USNA Mids describe smooth transition from 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[temp]

Can't wait for Straight USMA to get a trip to Las Vegas...

They do all the time. I don't think this was a paid trip by USMA for the cadets and they had to pay on their own dime....as the rest of us have to do for these trips.

Why wasn't CGA's Spectrum invited? I'm not a member of that club, but they were the first one out of all of the Academies to be formed...

Are you sure they weren't invited? I think they just weren't mentioned in the post. Also, Spectrum is a cadet group whereas the other mentioned ones include graduates.

Just curious here, but when you say OutServe was an official trip, do you mean TDY orders from the USMA?

I only ask because in the end old days, if you were not on orders, than you were not to be in uniform, thus, the members should not be in uniform in public.

I am just curious. If you think about when and where you can wear a uniform as an AD member in public there are restrictions. Just asking, as many of you know I support these military members, but as a spouse, I don't know where the line is drawn from this perspective.

These aren't specifically political events. Many people wear uniform to the SLDN, Outserve, and other events like you would to a formal ball for unofficial reasons. We have lots of JAGs among us we consult and many also check with their local legal offices and we've been cleared to wear uniforms in most cases as these events aren't inherently political (at least anymore).

One solution that would make things alot easier is for the politicians to go ahead and make gay marriage (or whatever the correct term is) legal on the federal level.

Obviously the berthing and other issues will persist, but at least the bennies portion of it will go away for the poor LT or CPT trying to deal with a very real soldier issue that they have no solution for.

Getting closer. One of the challenges has made it through the 1st Circuit court. Won't be long until the Supreme court takes it up unless they try hard to avoid it. Keep in mind this particular challenge only invalidates the part of DOMA preventing the federal government from providing benefits to legally married couples.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...al-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html

billyb,

I think that is what every military member wants.

Bullet was assigned overseas, the AF paid for me to go with him, once there I could get anywhere on base without him, I was given employment priority. We had a friend who wanted to get out, but was married. Single members had 2 yrs, married 3 yrs. He went unaccompanied. They paid out of pocket to fly the family to Europe since his orders only had him on it. They couldn't get base housing, and his BAH was w/o dependents, even though they had not only her, but a 2 yr old. She couldn't go to the BX, Commissary, pick him up at the squadron if the other car died, and had to fly stateside every 6 months because of Visa issues since he was unaccompanied.

That is the reality of what life was like for them. That will be the reality for many homosexual couples in the military because our govt is too chicken to acknowledge homosexual marriages.

My angst is not about homosexuals in the military, it is about the govt using the military as their social guinea pigs, trying to work out the issues in this small sect of our society.

Pima, I know of several LGB couples dealing with this issue and they are going through that exact process you mentioned. It's heartbreaking but at least their chains of command are trying hard to accommodate and allow them the time to get things in order since they don't have help from the government.

As far as the guinea pig thing, you saw how I addressed that above. It is really unfortunate the discrimination still persists in the benefits and spousal areas, but most involved, including the LGB community, thought it infinitely better to have something rather than nothing. As far as being guinea pigs, well, I think a few scientists would like to have as good of results with their experiments as the repeal has had. The world didn't end and people didn't flee. In the end, it was a non-event for those not directly affected and a wonderful day for those of us it did. I don't think you disagree at all with me, but I'd like to see the guinea pig argument put to rest like other similar red herring arguments.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

Well, it appears we may have gotten a lot closer to seeing DOMA go before the U.S. Supreme Court. As Temp references above, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (which covers the New England region) has ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional in some respects. The law will stay in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court rules, but this makes it likelier that the Supreme Court will in fact hear a DOMA case.

An interesting angle is that the opinion was written by a highly respected judge, Judge Michael Boudin, who carries a lot of intellectual credibility and is not seen as a "liberal" or "activist" judge (Judge Boudin served as a federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration and was appointed to the Appeals Court by George H.W. Bush).

Hard to tell how the High Court might rule -- Justice Kennedy could be the swing vote, as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are extremely conservative and most think they would uphold DOMA. This is a statutory issue, not just one of gay rights, so one cannot predict what Justice Kennedy will do, but he has written two important opinions generally seen as pro-gay-rights.

Here's a link to the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/us/appeals-court-rules-against-federal-marriage-act.html?hp

 

[LineInTheSand]

Can't wait for a pro-states rights decision.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

Can't wait for a pro-states rights decision.

Part of what was interesting about the First Circuit decision was that Judge Boudin took a states' rights angle, opining that DOMA interferes with the rights of the individual states to define marriage.

(But I suspect Chief Justice Roberts, among others, will reject this particular conception of states' rights

 

[Pima]

They do all the time. I don't think this was a paid trip by USMA for the cadets and they had to pay on their own dime....as the rest of us have to do for these trips.

Thanks for the info, the term "official" in my mind equated to the USMA paying.


parentalunit2,

I am not trying to pick on you, but "official trip" in the military means they are on orders, at least for the AF. The club can be officially recognized by the USMA, but that is not an official trip section unless the USMA pays for it... that means airfare, hotel, per diem, etc.

