Gay National Guardsmen denied benefits by four states

[davidtaylorjr]

Let's say you are a Guardsman in OK, your buddy can file for him & his spousal benefits at the local Armory. On the other hand you have a legal Civil Marriage and to sign up your spouse you have to drive 5-hours for 300 miles one way to a DOD military base to file the exact same paperwork to receive the exact same benefits. So in addition to the time you know have an extra 50 bucks in gas plus a lost day's wages, probably hundreds of dollars.

No they are not crying about what they have to do to get them. They are complaining (rightfully so) that they can't get them in the same manner as other legally married guardsmen. If the State Offices don't want to file the paperwork for Federal Benefits - that's fine. Then make that the rule for all Guardsmen, then we can observe how much "crying" occurs.





I never considered making military personnel lives more difficult as standing up for good values. But our views could be different.



>>>>>

The guard doesn't get stationed, they are living in the state they sign up for correct? Why would they sign up in that state? Just move, you know the laws of your state.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A state shouldn't have to break their constitution to recognize or give benefits to a union that is not legal :shrug: In those states they aren't married and they don't get to force their marriage beliefs upon everyone else.

Psst - These military personnel are not getting State benefits, these are Federal benefits and yes the Federal government does recognize their Civil Marriage as legal.


[EDIT: Forgot the "Not".]


>>>>

 

[clownboy]

Kinda like when the 82nd Airborne, a National Guard division, responded to Hurricane Katrina. Right?? Right?!?!

The Army response to Hurricane Katrina | Article | The United States Army

And hey, 5,000 Soldiers plenty to me to justify equal treatment, especially if they served honorably.

Here's a good response to that:

Not so. The Posse Comitatus Act is no barrier to federal troops providing logistical support during natural disasters. Nor does it prohibit the president from using the Army to restore order in extraordinary circumstances — even over the objection of a state governor.

What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role. That reflects America’s traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that’s well-justified.

There are good reasons to resist any push toward domestic militarization.

As one federal court has explained: “Military personnel must be trained to operate under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed in order to assure their preservation. The Posse Comitatus statute is intended to meet that danger.”

Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, commander of the federal troops helping out in New Orleans, seemed to recognize that danger when he ordered his soldiers to keep their guns pointed down: “This isn’t Iraq,” he said.

Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers — which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.

What of 'Posse Comitatus'? | Cato Institute

And no, making special rules for 5,000 (probably in reality half that) is not a good thing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's say you are a Guardsman in OK, your buddy can file for him & his spousal benefits at the local Armory. On the other hand you have a legal Civil Marriage and to sign up your spouse you have to drive 5-hours for 300 miles one way to a DOD military base to file the exact same paperwork to receive the exact same benefits. So in addition to the time you know have an extra 50 bucks in gas plus a lost day's wages, probably hundreds of dollars.

No they are not crying about what they have to do to get them. They are complaining (rightfully so) that they can't get them in the same manner as other legally married guardsmen. If the State Offices don't want to file the paperwork for Federal Benefits - that's fine. Then make that the rule for all Guardsmen, then we can observe how much "crying" occurs.





I never considered making military personnel lives more difficult as standing up for good values. But our views could be different.



>>>>>

The guard doesn't get stationed, they are living in the state they sign up for correct? Why would they sign up in that state? Just move, you know the laws of your state.

Where did I say anything in the above about the Guard getting "Stationed"?

Why would they sign up in that state? Just move, you know the laws of your state.

Because they have jobs, family, friends, etc. They are fully eligible to join the Guard and receive the Federal benefits they are eligible for. No need to move.



>>>>

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Where did I say anything in the above about the Guard getting "Stationed"?





Because they have jobs, family, friends, etc. They are fully eligible to join the Guard and receive the Federal benefits they are eligible for. No need to move.



>>>>

I didn't say you did. The gay decided to join the guard in a state that doesn't support their lifestyle and has made no point to hide it either. They are stupid for even trying to push the system. Move to another state.

 

[clownboy]

That's not the same thing, spousal benefits are part of your benefits.

Not if you're not legally married.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not if you're not legally married.

Correct. However these Guardsmen are still legally married. If they weren't they wouldn't be eligible to enroll their spouse to begin with. But they are and they can.


