SCOTUS scraps DOMA

[pawnman]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The vote Wednesday was 5-4.

"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

So, does this mean the military will start recognizing same-sex spouses as dependents? Or only if they are married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal? How do you suppose this will work when the sponsor gets a PCS to somewhere that still bans gay marriage, such as Texas?

[HeloDude]

I'm assuming that those with valid marriage licenses will get benefits and those without will not. As for the Texas example, I'm also then assuming that the State won't recognize the marriage, so if you're a Texas resident, you'll have to file your taxes a singe person, erc but the military (federal govt) will still give you dependent BAh, put them in DEERs, etc. It definitely opens the door to more issues...but hey, if I get stationed in Illinois, they won't recognize my CCW license from a different State--same thing.

[pawnman]

I'm assuming that those with valid marriage licenses will get benefits and those without will not. As for the Texas example, I'm also then assuming that the State won't recognize the marriage, so if you're a Texas resident, you'll have to file your taxes a singe person, erc but the military (federal govt) will still give you dependent BAh, put them in DEERs, etc. It definitely opens the door to more issues...but hey, if I get stationed in Illinois, they won't recognize my CCW license from a different State--same thing.

Not quite the same thing.

So if the couple has kids, then the military member dies on duty...who gets to decide custody of the kids in a state without gay marriage? The courts? Or does the federal protection of marriage extend to the spouse of the deceased?

I know you are on-board with eliminating marriage altogether. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea myself. But right now, there are significant legal protections and benefits that marriage brings to the couple, and it will be interesting to see what happens when a couple that is legally married, then forced to move by military orders, now loses those protections in a new state. Do you need a new will for every move? How much extra paperwork does it now take to get your legally-bound spouse's name on the deed to your newly purchased house? Will the school recognize both parents as "parents", the way they do for married heterosexual couples, or will only one person be the "primary" parent and the other is SOL if the kid gets hurt or in trouble at school and has to come home early?

[sputnik]

Breath deep Huggy, watch that blood pressure spike.

[joe1234]

The reciprocity issue will be forthcoming, but I think that this decision for gays is what Brown vs. Board was for blacks. It's a huge step forward, and sets a nationwide legal precedent that will be damn difficult for anti-gay marriage groups to overcome.

[Spinner]

And there was much rejoicing in the C-130J community...

I keed, I keed!

[brickhistory]

I wonder if we, the military, will enjoy the financial savings caused by the dissolution of the Chaplain Corps? Chaplains are supposed to minister - to include marry - to all servicemembers wanting such. Now if Father (Capt) Joe Maloney can't marry Amn Bill and SrA George due to his religious convictions, is he then subject to UCMJ? How will leadership - uniformed and civilian - tackle this one?

[TreeA10]

Some thoughts on religious beliefs vs the demise of DOMA. Kind of a long article but it brings up some good points, particularly, is the freedom of religion an endangered right.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/06/26/the_sexual_revolutions_consequences.html

[joe1234]

I wonder if we, the military, will enjoy the financial savings caused by the dissolution of the Chaplain Corps? Chaplains are supposed to minister - to include marry - to all servicemembers wanting such. Now if Father (Capt) Joe Maloney can't marry Amn Bill and SrA George due to his religious convictions, is he then subject to UCMJ? How will leadership - uniformed and civilian - tackle this one?

You're making a pretty broad generalization that all chaplains disagree with gay marriage. If one chaplain doesn't want to do it, then they can find another one who will at that base. If nobody at that base will do it, I'd imagine leadership will be forced to make arrangements for someone to do it, or officially discontinue chaplains from marrying anyone altogether.

[Homestar]

Perhaps some of the issues will be satisfied by the "home of record" process the military has. So, if one half of a gay marriage dies then the state with "home of record" would deal will issues related to the marriage. Assuming, of course, that the home of record is the state which conducted the gay marriage.

