Pentagon moves to extend benefits to gay spouses (1 Viewer)

[Somerville]

I wonder how the states that have passed legislation banning gay marriage are going to react to the reality that a gay married couple with one or both partners in the military will be seen by the federal government as equal to hetero couples. So if a landlord refuses to rent to a gay military couple, could the local base commander tell his troops not to rent from said property owner? This will have a big influence in some places that have been reluctant to acknowledge the equality of gay and lesbian military personnel

Pentagon moves to extend benefits to gay spouses

WASHINGTON -- The Defense Department said it would immediately begin the process that will lead to providing benefits to the spouses of military servicemembers in same-sex marriages. The announcement follows the Supreme Court ruling striking down part of a law that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples.

"The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a prepared statement. "That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do," he said.

Hagel's full statement

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.

Every person who serves our nation in uniform stepped forward with courage and commitment. All that matters is their patriotism, their willingness to serve their country, and their qualifications to do so. Today's ruling helps ensure that all men and women who serve this country can be treated fairly and equally, with the full dignity and respect they so richly deserve.

 

[Gipper]

If someone doesn't want to rent to gay military personnel, they shouldn't have to rent to gay military personnel. Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it has to be universally accepted.

People have the right to be bigots.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I wonder how the states that have passed legislation banning gay marriage are going to react to the reality that a gay married couple with one or both partners in the military will be seen by the federal government as equal to hetero couples. So if a landlord refuses to rent to a gay military couple, could the local base commander tell his troops not to rent from said property owner? This will have a big influence in some places that have been reluctant to acknowledge the equality of gay and lesbian military personnel



Hagel's full statement

Waste of tax dollars.

 

[obvious Child]

Waste of tax dollars.

Because....

Your raging homophobia is showing.

Also, if it's a waste of money, why did IBM and AT&T get a huge competitive advantage when they offered same sex benefits? They had their pick of the best and the brightest from the gay community. And it showed in their performance.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Because....

Your raging homophobia is showing.

Also, if it's a waste of money, why did IBM and AT&T get a huge competitive advantage when they offered same sex benefits? They had their pick of the best and the brightest from the gay community. And it showed in their performance.

Not relevant.

 

[obvious Child]

If someone doesn't want to rent to gay military personnel, they shouldn't have to rent to gay military personnel. Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it has to be universally accepted.

People have the right to be bigots.

Actually, there's a good reason not to rent to military personnel in general. You never know if they're going to break their lease due to deployment, base closures, or relocation. As a landlord, it's a pain in the *** to have to keep finding new tenants every few months because your military renter just got moved for whatever reason.

In my experience, it's bad to have long term tenants (3+ years), but at the same time having a tenant that doesn't even make it 4 months is a serious drag.

 

[obvious Child]

Not relevant.

Translation: My homophobia doesn't give me anything to rebut this argument so I'm just going to say it's irrelevant even when it's not.

Allowing same sex benefits in the military ensures that talented professionals stay in the military, the same way that AT&T and IBM boosted performance by hiring the best of the gay community.

 

[Gipper]

Actually, there's a good reason not to rent to military personnel in general. You never know if they're going to break their lease due to deployment, base closures, or relocation. As a landlord, it's a pain in the *** to have to keep finding new tenants every few months because your military renter just got moved for whatever reason.

In my experience, it's bad to have long term tenants (3+ years), but at the same time having a tenant that doesn't even make it 4 months is a serious drag.

I'm about 40 minutes away from a sizable military base, but to my understanding, subletting is pretty common due to the fact that there's less space than soldiers.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Because....

Your raging homophobia is showing.

And for the record, homophobia would be a severe miscategorization of my position.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Translation: My homophobia doesn't give me anything to rebut this argument so I'm just going to say it's irrelevant even when it's not.

Allowing same sex benefits in the military ensures that talented professionals stay in the military, the same way that AT&T and IBM boosted performance by hiring the best of the gay community.

We have had talented professionals in the military for years, and guess what, they weren't even allowed to say they were gay. So your argument is invalid.

 

[obvious Child]

I'm about 40 minutes away from a sizable military base, but to my understanding, subletting is pretty common due to the fact that there's less space than soldiers.