>>>>

 

[clownboy]

Correct. However these Guardsmen are still legally married. If they weren't they wouldn't be eligible to enroll their spouse to begin with. But they are and they can.


>>>>

Not in Texas they're not, and the Governor of Texas is their Commander In Chief.

 

[Jetboogieman]

So lovely to see so many Conservative freedom lovers supporting discrimination.

Brings tears to my eyes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not in Texas they're not, and the Governor of Texas is their Commander In Chief.

Sure they are. Just because the State of Texas dosen't recognize their legal marriage doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that the State of Texas doesn't recognize it. They are still legally married in the state they got married in, legally married in 12 other states, and legally married for Federal purposes even if they are in Texas.

Just because a married couple steps across the state line doesn't mean they receive a divorce.

Hence these legally married people in Texas applying for spousal benefits from the Federal government and wanna bet in January they file taxes as "Married Filing Jointly"?



>>>>

 

[douglas]

Homosexuality is not the same as race.

For the argument at hand, it's almost identical. Sexual orientation is something you're born with and you can't change it, race is something you're born with and can't change; what's the difference? Mind you, almost every argument that's being used against gays are just old arguments that were used against every other minority in our history; they were ridiculous arguments then and they're ridiculous arguments now.

The guard doesn't get stationed, they are living in the state they sign up for correct? Why would they sign up in that state? Just move, you know the laws of your state.

"Just move" is not an acceptable answer; it's blaming the victim. When the KKK mess with a black family, should they just move? Is it their fault for living in a KKK controlled area? The fault is always with the person infringing the rights, never with the victim. In this case, the guard is the victim, the state is at fault.

 

[clownboy]

Sure they are. Just because the State of Texas dosen't recognize their legal marriage doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that the State of Texas doesn't recognize it. They are still legally married in the state they got married in, legally married in 12 other states, and legally married for Federal purposes even if they are in Texas.

Just because a married couple steps across the state line doesn't mean they receive a divorce.

Hence these legally married people in Texas applying for spousal benefits from the Federal government and wanna bet in January they file taxes as "Married Filing Jointly"?



>>>>

Nope. While residents of Texas they may legally marry (opposite sex) without a bigamy charge. They couldn't do that if they were legally married already. As for the IRS filing, that's going to be a fun one when the IRS realizes that someone has managed to gain two federally recognised spouses.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

For the argument at hand, it's almost identical. Sexual orientation is something you're born with and you can't change it, race is something you're born with and can't change; what's the difference? Mind you, almost every argument that's being used against gays are just old arguments that were used against every other minority in our history; they were ridiculous arguments then and they're ridiculous arguments now.


"Just move" is not an acceptable answer; it's blaming the victim. When the KKK mess with a black family, should they just move? Is it their fault for living in a KKK controlled area? The fault is always with the person infringing the rights, never with the victim. In this case, the guard is the victim, the state is at fault.

Homosexuality can be changed actually. Here is living proof http://sbministries.org/tracts/TR-001-SBM-PDF.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. While residents of Texas they may legally marry (opposite sex) without a bigamy charge. They couldn't do that if they were legally married already.

Again, you are confusing Texas not recognizing the legal Civil Marriage with them "not being legally married", they are not the same statement.

A quirk in the Texas law (bigamy) does not mean that their legal marriage from another state is invalid for non-Texas purposes. That's just a quirk in that in Texas bygamy for same-sex couples is legal (i.e. not prosecutable), but if they leave Texas, they may be prosecuted in (currently) 13 States.

As for the IRS filing, that's going to be a fun one when the IRS realizes that someone has managed to gain two federally recognised spouses.

Nope, not a big deal at all.

An individual can only legally file one tax return, if they then need to change it they have to file an amended return. Each return carries the SSN of the filer and their spouse. When the IRS receives two different tax returns with the same SSN, they will kick it out and require a correction. This prevents them from having "two federally recognized spouses". You can pretty much bet that the IRS will consider which ever Civil Marriage occurred first as the one that applies for federal recognition, those rules are already in place. They already check for duplicate SSN submissions to preclude multiple claims for the same child.