[Vertigo]

is the freedom of religion an endangered right.

No.

The freedom to oppress others with your religion? Yes.

[brickhistory]

Can Father Maloney be compelled to perform his duty to marry given the federal law and UCMJ? If he refueses, is he disobeying a direct order?

That's the bottom line - not slipping the problem under the rug by having Chaplain Fabulous do it since he has no compunction against it and we all know that most leadership simply wants a problem, any problem, to go away or be delayed until it is not on their watch - can a uniformed religious provider refuse such offerings (not sure of the correct word - services?) since his/her primary mission is to minister to those wanting such.

Y'all have fun with that and trying to keep standards.

The 'next step' arguments are many - why do I have to be married to get those benefits (I am aware of common law marriages)? And many more surpises await in Pandora's fabulous box (no sts).

[pawnman]

I wonder if we, the military, will enjoy the financial savings caused by the dissolution of the Chaplain Corps? Chaplains are supposed to minister - to include marry - to all servicemembers wanting such. Now if Father (Capt) Joe Maloney can't marry Amn Bill and SrA George due to his religious convictions, is he then subject to UCMJ? How will leadership - uniformed and civilian - tackle this one?

Chaplains don't all have the same belief systems, and I'm pretty sure marriages are an optional deal, not a mandatory one.

What if an atheist wanted to marry a Lutheran? Can they force a Catholic chaplain to do it even though it goes against the church rules? Why is this any different?

I've often wondered how the military paying chaplains passes the separation of church and state test...but they are the ONLY people on the entire base who can give you 100% confidentiality, so I think they are earning their keep.

Can Father Maloney be compelled to perform his duty to marry given the federal law and UCMJ? If he refueses, is he disobeying a direct order? That's the bottom line - not slipping the problem under the rug by having Chaplain Fabulous do it since he has no compunction against it and we all know that most leadership simply wants a problem, any problem, to go away or be delayed until it is not on their watch - can a uniformed religious provider refuse such offerings (not sure of the correct word - services?) since his/her primary mission is to minister to those wanting such. Y'all have fun with that and trying to keep standards. The 'next step' arguments are many - why do I have to be married to get those benefits (I am aware of common law marriages)? And many more surpises await in Pandora's fabulous box (no sts).

Really? You're saying the next step is benefits for unmarried couples? Good luck.

I also doubt most military members will be able to pull off the "common law" marriage, since it's unlikely they'll live with their partner in the same state for the required amount of time before a PCS.

[brickhistory]

edited to make this a less d1ck-ish response from me - fair points in your post, but it doens't address mine.

I have asked a very specific question: Can a chaplain whose faith prohibits him or her from conducting a marriage ceremony for a gay couple be forced to under threat of UCMJ?

Edited June 26, 2013 by brickhistory

[pawnman]

I have asked a very specific question: Can a chaplain whose faith prohibits him or her from conducting a marriage ceremony for a gay couple be forced to under threat of UCMJ?

I don't know the answer, but my question was pretty similar...can a chaplain be forced to marry people in the eyes of God who would not meet the requirements of his faith? I'm pretty sure that's what you are asking. So, can a Jewish chaplain be forced to marry a Catholic couple? Can a Catholic chaplain be forced to marry an atheist couple? I don't know. I don't even know what reg you would look that up in. I know what my common sense answer would be, but we both know how often the USAF uses common sense when arriving at a decision.

[Blueman]

I don't think the chaplain is required to marry anyone. If they don't want to do the ceremony they suggest other options such as going to legal and getting a justice of the peace wedding.

[discus]

The Chaplains are owned by their church first, the military second. Their contract reads that way. If, at any time they are ordered to do something their church does not agree with, the church can pull them from the service. Consider them "on loan" to the military by their respective faiths. They can follow that faith without fear of retribution. Several baptist chaplains were pulled from the service in the 50's for being told to marry interracial couples. It's the right of the church, and it will not be superseded. This is a non-issue, Brick.