Oh God. Subletting.

Jesus H. Christ.

That is a crap shoot of the worst kind.

 

[Fisher]

I think the more interesting cases will be tax cases. What if Cindy and BubbaJean are married in California and they move to Georgia. Cindy works for the federal government and BubbaJean is a lumberjack. They can file jointly federally, but can they file jointly in Georgia? I live in a no SSM state and your state tax filing status has to be the same as your federal, and your federal is the starting point for your state on your state tax forms. What happens if on the federal there is a deduction related to marriage when the state doesn't recognize the marriage? It is sort of a tangent reversal on the pot shop issue where the feds will not let you deduct any expenses on your IRS taxes for your pot shop business so you get taxed on the gross as income.

 

[obvious Child]

We have had talented professionals in the military for years, and guess what, they weren't even allowed to say they were gay. So your argument is invalid.

Hardly. With more and more companies offering same sex benefits, the competition for such talent is growing. Again, as I pointed out (and as you keep refusing to address) IBM and AT&T got significant performance boosts from hiring such people.

If faced with a choice of no benefits for your partner or benefits for your partner with comparatively similar compensation, where do you think people are going to go?

The fact that you keep pathetically grasping for straws and ignoring the historical benefits from providing same sex benefits is a big sign you don't have an argument.

Again, your RAGING homophobia is showing.

 

[Redress]

Oh God. Subletting.

Jesus H. Christ.

That is a crap shoot of the worst kind.

Happened alot when I was in. Landlords where actually generally fairly cool and would allow alot of that type thing, but they had the advantage that they knew they where going to get every penny owed them by contract, and had the phone numbers of all the commands in the area so they could ensure it.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Hardly. With more and more companies offering same sex benefits, the competition for such talent is growing. Again, as I pointed out (and as you keep refusing to address) IBM and AT&T got significant performance boosts from hiring such people.

If faced with a choice of no benefits for your partner or benefits for your partner with comparatively similar compensation, where do you think people are going to go?

The fact that you keep pathetically grasping for straws and ignoring the historical benefits from providing same sex benefits is a big sign you don't have an argument.

Again, your RAGING homophobia is showing.

Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion. It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality, therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. Otherwise Religions shouldn't have restirctions on when they should speak.

 

[obvious Child]

Happened alot when I was in. Landlords where actually generally fairly cool and would allow alot of that type thing, but they had the advantage that they knew they where going to get every penny owed them by contract, and had the phone numbers of all the commands in the area so they could ensure it.

I guess, but I don't subscribe to that line of thought.

I'd rather have a carefully vetted tenant who won't trash the place then risk a sublet to someone I don't know, haven't vetted and who I may have to go to court to get recovery.

An ounce of prevention here is really ten millions pounds of cure.

It's just so much easier and cheaper just to have a stable tenant then risk a sublet.

 

[Redress]

I guess, but I don't subscribe to that line of thought.

I'd rather have a carefully vetted tenant who won't trash the place then risk a sublet to someone I don't know, haven't vetted and who I may have to go to court to get recovery.

An ounce of prevention here is really ten millions pounds of cure.

It's just so much easier and cheaper just to have a stable tenant then risk a sublet.

But if a military person trashed the place, they have to pay for repairs. If they do not, the landlord simply contacts the command and it is taken care of, right out of the military person's paycheck. Where else do you get that kind of guarantee?

 

[Texmex]

If someone doesn't want to rent to gay military personnel, they shouldn't have to rent to gay military personnel. Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it has to be universally accepted.

People have the right to be bigots.

I would never rent to anyone who is homosexual regardless of what the military or government says.

 

[obvious Child]

Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Which itself proves you do.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion.

Did you even read the first amendment? There is nothing in the bill of rights that gives such a freedom of religion in such an aspect. Using your tax dollars to fund something you don't agree with but does not make you do is not an infringement of the 1st amendment. Seriously, you just made up your own version of what Freedom of Religion is.

I could create a religion that says that everyone should pay taxes to benefit me, but I should pay nothing to benefit them. Thereby, ANY taxes not used on me is an infringement of my religious freedom. That's ****ing asinine, but that's where your argument goes.