 

[temp]

Can't wait for a pro-states rights decision.

I agree with you! If this case continues on to win, it will be pro-states rights!

 

[LineInTheSand]

I agree with you! If this case continues on to win, it will be pro-states rights!

And I'm very OK with that. I'm guessing once it's pro-states, someone will want to find state laws unconstitutional.

Don't like NC law.... don't pay taxes or visit to NC. Don't like MA law.... don't pay taxes or visit MA.

 

[Luigi59]

And I'm very OK with that. I'm guessing once it's pro-states, someone will want to find state laws unconstitutional.

Don't like NC law.... don't pay taxes or visit to NC. Don't like MA law.... don't pay taxes or visit MA.

But as states recognize hetero marriage from other states, the non-recogniztion of any other state's gay marriage certificate is clearly a violation of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, as well as the Equal Protection Clause.

(Yes, I know that SCOTUS has not ruled upon it yet, this is my reasoning, and I beleive that any other person without a bias would reach the same conclusion - how could they not? Clearly, marriage falls under a state's judicial proceedings, therefore every other state must recognize that legal proceeding, if not, they are in violation of the FF&C clause.

Unless they want to remove all government (divorce via court system, licensing, etc) from the marriage process, the 10th Amendment cannot over ride these two Clauses.

Thus, IMHO a Federal Law must be enacted, it cannot be left to the individual states, or every state law that doesn't give Full Faith & Credit to the judicial proceedings (marriage license) of any other state must be struck down.

Until a case is challenged on these grounds, the opponents will continue to hammer away using a "states rights" 10th argument, but I beleive that SCOTUS would reject that in favor of the FF&C and EPC argument once a case like that is ruled upon.

PS - Yes, I believe that a state's non-recognition of CCW licenses from other states is also unconstitutional as well as the marriage recognition/non-recognition status in these states.

 

[LineInTheSand]

PS - Yes, I believe that a state's non-recognition of CCW licenses from other states is also unconstitutional as well as the marriage recognition/non-recognition status in these states.

My mind immediately went to CCW permits!

 

[AJM7680]

As far as the guinea pig thing, you saw how I addressed that above. It is really unfortunate the discrimination still persists in the benefits and spousal areas, but most involved, including the LGB community, thought it infinitely better to have something rather than nothing. As far as being guinea pigs, well, I think a few scientists would like to have as good of results with their experiments as the repeal has had. The world didn't end and people didn't flee. In the end, it was a non-event for those not directly affected and a wonderful day for those of us it did. I don't think you disagree at all with me, but I'd like to see the guinea pig argument put to rest like other similar red herring arguments.

The very idea that compensation is based on dependents is archaic and should be eliminated. It came about during an era of the draft where the military pay scale was a lot less than it is now.

 

[Pima]

AJM,

Are you familiar with pay system?

It came about during an era of the draft where the military pay scale was a lot less than it is now.

You do know the military's guideline/goal is to cover at least 80% of the cost for living off base, but it has never been 100%. They also have it tiered out by rank and area. The hardest problem for many is the housing market, for example between 02-06 the boom was insane, and members BAH could not keep up to the growth. They only change the scale 1X a yr in January, thus the amount was based on the prior yrs mtg and rent payments. When we bought our home in 02 in VA, we purchased it for 300K, sold it in 05 for 555K. The military couldn't keep up with that pace. In 08 we rented our NC home for 1150, now it is @1400 a month because the rental market is booming since the sales market crashed. In both cases military members to be in good school districts with decent homes were paying out of pocket just to cover their housing costs.

Finally, any military member that moves every 2-3 yrs knows no matter what, the new house, even on base will incur costs, such as simple things like curtains. I have a linen closet filled with different size curtains and rods from our 11 moves in 20 yrs. That is why the other financial difference in pay exists, DLA/TLA/per diem. Should the military member not get married or not take their family with them when the military says MOVE!?!?! Should they go in debt because they signed up for this lifestyle, or just not make a house a home and throw up sheets over the windows? Have you ever checked the cost of curtains and rods, not the fancy decorative ones, just Wal-Mart spring tension rods, and drapes? You are lucky if it will only cost 50 bucks for a window, start counting the windows in your home. That's before your beautiful sofa suite from the last house doesn't fit any room in the new house, or your king/queen size bedroom set can't make it up to the 2nd floor. It wasn't our choice to leave our home, it was the military's and we accepted that fact. This was their way just like IBM/HP/Raytheon does for their employees to make the transition easier.

Trust me, there were 2 times we made money on moves. 1st time when it was just him and me. 2nd time when we moved from AK to NC. The reason why we did make money is we owned a camper and only stayed in hotels every 3rd day. The reason we did this was because we had a dog and a cat, and the FAA regulations for flying pets has a min and max temp. AK in Dec is not the ideal time to drive the AL-Can with 3 children under the age of 7, but we also were not going to leave our pets behind.

