when he got married. I am thinking he would have liked that 10 days from a paycheck standpoint.

I stand by my position. It should be UP TO 10 days in the hole for leave. JMPO, anyone that gets married with less than 4 months from meeting to the I DOs makes me wonder how much have you truly thought about the impact the military has on any marriage. 4 months is because 2.5 per month is accrued. That equals 10 days. Assumption they have 0 in their leave account when they meet their love.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I am pretty sure if I recall correctly, LITS had already signed his papers to dive when he got married. I am thinking he would have liked that 10 days from a paycheck standpoint.

I got out June 30, 2011, and I was married June 23, 2012. Ten days wouldn't have affected my plans. But 10 days would have been a nice long trip. I don't think I ever took 10 straight days of leave, besides shoulder surgery and terminal leave (both in my final 6 months).

 

[DHinNH]

Scout's right, people don't get married where they're stationed.

SOME do.

ALL heterosexual couples can. (Depending on age of consent laws, of course.)