It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality

It's offensive to certain religions to allow women to work alone or get educated.
It's offensive to certain religions to eat cows.
It's offensive to certain religions to prevent them from killing whatever animals they need for their religious ceremonies.
It's offensive to certain religions to prevent them from using controlled substances.

[quote[therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. [/quote]

So you're for the banning of farm subsidies?
Ending all laws of controlled substances?
Ending all nature conservation and letting people kill as much as they want whenever they want?
Ending all support for education for women at every level of government?

Your arguments are getting worse and worse.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Which itself proves you do.



Did you even read the first amendment? There is nothing in the bill of rights that gives such a freedom of religion in such an aspect. Using your tax dollars to fund something you don't agree with but does not make you do is not an infringement of the 1st amendment. Seriously, you just made up your own version of what Freedom of Religion is.

I could create a religion that says that everyone should pay taxes to benefit me, but I should pay nothing to benefit them. Thereby, ANY taxes not used on me is an infringement of my religious freedom. That's ****ing asinine, but that's where your argument goes.



It's offensive to certain religions to allow women to work alone or get educated.
It's offensive to certain religions to eat cows.
It's offensive to certain religions to prevent them from killing whatever animals they need for their religious ceremonies.
It's offensive to certain religions to prevent them from using controlled substances.

[quote[therefore the Government shouldn't be involved.

So you're for the banning of farm subsidies?
Ending all laws of controlled substances?
Ending all nature conservation and letting people kill as much as they want whenever they want?
Ending all support for education for women at every level of government?

Your arguments are getting worse and worse.[/QUOTE]

But that is exactly the arguments used by people who have issues with prayer in schools. Apparently there are double standards.

 

[obvious Child]

But if a military person trashed the place, they have to pay for repairs.

Which means you may have to go to court to get them to pay as well as losing months of rental time as your unit is out of the market.

Both of which are colossal pains in the butt. Subletting is a dangerous gamble. Sure you'll EVENTUALLY get made whole, but when you can simply avoid this, it's really a no-brainer if you have the choice.

If they do not, the landlord simply contacts the command and it is taken care of, right out of the military person's paycheck. Where else do you get that kind of guarantee?

If the damage is more than their paycheck, then you still gotta cough up the difference. Not to mention extensive repairs take extensive time.

I'm not singling out military, I'm just anti-subletting in general.

 

[obvious Child]

But that is exactly the arguments used by people who have issues with prayer in schools. Apparently there are double standards.

What the hell are you talking about?

Kids can pray all they want in schools. What schools cannot do is have authority led prayer or allow disruptive action by students.

You keep running from more and more of my points.

The fact that you are literally making up your own version of what amendments actually say suggests just how strong of a debater you are.

 

[Redress]

Which means you may have to go to court to get them to pay as well as losing months of rental time as your unit is out of the market.

Both of which are colossal pains in the butt. Subletting is a dangerous gamble. Sure you'll EVENTUALLY get made whole, but when you can simply avoid this, it's really a no-brainer if you have the choice.



If the damage is more than their paycheck, then you still gotta cough up the difference. Not to mention extensive repairs take extensive time.

I'm not singling out military, I'm just anti-subletting in general.

No court(unless the military person challenges the charges). The cost may come out over a few months, but the landlord will get their money, which is much better than most cases.

 

[Redress]

But that is exactly the arguments used by people who have issues with prayer in schools. Apparently there are double standards.

Prayer in school is not just legal, but constitutionally protected.

 

[obvious Child]

No court(unless the military person challenges the charges). The cost may come out over a few months, but the landlord will get their money, which is much better than most cases.

Or simply just not allow subletting and not lose months of rent from inactive rentals being repaired.

Simple avoidance of this saves so much hassle. That alone is worth not subletting.

You could risk it, have damage, take your rental off the market for months, cough up the money yourself initially for repairs and then wait months to get cost recovery from the subletter all while losing months of rental income (while paying property taxes as well as utility hook up fees). It just doesn't make sense to do this if you can avoid a sublet.

As I said earlier, subletting is a crapshoot of the worst kind. Sure it may work out, but it may not. With the original renter, at least you can ensure that you have ultimate control. Subletting? Not so much.