Pentagon surveys troops on DADT (again)

[Lamplighter]

Today, the USSC handed down it's decision on DOMA and Prop 8.

California can/will re-start same-sex marriages on a technicality
of "standing"
and across the U.S. all federal laws and benefits will apply equally
to all legal marriages.
But in some states, laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages will still prevail.

Ironically, "separate but equal" is un-constitutional for race and education,
but this USSC says it is constitutional when it comes to same-sex marriages.

Go figure...

[sexobon]

Looks like "separate but equal" has been replaced by "all animals marriages are equal; but, some animals marriages are more equal than others."

[regular.joe]

I really don't care how you have sex. If you can shoot and carry a ruck, you're good in my book.

[sexobon]

Like the old adage: We don't care who they're humping as long as they can hump a ruck and shoot their load.

[Lamplighter]

Sort of legal questions...

Can military personnel be married "on base" and not designate
their marriage to the particular State where they are based/living ?

If so, would this be a way to avoid DOMA ?

[BigV]

I have to say regarding SCOTUS's finding that DOMA was unconstitutional prompted many questions as to how various federal entities would handle the new decision. In all of the initial reports from the IRS, Social Security, etc, there were various explanations about how they'd have to review the relevant laws, examine the policies and how they could be changed, "we'll look into that and get back to you" kind of sounds. But not the Defense Department. Chuck Hagel said that morning that the DoD will immediately extend full benefits to spouses in same sex marriages. Period.

Bravo! In addition to being personally pleased with the decision itself, it gives me comfort to think that the armed services charged with defending me are far sighted enough to have a plan in place, ready to be enacted at the moment it needs to be enacted.

Certainly there have been problems associated with our military, but so many of them (channeling tw) can be traced to their political leaders' (top management) poor decisions (/tw). This is a political/legal decision too, but an unambiguous one easily understood. They understood what could have happened, learned what did happen, and took action accordingly.

[regular.joe]

Jesus H. Christ! If we can extend benefits to married men and women, why should there be any problems in extending them to men and women married to men and women?! This is why the military can extend benefits the next day. We are not inclined to play around with the bullshite. If you are married, you are married. Lets move on to the important matters.

[Lamplighter]

Here is another consequence of D.O.M.A. that may eventually alleviated by the USSC decision...

NY Times
ERICA GOODE
July 2, 2013

Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage May Help Resolve Status of Divorce

Adam Cardinal’s wedded life began happily
in New Hampshire, where same-sex marriages are legal.
It went sour three years later in Florida, where they are not.

Mr. Cardinal, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, separated from his husband several months ago.
But the couple cannot get a divorce because, in the eyes of Florida officials, their marriage does not exist.

Returning to New Hampshire to sever the bond is not an option either.
Although marrying can be accomplished with a brief visit there,
a divorce requires residency in the state for at least a year.

Mr. Cardinal cannot remarry — to do so would make him a bigamist in states
like Massachusetts or New York that recognize his previous nuptials.
And although he and his husband did not combine their assets,
the lack of an official document certifying the end of their marriage carries financial risks.

“I didn’t realize this could potentially be an issue, that we couldn’t divorce
when we wanted to,” Mr. Cardinal said. “That was really upsetting.”

<snip>

The article goes on to point out other issues and problems caused
by differences in State laws, and which will be hard to resolve as
long as the USSC tries to proclaim their "separate but equal" ruling.

.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But in Florida it's easy for Mr. Cardinal to obtain a cheap handgun, or swarthy contractor.

[Lamplighter]

One of the next episodes in this USSC-foisted myth of "separate but equal" .

Washington Post
Juliet Eilperin
July 9, 2013

Gay couples to sue for the right to marry in Pennsylvania

The ACLU is representing 23 plaintiffs –10 gay couples, two children of one of the couples,
and the surviving widow of a same-sex couple that was together for 29 years
— in a lawsuit it will file Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa.
James Esseks, who directs the*ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project,
said the group hopes to secure the right for gay couples to marry in Pennsylvania,
force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere
and ratchet up the legal pressure on the Supreme Court to ultimately rule
on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal across the nation.<snip>

“The issue is getting back to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Esseks said,
noting that there are more than half-a-dozen other legal challenges to
same-sex marriage bans already pending in federal court.

“Pennsylvania recognizes straight people’s marriages from Maine and New York,
but it doesn’t recognize gay people’s marriages from Maine and New York. The question is, why?”