No problem what so ever. There are no federal laws against bygamy, that is a state issue. So if an individual gets married in Iowa then moves to Texas and gets married again, then it is Texas responsibility to prosecute (or not) for bygamy or if the other way around - Iowa's responsibility to prosecute. With the Texas 2nd model, probably no prosecution. But if a guy marry's a girl in Texas, leaves her, then goes to Iowa and marries a dude there - then Iowa can prosecute.

>>>>

 

[clownboy]

Again, you are confusing Texas not recognizing the legal Civil Marriage with them "not being legally married", they are not the same statement.

A quirk in the Texas law (bigamy) does not mean that their legal marriage from another state is invalid for non-Texas purposes. That's just a quirk in that in Texas bygamy for same-sex couples is legal (i.e. not prosecutable), but if they leave Texas, they may be prosecuted in (currently) 13 States.

That's not a "quirk" in Texas law, it IS Texas law. And it does indeed mean they are not legally married in that state. There is no portability like with traditional marriage. As discussed they cannot get a divorce in Texas either, why? Because they're not married.

Nope, not a big deal at all.

An individual can only legally file one tax return, if they then need to change it they have to file an amended return. Each return carries the SSN of the filer and their spouse. When the IRS receives two different tax returns with the same SSN, they will kick it out and require a correction. This prevents them from having "two federally recognized spouses". You can pretty much bet that the IRS will consider which ever Civil Marriage occurred first as the one that applies for federal recognition, those rules are already in place. They already check for duplicate SSN submissions to preclude multiple claims for the same child.

No problem what so ever. There are no federal laws against bygamy, that is a state issue. So if an individual gets married in Iowa then moves to Texas and gets married again, then it is Texas responsibility to prosecute (or not) for bygamy or if the other way around - Iowa's responsibility to prosecute. With the Texas 2nd model, probably no prosecution. But if a guy marry's a girl in Texas, leaves her, then goes to Iowa and marries a dude there - then Iowa can prosecute.

>>>>

Where is the need in the scenerio to file more than one return? List yourself married filing jointly and list two spouses and their SSNs. In fact, it makes polygamy possible right now. And in fact there was a federal bignmy law for most of our nation's history - to stop polygamy. The last iteration of it was repealed in 1978 (the Edmunds–Tucker Act). Another good piece of news for polgamists.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's not a "quirk" in Texas law, it IS Texas law.

Premise A: In Texas it is legal for an individual married in another State to marry someone else in Texas.
Premise B: It is illegal in Texas for someone to have more than one spouse.

If that were a picture and you looked it up in the dictionary, it would be the picture next to "quirk". LOL

And it does indeed mean they are not legally married in that state.

There still legally married, if they weren't then they wouldn't be eligible for the benefits.

That seems to be the core point you aren't getting. Just because Texas doesn't recognize the legal marriage, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I could put an elephant in a refrigerator, then refuse to recognize that there is an elephant in the refrigerator. That does't mean there isn't an elephant in the refrigerator.

There is no portability like with traditional marriage. As discussed they cannot get a divorce in Texas either, why? Because they're not married.

Texas choosing to not recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Basic logic applies here: Couple goes to Iowa, couple gets married in Iowa, they return to Texas, even though the couple is in Texas they are still legally married in 13 states and in all 50 states for federal purposes. If you premise were true, that when they crossed the line in Texas they were no longer married, then they couldn't be filing the paperwork for federal military benefits.

Where is the need in the scenerio to file more than one return?

You said:

As for the IRS filing, that's going to be a fun one when the IRS realizes that someone has managed to gain two federally recognised spouses.

A federal tax return only has two slots for Spousal SSN's, there is not slot for a 3rd. Therefore the individual you reference (Person A) to even attempt to submit two spouses (Persons B & C) to the IRS they would have to submit two tax returns one with Person A & B and the other with Person A & C.

List yourself married filing jointly and list two spouses and their SSNs.

The 1040 only has one slot for a spouse.

In fact, it makes polygamy possible right now. And in fact there was a federal bignmy law for most of our nation's history - to stop polygamy. The last iteration of it was repealed in 1978 (the Edmunds–Tucker Act). Another good piece of news for polgamists.

Repealed in 1978.

Which is what I said, there is not a federal law (that I'm aware of) that makes it a federal crime for bigamy to be imposed on the states. There is a provision for bigamy in the Manual of the Courts Martial for bigamy by military members which would be effective on military installations, but that is not a law applicable to the states in general.

