- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,364
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not relevant.
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.
Because....
Your raging homophobia is showing.
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.
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.
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.
Oh God. Subletting.
Jesus H. Christ.
That is a crap shoot of the worst kind.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
But that is exactly the arguments used by people who have issues with prayer in schools. Apparently there are double standards.
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.
But that is exactly the arguments used by people who have issues with prayer in schools. Apparently there are double standards.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?