But this flurry of lawsuits is also aimed at winning over the American public to the idea
of expanding gay marriage nationwide, by highlighting the stories of
committed same-sex couples who are not recognized by the state.

Helena Miller and Dara Raspberry met in Brooklyn in 2006 and got
legally married in Connecticut in 2010, because at the time New York
did not allow same-sex marriage. They moved to Philadelphia in the fall of 2011,
in part to be closer to Miller’s family as they prepared to have children of their own.

“We have a wonderful family and we get wonderful support
from our family and friends,” Miller said in an interview.
“Unfortunately by moving to Pennsylvania, we effectively became unmarried.”
<snip>

[Lamplighter]

NY Times
JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: July 9, 2013

Effects of Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage Start Rippling Out Through Government

<snip>In recent days, officials from all three branches of government have notified
their workers of the expanded eligibility standards for spousal benefits.
<snip>
But with the Supreme Court having the final say in the matter,
the House had few options but to notify all 435 representatives
and their staff members in all 50 states that they have 60 days to enroll
their same-sex spouses in an array of benefits like vision, dental, long-term care and survivors’ annuities.

“I’m pleased that they’re proceeding, but I don’t think they had a choice,”
said Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, who is one of the seven openly gay, lesbian or bisexual members of Congress.
“I think people expect that once the court has spoken,
even though they might disagree with the particular decision,
it is the law of the land. And it’s our responsibility,
especially those in government, to honor and follow the law.”
<snip>
The Senate and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
have also sent out advisories in recent days pointing to a directive issued
by the Office of Personnel Management, the executive branch’s human resources division,
affirming the rights of same-sex couples to receive federal benefits, regardless of their state of residency.

BUT... don't be complacent that all is well about employment...

The only movement will come from the Senate,
where on Wednesday the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
is expected to approve a bill that would extend to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people
the federal employment protections against discrimination that are currently available
to people based on characteristics like race and religion.

There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace
based on sexual orientation; 29 states also do not have such a law.

[Lamplighter]

There are still questions about which State government
would be issuing the sam-sex marriage license,
the military may again be leading the way for
a final USSC decision to reach ttrue nation-wide equality.

KFOX14.com
Genevieve Curtis
7/8/2013

Same Sex marriages could be performed on Fort Bliss

FORT BLISS, Texas —
In the future, gay soldiers may be able to get married on post after
the Supreme Court's historic decision to repeal most of the
Defense of Marriage Act last month, Fort Bliss authorities said.

The decision would mean that a military Chaplin, employed by the federal government
and working on a federal installation would have no grounds to deny same sex couples a marriage.
<snip>
Fort Bliss Spokesperson Maj. Joe Buccino said it is something the
Department of Defense is working on, whether a federally funded entity
can offer marriages in a chapel, performed by a military Chaplin.
The answer might very well be, yes.

Buccino said they know one of the requirements would be that
at least one of the members of the couple be a solider.
No date has been set for when same-sex marriages could start on posts,
but it will likely take at least 90 days.
<snip>

"If Texas, doesn't allow it, I think Fort Bliss should," said Sargent Jason Garcia.

"I think it's important that all people are treated fairly and all soldiers are treated fairly.
I know that the army is working very hard to make sure that happens in a variety of way[s].
So its progress and were always happy to see progress 



[xoxoxoBruce]

Civilian clergy are licensed by the state to perform a civil ceremony along with the ceremony of their faith, and file the proper paperwork with the state.
Do military clergy have the same arrangement with civil authorities?

[Lamplighter]

The Bill for Federal protection in the workplace for gays, lesbians,
bisexuals and transgender passed out of Committee today !

The vote was bipartisan 15 to 7, with 4 Republicans.
...Hatch (UT), Murkowski (AK), Kirk (IL) voting in favor
The Bill is co-sponsored by Susan Collins (R-ME)

See my earlier post today, and a more recent article in the NY Times.

This Bill was originally introduced in the Senate in 2007.
Who can say the Senate is not a deliberative body.

[Lamplighter]

Back to the PA lawsuit (as posted above) ...

Philly.com
REGINA MEDINA
July 10, 2013
Kane won't defend Pa. in gay-marriage suit, sources say

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that
her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit
that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage,
the Daily News has learned.
<snip>

Pennsylvania is the sole state in the Northeast without same-sex marriage or a civil-union statute.

But as in California's Prop 8, a third party could step forward to defend the lawsuit;
however, the USSC effectively ruled against them, based on a technicality of "standing"