DoD "ready" for DADT repeal

[hispeed7721]

Seems like nothing other than integrity. If you really want to lie to your employeer by pretending to be in a homosexual relationship with a non-military male friend and roommate in order to get him a mil ID and commissary privileges, be my guest.

Don't pretend it won't happen widespread...I know of more than one (both O and E) that have legally married someone (hetero marriage) solely so they could get the pay boost. Other than on paper they aren't married...live apart, date like they're single, etc. I'm sure two straight dudes will do the exact same thing (I'm not condoning it AT ALL, just acknowledging that it will happen)

[disgruntledemployee]

Seems like nothing other than integrity. If you really want to lie to your employeer by pretending to be in a homosexual relationship with a non-military male friend and roommate in order to get him a mil ID and commissary privileges, be my guest.

The point is exactly that. There are people, yes even in the military, that will do this and justify it somehow. The dude will say, "I wasn't lying...Bob is a boy and he is my friend, what's wrong with that?" "Why does everything have to be about sex?" Meanwhile they're carrying out their "open" relationship with a few ladies.

Next, will be healthcare. Then spousal SGLI. Then 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits. Then death benfits.

But hey, who am I to complain, I'm just a bitter angry little man. Enjoy the slide down the slope.

Out

[nsplayr]

Well since there's not a lot of money involved (i.e. you still don't get dependent BAH), I don't see it happening. If DOMA got repealed and you could get dependent BAH perhaps you'd be right.

Guess we'll see on both countes...like I said, if you wanna lie to your employer and claim you're gay to get your BFF non-mil roommate an ID (or dependent BAH at some hypothetical point in the future), go for it dude, this policy seems to allow for that just like you can paper marry some rando chick and profit.

Enjoy the slide down the slope.

Like I said, I frankly don't care and if people want to exploit loopholes and sign papers without integrity, that's on them. If it involves lying to pretend you're gay that just adds a little LOL factor to it for me at least.

DOD should not give benefits to people who don't warrant them (i.e. "dependents" who are on paper but in reality not), that's efficient governance, but I could not care less what the gender of a person's legitimate, designated dependent or beneficiary is and I don't see why anyone else should care either.

Edited February 13, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-07-18-46-39

Proposed plan for Gay couples.

According to a draft Defense Department memo obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, the department instead may provide up to 10 days of leave to military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can travel to states where they can marry legally.

Personally I think that's BS, its no different than Amn Snuffy going home to marry his high school sweetheart or any other military member.

[HeloDude]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-07-18-46-39

Proposed plan for Gay couples.

Personally I think that's BS, its no different than Amn Snuffy going home to marry his high school sweetheart or any other military member.

I doubt this one will happen...but if it does (and the leave is additional to the 30 days a year we already receive), just say you're going to a State with gay marriage to get married to a dude and then come back after the 10 days and say you changed your mind and you're straight again. People change their minds and leave people at the altar all the time...no difference here.

[pawnman]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-07-18-46-39 Proposed plan for Gay couples. Personally I think that's BS, its no different than Amn Snuffy going home to marry his high school sweetheart or any other military member.

I agree that they shouldn't get extra leave, but I can see the argument. Amn Snuffy can marry his high school sweetheart at any base in the world. Homosexual couples do not have the same option.

[HU&W]

So just offer 10 days of 'marriage leave' or 'honeymoon leave' to anybody that gets married, regardless of orientation. I'm sure there are lots of hetero couples that would like to travel home for their weddings to be married in the presence of friends and family. After all, if we're striving for equality, shouldn't the rules apply to everyone?

[pawnman]

So just offer 10 days of 'marriage leave' or 'honeymoon leave' to anybody that gets married, regardless of orientation. I'm sure there are lots of hetero couples that would like to travel home for their weddings to be married in the presence of friends and family. After all, if we're striving for equality, shouldn't the rules apply to everyone?

Works for me.

May have to limit it...your leave turns into regular leave if you come back unmarried, you only get it every five years, etc. (gonna have to wait on that third marriage).

[Fuzz]

HU&W said what I was getting at, the equality for all has a bad habit of turning into special favors for the group being focused on. Give it to all or give it to none, as for any state being open to hetero couples, that's true but most people I known traveled somewhere either one of their homes or a another location to get married, not really all the different for homo couples.

[ram02]

The article simply reports on a draft memo; the original source isn't even quoted so we don't know what the actual memo says. The department is willing to "provide" 10 days leave, so does it mean that they get 10 additional days of leave added to their leave balance or simply that they must be provided the opportunity for 10 days leave? Plus, 10 days is a common PTDY number, so is this "leave" really PTDY? Try getting a journalist to understand/publish the difference -- to someone without a military background, anyone in the military not at work must be on "leave."

