|

Unwed couples get military benefits – but only if they’re gay

First, it was don’t ask, don’t tell, then women in combat and now outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has directed that military benefits formerly reserved for married couples be extended to unmarried couples, at taxpayer expense, but only if they are same sex couples - heterosexual unmarried couples need not apply.

The memorandum continues: “At the direction of the President, the Department has conducted a careful and deliberative review of the benefits currently provided to the families of Service members. We have now identified additional family member and dependent benefits that we can lawfully provide to same-sex domestic partners of Military Service members and their children through changes in Department of Defense policies and regulations.”

Panetta’s memorandum continues:

Excerpt:

“These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners and, where applicable, children of same-sex domestic partners, once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.”

The declaration defines a “domestic partner” as a “person in a domestic partnership with a Service member of the same sex,” and a “domestic partnership” as a “committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex, that meets all of the requirements below.”

Among the benefits the Pentagon will now give to same-sex domestic partners but not to heterosexual unwed couples are disability and death compensation, legal assistance, some travel on Department of Defense aircraft, commissary privileges, welfare and recreation programs, emergency leave, and access to a “sexual assault counseling program.”

First, how can extending benefits to unmarried same sex couples, but not to unmarried heterosexual couples, not be discrimination? Another question taxpayers must ask, is why do we need to elect members of Congress, when they are so easily bypassed by the president and his bureaucrats on matters utilizing the treasury of the United States?

Share:

20 Comments

  1. Perhaps this is only for unwed same-sex couples because they are not allowed to get married like heterosexual couples can in every state in America?

    If they are in a long-standing and faithful relationship but are denied the right to get married, why should the military not extend them the same benefits?

    I am glad this is taking place, it is about time. I can’t wait for 50 years from now when none of this will even be a worthwhile topic of discussion anymore as same-sex marriages will be legal in all 50 states.

  2. JRM_CommonSense

    Years ago when I worked for one of the Big-5 consulting firms, the firm named the first gay partner. The very next year, SSDP’s became eligible for all of the companies benefits programs. However, OSDP’s were never given the same eligibilities. so it has happened in the business world for a very long time.

    To argue that “couples” not having the right to marry (SSDP’s) should get benefits but “couples” who CHOSE NOT to engage in the “institution” of marriage (OSDP’s) shouldn’t get those benefits because they should just marry to get this is really creating just another class of people to discriminate against. Of course, there could very well be some religious reason for the right to discriminate here.

  3. dogrescuer

    What’s “rational” about a religion that allows men wearing dresses to rape children??

    • Ted Biondo

      There are sick people in all organizations, religious and non religious. – doesn’t affect the debate, dogrescuer! It’s still a violation of our religious freedom. You just don’t believe in religion but those who do have religious freedom in this country under the first amendment.

  4. Re: What’s “rational” about a religion that allows men wearing dresses to rape children??

    Do you mean Muslims? http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/73-brahmachari/449-nauseating-child-sex-in-muslim-societies.html

  5. dogrescuer

    That similarity hadn’t occurred to me, snuss!

  6. ‘What’s “rational” about a religion that allows men wearing dresses to rape children??”

    The lord works in mysterious ways.

  7. There are perverts and lunatics in all groups, but liberals think that theirs are just expressing another version of “normal”.

  8. Snuss,

    I am quite sure no liberal would consider child rape normal. Or cover it up. Or allow it to continue for DECADES. Nice try though.

    Also, it is good that you draw a connection between Islam and Christianity. Radical Islam just acts now how Christianity did 500 years ago when it was believed “God was on their side”. The only difference between the two is that due to the enlightenment, progress, etc. the church has had to give up so much ground in the Western world. We have all read about what they used to be when they thought they were divinely directed. Terrorists would be an understatement.

  9. Muttley,

    “What’s “rational” about a religion that allows men wearing dresses to rape children??” – According to the John Jay study, catholic priest were no more likely to molest children then was a public school teacher.

    Ever wonder why 80% of the victims were boys?

  10. Maybe the veterans can get the mental treatment they need to rid themselves of such discusting tendencies.

  11. cjr1 sez: “I am quite sure no liberal would consider child rape normal. ”

    Ever hear of NAMBLA?

  12. Snuss,

    As crazy backwards as NAMBLA is, and I by no means agree with any of their positions, they at least promote a CONSENSUAL relationship.

    Priests? They got boys butt nekkid against their will in front of their God. If there is a hell as they teach others, they are going straight to the deepest circle of it.

  13. http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/8094/

    “Yet, NAMBLA has a working relationship with the Democrat party. President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as the Safe School Czar. Jennings expressed his admiration and praise for Harry Hay, who is a long time advocate for NAMBLA and the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.

    As an educator, Jennings was approached by a 15-year-old boy who sought his advice about a relationship he was having with an older man. Instead of reporting this felonious act to police or encouraging the boy to talk to his family or seek counseling, Jennings told the boy to “use a condom” with the man. “

  14. cjr1,

    “As crazy backwards as NAMBLA is, and I by no means agree with any of their positions, they at least promote a CONSENSUAL relationship.”

    I have many silly statements on blogs over the year, but thios has to be the silliest. The MB stands for Man-Boy. The boy CANNOT CONSENT.cjr1,

    “As crazy backwards as NAMBLA is, and I by no means agree with any of their positions, they at least promote a CONSENSUAL relationship.”

    I have many silly statements on blogs over the year, but thios has to be the silliest. The MB stands for Man-Boy. The boy CANNOT CONSENT.

  15. Statutory rape is still considered rape. A minor cannot give “informed consent” to an adult. Coercion of a minor isn’t consent, either. Epic fail, cjr1, epic fail.

  16. Snuss,

    Great. Apparently you are far more well-versed about the legality of relationships with young boys than I am.

    Oh, except now that I had to look these disgusting laws up, you and your fanboy Terry are also wrong. It is a STATE dependent issue (Republicans love state rights, correct?!)

    In a lot of states, the age cutoff is 16. So, a minor can in fact give informed consent to an adult.

    I really don’t care about some obscure fringe group. We are talking about the worlds major religions. Priests have raped boys. Under sharia law, a muslim can marry a freaking 7 year old. So as you show above, you hold OUR laws over those of the Muslim faith…..how is it any different in the case of a catholic and birth control exactly?

    Or be like Ted and continue to dodge the main parts of every post….like why would you not apply the same principles to a business run by a scientologist, jehova’s witness, or a Christian scientist?

  17. Oh and for your rape-laws viewing pleasure Snuss, now you can be educated enough to direct your beloved NAMBLA members in which states they should relocate.

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/statelaws.shtml#Alabama

  18. NAMBLA members are YOUR Liberal buddies. They are no friends of mine. Also, they go after boys much younger than sixteen.
    And, yes, I do try to keep informed about Leftist idiocy. I just taught YOU something, didn’t I?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>