I'm not saying there aren't laws against bigamy, there are, but to my understanding there is no current federal law making bigamy a crime (except for the UCMJ as applied to military members) - the laws against bigamy are state laws. Since all 50 states have laws against bigamy and for federal purposes they would only consider the first marriage as valid, then there is no opportunity to have two spouses for federal purposes.


>>>>

 

[douglas]

Homosexuality can be changed actually. Here is living proof http://sbministries.org/tracts/TR-001-SBM-PDF.pdf

That's not scientific evidence, that's a story written by a Christian Fundamentalist. It's fiction. That you believe it, is the reason you've been misled. Do you not wonder why gay-conversion therapy doesn't work? Or faith healing of any kind for that matter. It's ridiculous and obviously fictional to anyone except those that force themselves to believe it. You can't pray away Homosexuality anymore than you can pray away Cancer. (And I know some of you guys try, and then die of cancer.) By now, you'd think that enough failures would teach you that you're wrong, but I guess not.

Your bible, your church, your stories, and any anecdotal evidence you find, is not considered proof in a logical debate. If you wouldn't accept it in a court case, why would you accept it in life?

 

[clownboy]

You can continue to repeat it, it does not make it fact, or reality. They are not married in Texas. Simple test to see who is correct here. Can they file for any state program as a married couple?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can continue to repeat it, it does not make it fact, or reality. They are not married in Texas. Simple test to see who is correct here. Can they file for any state program as a married couple?

No, because Texas doesn't recognize their marriage. That doesn't mean they aren't Civilly Married, it means the state has chosen not to recognize it.

Let's continue the test.

The couple in question lives at 123 Mockingbird Lane, Ft. Worth, TX 78106. One of the couple is a member of the Texas National Guard. The couple went to New York and received a legal Civil Marriage. The couple are both of the same gender.

1. Are the individual residents of the State of Texas?

2. Can the individuals receive federal DOD benefits as married members of the military?

3. Did the State of New York or any other State issue a divorce degree ending the New York Civil Marriage?

4. Come spring of 2014, will the couple be required file federal income tax form's with a status of either "Married - Filing Jointly" or "Married - Filing Singly"?

5. Come the 2020 Census, when they indicate they are living at the same residence and have to select the status of the person they share a home with would they check "Husband or Wife" or "Unmarried partner".​

You can repeat the idea that just because they stepped across the state line that their marriage evaporated and becomes void, it doesn't. The marriage still exists, it's just not recognized by the State. If your position was the correct interpretation then they could not qualify under #2, #4, and #5. But they do, meaning the marriage for other than Texas purposes still exists.



>>>>

 

[apdst]

What benefits were denied? As fsr as I know, the NG doesn't offer benefits.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What benefits were denied? As fsr as I know, the NG doesn't offer benefits.

The benefits were not denied, the ability to apply for the benefits was/is allowed for different-sex couples but is being denied to same-sex couples. The couple can still go to a federal installation and apply.

So if a Guardsman is in a different-sex Civil Marriage, they can apply at their local Armory or state office. However let's say a Guardsman is Civilly Married to a member of the same sex and lives 300 miles away from the nearest federal military installation. That means a lost days wages for taking off a day, a 10-hour round trip to drive to the base, and the cost of a tank of gas. Potentially hundreds of dollars and a day wasted.



>>>>

 

[American]

So lovely to see so many Conservative freedom lovers supporting discrimination.

Brings tears to my eyes.

Maybe you could please list these conservatives and their discriminatory statements, because I must have missed it.

 

[American]

From what I've read, the problem is Texas constitution doesn't jive with the policy, so military can't resolve the implimentation.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Maybe you could please list these conservatives and their discriminatory statements, because I must have missed it.

Anyone who continues to support a ban on gay marriage, supports discrimination.

Those statements are in abundance in this thread and throughout the forums history.

This is not difficult stuff, but the pre-requisite is being able to read...

 

[American]

Anyone who continues to support a ban on gay marriage, supports discrimination.

Those statements are in abundance in this thread and throughout the forums history.

This is not difficult stuff, but the pre-requisite is being able to read...

You called out Conservatives specifically, and I see lots of other people.