[joe1234]

Or, and I know this is crazy, we can stop showering married people with benefits simply because they're married. Apparently it's no special favors when it comes to extending it to gays, but when it's obvious unequal treatment between married people and singles, well now we need to do things because... honestly I don't know, it's pretty indefensible. But I'm sure someone will defend it citing that they require welfare for their offspring. And yes, it's welfare, because your marital status has absolutely nothing to do with your work.

We give servicemembers with families more money, more benefits, and even spend billions of dollars on schools, day care, youth centers, and on-base housing to pander to dependents with finite government assets. We'll ground half the damn Air Force before we get rid of dependent BAH or make meaningful cuts to dependent healthcare.

But when it comes to giving a bunch of gays a week and a half for gay marriage leave, well now all of a sudden you're all equal treatment crusaders?

[pawnman]

Or, and I know this is crazy, we can stop showering married people with benefits simply because they're married. Apparently it's no special favors when it comes to extending it to gays, but when it's obvious unequal treatment between married people and singles, well now we need to do things because... honestly I don't know, it's pretty indefensible. But I'm sure someone will defend it citing that they require welfare for their offspring. And yes, it's welfare, because your marital status has absolutely nothing to do with your work.

We give servicemembers with families more money, more benefits, and even spend billions of dollars on schools, day care, youth centers, and on-base housing to pander to dependents with finite government assets. We'll ground half the damn Air Force before we get rid of dependent BAH or make meaningful cuts to dependent healthcare.

But when it comes to giving a bunch of gays a week and a half for gay marriage leave, well now all of a sudden you're all equal treatment crusaders?

You think we have retention problems now, just wait until you see the retention problems when you revoke the dependent status for everyone in the military.

No way I would stay if I couldn't cover my wife and daughter on the health insurance, get them moved every time I PCS, or transfer GI bill benefits to pay for my daughter's school. I'd be looking for a job that had health insurance that actually DID cover them, that didn't require me to relocate without assistance every 3-4 years, and that provided some matching in a 401(k) instead of an all-or-nothing retirement plan.

[joe1234]

Everyone here seems to be in agreement that gays shouldn't get special treatment over heterosexuals when it comes to a paltry 10 days of leave, but when it comes to special treatment for married couples with kids, it's suddenly okay. Thats a pretty massive contradiction. If it's about the need for retention, then that's justifying special treatment.

I just don't see how you can rake in tens of thousands dollars worth of bennies every year (for retention or whatever other reason you come up with) for your life choices, but then get indignant when they target benefits specifically to retain gays.

[guineapigfury]

This is a retention issue, not a fairness one. The military encourages you to get married. Guys get married. Now that they have the added responsibilites that come with a wife and kids they are less likely to leave the service for the unknown of the civilian world. Now the military gets to pick who it wants to keep rather than being to stuck with those who stay. Crafty.

[Learjetter]

I don't normally do this, but I'm gonna agree with Joe. Except instead of reducing married/family bennies like w/dep BAH, I'd RAISE the "single" rates to match w/dep rates.

In my scheme, every 04 gets the same base pay, bah, bas, etc...no more paying "family guys/gals" more. I'd even go for mil-mil marriages earning double, since each member earns the Bennie on his/her own status.

Everyone gets exactly the same treatment/options...that's Joes point, I think.

Of course, if I misread joes post, then disregard all after Bonjour!

[KState_Poke22]

So for Joe and Lear...if you get married while you're in the military are you going to not tell finance you're married that way you don't get "unfair" benefits? Or not apply for family sep pay when you deploy?

[Learjetter]

K-state: you didn't read my premise: everyone gets the SAME pay, BAH, etc....at the current w/dep rates.

And I won't marry Joe unless he agrees I'm the big spoon.

[Fuzz]

The premise of my original post was that if homosexuals are going to get dependent benefits and everything else like a hetero married couple gets, then they should not get 10 days of leave as well.

As for dependent vs single, I think it all comes down to costs, a married couple (especially with kids) is going to need more room (higher BAH) and has more mouths to feed (higher BAS). What sense does it make in today's budget mess, to increase everyone BAH/BAS when they don't "need" it and I use that term loosely because I'm talking about finding a good place to live and not paying out the butt for some high rise apartment downtown?

Edited August 10, 2013 by Fuzz

[joe1234]

I'm not crusading against those with dependents getting extra benefits. Obviously, it's done to socially engineer the population in uniform to be family people, and also done for retention purposes. The issue here is that you can't advocate getting special treatment for being married and then claim it's unfair for gays to get extra leave for marriage without being a hypocrite.

So to answer your question K-state, yes, I freely take advantage of with-dependent benefits. But then again, I don't mind gays getting 10 days of leave to get married.

The premise of my original post was that if homosexuals are going to get dependent benefits and everything else like a hetero married couple gets, then they should not get 10 days of leave as well.

The leave seems to be based on one's proximity to a state that allows marriage (and access to government benefits) despite being forced by the federal government to live in a state that doesn't. If heterosexuals were stationed in a state that didn't allow them to be married, then theoretically, they would get the very same leave.