The rest of the times we lost money...again, once you have kids, eating out every day 2x a day becomes incredibly expensive, especially if you are living in the Q's for a month, and paying kenneling fees on top of that too. AF from a Conus move only guarantees 10 days in the Q's after that it is space available, and finding somewhere to stay in your price range can be very difficult.

Sorry, but I think the military can give that little perk for the families. AF has always been known/seen as the Diva branch or the corporate branch, and they always have stated why they treat their families the way they do...retention. If a military member's family is unhappy, the member will think about leaving the service for their family's peace of mind. It costs tens of thousands and up to millions to train them, the cost benefit analysis to pay extra for married couples.

OBTW, 1 more reason why, many spouses have difficulty advancing their own careers because employers tend to not like to hire/promote people knowing in 2-3 yrs they will be gone. This financially impacts the family.

Back on topic, my perspective is from a spouse that the AF recognized, and I hope it gives some insight on how much harder it will be for homosexual couples that are not recognized by our govt. It is an emotional stress to move to a new community and financial, but 2x as hard if you can't even get the little perks of not going into debt deeper and not having employment opportunities too.

 

[AJM7680]

The total military housing allowance budget should remain. It should just not be allocated differently depending on whether a service member is single or married. Any perk to boost married morale should not be at the expense of an unmarried member.

 

[bruno]

AJM- while I would agree with you that this is an issue that is both an anachronism (Paying more to equally qualified employees based on their marital status is absolutely not legal outside the military), and a serious bone of contention among unmarried service members who get stuck in barracks or BOQ's while their peers or even lower ranking married members draw BAH at with dependent rates to live off post.

However, it's a reenlistment and retention tool and the force is getting more and more married , not less so you are barking up the wrong tree with this one. Finally- there is a financial component as well: they surely are not going to offer to increase the 45% of the force that is single a pay raise to either give them BAH or to increase them up to the BAH with Dependents rate.

So while it may not be all that equitable or popular among a large swath of the military, paying people for dependents isn't likely to change any time soon.

 

[billyb]

I really think it comes down to the fact, as PIMA pointed out, that a spouse of military member basically gives up their career aspirations by being married to someone in the military. It is very hard for a military spouse to climb the corporate ladder when they are moving every 2-3 years.

 

[scoutpilot]

I really think it comes down to the fact, as PIMA pointed out, that a spouse of military member basically gives up their career aspirations by being married to someone in the military. It is very hard for a military spouse to climb the corporate ladder when they are moving every 2-3 years.

Not true at all anymore. Many officers are married to women (and men) who have outstanding careers (my wife being one of them). Marrying a military servicemember is not a death sentence for a career. If you want to be CEO of the same company you started at as a temp, you might find that to be tricky. But many, many careers blend well with the military. The idea that military spouses must be barefoot and pregnant in the home and can do nothing more is an anachronism.

 

[Luigi59]

USNA Ring Dance, 05/19/2012

Third couple from the left makes history.

 

[temp]

USNA Ring Dance, 05/19/2012

Third couple from the left makes history.

Cute couples all around!

 

[raimius]

AJM- while I would agree with you that this is an issue that is both an anachronism (Paying more to equally qualified employees based on their marital status is absolutely not legal outside the military), and a serious bone of contention among unmarried service members who get stuck in barracks or BOQ's while their peers or even lower ranking married members draw BAH at with dependent rates to live off post.

However, it's a reenlistment and retention tool and the force is getting more and more married , not less so you are barking up the wrong tree with this one. Finally- there is a financial component as well: they surely are not going to offer to increase the 45% of the force that is single a pay raise to either give them BAH or to increase them up to the BAH with Dependents rate.

So while it may not be all that equitable or popular among a large swath of the military, paying people for dependents isn't likely to change any time soon.

I look at it from a more pragmatic sense, in that members with dependents are likely to require more space for housing (with larger housing generally costing more). As a retention tool, it makes a lot of sense to provide more money for housing to someone with a family than a single member. Frankly, as a single CGO, my housing requirements aren't that much. A married CGO with a spouse and children probably could use more than a single bedroom apartment.

 

[AJM7680]

I look at it from a more pragmatic sense, in that members with dependents are likely to require more space for housing (with larger housing generally costing more). As a retention tool, it makes a lot of sense to provide more money for housing to someone with a family than a single member. Frankly, as a single CGO, my housing requirements aren't that much. A married CGO with a spouse and children probably could use more than a single bedroom apartment.

We spend more money to retain the 55% at the expense of the 45%, who often feel disenfranchised and decide to part ways with the military. I don't think it is the wrong tree to bark up, just, as everyone has noted, a futile one. But it would solve the gay housing issue until DOMA settles out.

 

[scoutpilot]

We spend more money to retain the 55% at the expense of the 45%, who often feel disenfranchised and decide to part ways with the military. I don't think it is the wrong tree to bark up, just, as everyone has noted, a futile one. But it would solve the gay housing issue until DOMA settles out.

Of all the soldiers I've seen ETS, not a single one has cited disenfranchisement by the "with dependents" pay tables as a reason for leaving. That seems like a conclusion you've reached independent of evidence.