[brickhistory]

Baseops is educational as well as featuring breasts...

[deaddebate]

Statement by Secretary Hagel on DOMA Ruling

The Department of Defense welcomes the Supreme Court's decision today on the Defense of Marriage Act. The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies. The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible. That is now the law and it is the right thing to do.

SECDEF Hagel

Q: Mr. Secretary, one quick question on the DOMA announcement today. Do you have any assessment -- either of you -- on the cost this may be at the Pentagon for extending these benefits?

[...]

SEC. HAGEL: As to the cost, no, we don't yet know because we just received the -- the decision. We are now, of course, exploring all the pieces, but make no mistake: It will be a decision implemented in every way, as it should be.

[Day Man]

I have asked a very specific question: Can a chaplain whose faith prohibits him or her from conducting a marriage ceremony for a gay couple be forced to under threat of UCMJ?

What UCMJ article are you referencing? Are you proposing a CC would order a chaplain to marry a gay couple? Why would a gay couple use a (*insert religion here) chaplain to marry if being gay is obviously against that religion? Not everyone thinks chaplains are anything more than another officer/dude.

[ram02]

I have asked a very specific question: Can a chaplain whose faith prohibits him or her from conducting a marriage ceremony for a gay couple be forced to under threat of UCMJ?

The answer is right on the Chaplain Corps' website: "Chaplains do not perform duties incompatible with their faith group tenets, professional role, or noncombatant status." http://www.chaplaincorps.af.mil/

Problem solved.

[brickhistory]

What UCMJ article are you referencing? Are you proposing a CC would order a chaplain to marry a gay couple? Why would a gay couple use a (*insert religion here) chaplain to marry if being gay is obviously against that religion? Not everyone thinks chaplains are anything more than another officer/dude.

My specific question has been answered; a chaplain can walk if asked to do something against his or her faith. I did not know that.

But my initial point was what happens when those who don't cotton to such and are ordered to do things against their personal religious or moral beliefs? So for the specific UCMJ article - the number I don't know - but "failure to obey" is my point.

Amn Bill and George want to get married. Only chaplain is Father Maloney, a Catholic and he says "sorry, I can't." Amn Bill and George go to the wing commander and say they are being denied their right (now true due to the ruling). Could/can wing commander then order Chaplain Maloney to perform the service since it is his, Maloney's duty, to provide spiritual guidance and comfort to all airman/families who request such?

Apparently, the answer is 'no.'

My main point is for those that will have to actually deal with situations like this and way too many others that this and other recent changes in our military, never mind society, are going to have to handle. And handle flawlessly, lest the politically correct gods smite thee.

But I learned something as well.

[Clayton Bigsby]

Marriage licenses granted in one state aren't exactly null and void in another state that doesn't issue them in the same way. Get it issued where it's legal, it's good to go everywhere else.

[HeloDude]

It doesn't work for Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses. It also doesn't automatically work for various professional licenses (ie pharmacists, lawyers, etc).

[Prozac]

But my initial point was what happens when those who don't cotton to such and are ordered to do things against their personal religious or moral beliefs? So for the specific UCMJ article - the number I don't know - but "failure to obey" is my point.

You could've used the exact same argument six decades ago when the services became integrated. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, the fact is today, as then, the DOD has decided that we will accept this group into our ranks. I'm sure there were plenty of service members back in the day who felt it was immoral or even against their religious beliefs to serve alongside black Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. I'm sure some left the service because of it. We survived. If you don't think the DOD or the nation as a whole is resilient enough to withstand the integration of the LGBT community (which despite it's current large voice is an extremely small part of society), then I think you don't have much faith in our way of life. I am positive we will continue to exist while accepting all walks of life as has been a bedrock of the United States since day one. If I am wrong and this nation finds itself on the precipice of hell within a decade, I'll happily buy you a beer as we tumble over the edge.