As for dependent vs single, I think it all comes down to costs, a married couple (especially with kids) is going to need more room (higher BAH) and has more mouths to feed (higher BAS).

How, then, do you explain a dual income family with no kids getting paid the exact same as a single income family with 4 kids and a stay at home mom? It seems that there's money in the budget to subsidize people who clearly don't need to be subsidized.

[Fuzz]

So should the military allow people who are getting married in another state also get the leave? why do hetero couples have to burn leave that homo couples get awarded extra leave for it?

As for the married with and without kids, I agree it is a skewed standard however with the way today's world goes paying more per kid or something has worked out great for welfare (sarcasm). I think the two standards are probably the best standard, or have a single, married, and married w/ kids categories.

[Cell Dweller]

I'm not crusading against those with dependents getting extra benefits. Obviously, it's done to socially engineer the population in uniform to be family people, and also done for retention purposes.

I think you are giving the gov't and DoD too much credit if you think they are conducting social engineering. The last part of your statement makes more sense, in that if the DoD is asking you and your family to sacrifice for the service, then there should be a perception that they are being compensated.

[pawnman]

I'm not crusading against those with dependents getting extra benefits. Obviously, it's done to socially engineer the population in uniform to be family people, and also done for retention purposes. The issue here is that you can't advocate getting special treatment for being married and then claim it's unfair for gays to get extra leave for marriage without being a hypocrite.

So to answer your question K-state, yes, I freely take advantage of with-dependent benefits. But then again, I don't mind gays getting 10 days of leave to get married.

The leave seems to be based on one's proximity to a state that allows marriage (and access to government benefits) despite being forced by the federal government to live in a state that doesn't. If heterosexuals were stationed in a state that didn't allow them to be married, then theoretically, they would get the very same leave.

How, then, do you explain a dual income family with no kids getting paid the exact same as a single income family with 4 kids and a stay at home mom? It seems that there's money in the budget to subsidize people who clearly don't need to be subsidized.

But if a homosexual couple gets married, they now have access to all the benefits that a heterosexual couple has...PLUS 10 days of leave.

I'm completely on-board with the idea that gays should have the SAME benefits as the rest of us. I can even see the argument that it is a larger hardship to execute on a marriage because, as I stated earlier, Amn Snuffy can marry his girlfriend at literally any base in the world, but Amn Jones needs to go to one of 13 states to do the same thing. I'm not against the idea of permissive TDY for that, with the idea that it will either go away once the whole US recognizes gay marriage, or every person gets 10 days of permissive to get married.

K-state: you didn't read my premise: everyone gets the SAME pay, BAH, etc....at the current w/dep rates.

And I won't marry Joe unless he agrees I'm the big spoon.

And we dump family separation allowance and stop paying per diem and mileage when the spouse drives herself on the next PCS, right? Do we take away the health coverage for spouses, or do you plan to add a little something extra to the single paychecks to make up that discrepancy?

[Learjetter]

Absolutely. The only "extras" that should be paid should incentivize job performance, not encouraging dependency.

We're swerving from the thread. My point: whatever bennies any Ssgt or Capt gets, all Ssgts and Capts get. What you choose to do with yours is up to you. Stay single, or spend it on/with family.

Further derail: next idea that goes along with this one is: no ADSCs. Ever. For anything. Stay or go? Your call, anytime. But no retirement until 20, and min rank to go to 20 is Msgt and Lt Col. HYT at 18 for both Tsgts and Majs. No partials, no vsp, no bonus... all or nothing from day 1.

Back to the thread: if gays get 10 days PTDY for "marriage", then everyone gets 10 days PTDY for "marriage".

[pawnman]

Absolutely. The only "extras" that should be paid should incentivize job performance, not encouraging dependency.

We're swerving from the thread. My point: whatever bennies any Ssgt or Capt gets, all Ssgts and Capts get. What you choose to do with yours is up to you. Stay single, or spend it on/with family.

Further derail: next idea that goes along with this one is: no ADSCs. Ever. For anything. Stay or go? Your call, anytime. But no retirement until 20, and min rank to go to 20 is Msgt and Lt Col. HYT at 18 for both Tsgts and Majs. No partials, no vsp, no bonus... all or nothing from day 1.

Back to the thread: if gays get 10 days PTDY for "marriage", then everyone gets 10 days PTDY for "marriage".

So the service is just a job, and anyone can get out at any time? I can't possibly see how that would affect mission readiness when it comes time for deployments.

[matmacwc]

Negate all this, stop giving a crap. if you want hairy man ass or another clam, I don't care, but I will not pay for it nor give you extra time off. That's equal rights right there, much the same vice a versa.

But you will continue to ignore me, because I'm correct.

And the liberals won't cause they want special shit.

Edited August 11, 2013 by matmacwc