Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

August 16, 2013 - 1:04 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The Tatler has obtained Department of Defense memos, three dated August 13, 2013, and one dated August 16, spelling out how DoD will handle same-sex marrying couples. According to the memos, Defense says it will attempt to treat all married and marrying couples equally, but in a way that grants some gay couples a “bonus” benefit not available to heterosexual couples and single military members.

The U.S. Department of Defense under Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been quick to move on same-sex marriage in the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act. That act, passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, allowed states to continue determining their own policies regarding same-sex marriage. Since that time, some states have legalized same-sex marriage, most by court rulings, while most have declined. The United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act by a vote of 5-4 on June 26, 2013, leaving most of the law intact but eliminating a ban on extending federal benefits to gay couples as unconstitutional.

The first of the memos is signed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Titled “MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS,” and with the subject line “Extending Benefits to the Same-Sex Spouses of Military Members,” Hagel’s memo says, “As the Supreme Court’s ruling has made it possible for same-sex couples to marry and be afforded benefits available to any military spouse and family, I have determined, consistent with the unanimous advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners of military members is no longer necessary to remedy the inequity that was caused by section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

As a senator from Nebraska, Hagel was in the bipartisan majority that voted to approve DOMA in 1996.

The memo continues: “We recognize that same-sex couples not stationed in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage would have to travel to another jurisdiction to marry. Accordingly, the Department will implement policies to allow military personnel in such a relationship non-chargeable leave for the purpose of traveling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage will occur.”

Subsequent memos spell out the policy in detail or provide talking points to explain the policy change.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
And like race based admissions, it's not that a group was demanding equal rights, but that they were demanding more rights/benefits/preferences than the rest of the population.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Fundamental transformation. One of the few times he was not lying.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (18)
All Comments   (18)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Wouldn't it be grand if the Perfumed Princes in the Pentagon were as astute at fighting wars as they are at implementing social engineering and political correctness?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sorry, as a retired veteran, this is very low on the list of things to get riled up about. Soldiers should just shut up and soldier. There's already a huge double standard that grants tons more in pay in promotion opportunities to those it favors, and there are no breathless reports about the "unfairness"; we simply deal with it. Its called the Physical Readiness Standards that give women the same score as a man for doing less.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What is most bothersome about this whole issue is that the DoD views this as necessary to "level the playing field".
So, gays are given free leave to go somewhere that allows marriage. Is the supposition that all heterosexual couples already sharing a joint domicile and thus don't have to travel anywhere? What about an Army Private with a fiance in Colorado? That Private lives in a barracks so he cannot coinhabit and does not recieve a housing allowance and likely cannot support a soon-to-be wife with an apartment until they actually wed! Does the DoD really think this soldier won't go home to marry?

I see no wrong that needs to be righted.
It sounds as if the DoD just assumes everyone is aleady living together and the only difference is that gays just can't run down to the Justice of the Peace and wed.

This is truly a crock of it!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I often wonder what it would be like to serve in today’s military, as I did many years ago, and to be assigned to a very small unit (just 11 of us) in a remote area, as I was, where camaraderie and a cohesive spirit were a must if morale and effective performance of duty were to be maintained. And then find yourself among “lovers” and have no option but to tolerate and endure the disgusting freak show for months on end (no pun intended) while trying to discharge your duties honorably and effectively. But then that was back in the day when “blanket parties“ were thrown for those who dared tried to bless you with their passions and civility was maintained.

What's a blanket party, you ask? You didn't serve in the military and this issue in not within your realm of conprehension.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I served in an isolated unit that had gay people in it that did their jobs on duty and we didn't care what they did with their junk off-duty, just like the heteros that visited hookers. We would have called you a cry-baby and to quit whining and that don't worry, you aren't all that attractive to other guys, so no worries there.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
stupidity is obviously the order of the day in this country now. over 1/2 of the population either 1) isn't bright enough to understand what the framers meant by being a natural born citizen, 2) they really are stupid, 3)they don't care and just want mo free stuff, or 4) they really believe birth certificates were produced on computers in 1961.

this halfwit african p.o.s. is trying to destroy our country, plain and simple. our congresscritters and u.s.s.c. are helping him, probably since he has learned about their dirty little secrets by illegally reading their mail. talk isn't going to fix this. it is escalating and I believe it will get bloody before the end. odumbo inc. needs an ineffective military to succeed in our overthrow. I have never seen the average military person so disgusted, not even under carter. giving gays special rights? open slap in the face to honorable warriors. militias and other patriots need to organize and prepare mentally and physically for the worse. its coming, so prepare and kypd.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Okay, so the United States Department of Defense has swung all the way to the far far left, in terms of internal personnel policy. Combine that with the Rules of Engagement currently in force in Afghanistan, and various other less lethal hotspots. So. WHY would any sane HS graduate be interested in joining This Man's Army? ... I mean seriously. How did we get to this point? It is like the defeat in Vietnam all over again. And nothing has changed. Yet again it is the Democrats orchestrating the humiliation of U.S. forces. And once again they have the media elite covering for them and urging them on.

So those who fail to learn from history are bound to what?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah....yeah, whatever.

Look, Mr. Preston, you're missing the story.

Since Dear Golfer made open homosexuality A-OK in the Armed Forces, what has been the numbers of self-identified homosexuals that have joined up?

Have their numbers been worth the numbers of seasoned people retiring and leaving?

Fundamentally, war is about rounding up enough bodies to propel into the meat grinder so that the enemy runs out of flesh before you do.

If homosexuals aren't stepping up to eat the bullet, then this entire exercise was a colossal waste of time and money and manpower.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I was, and I remain, all for eliminating discrimination against people who are gay related to military service. I'm all for civil unions for all, with marriages to be recognized by religious communities rather than by secular authorities. I'm all for granting legally-sanctioned couples military benefits, whether gay or straight. In fact, having gay military couples marry means really no benefits because both were entitled to benefits already.
I'm a little queasy about special leave policies to help people marry. There is something of a precedent: when "miscegenation" was the law of the land, the armed forces would make special basing assignments for inter-racial couples.
This policy is really small potatoes -- there are relatively few servicemembers who will be affected, after all. It does illustrate a problem with varying standards on marriage or civil unions, though. One of several problems.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here comes Dred Scott for gays.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Howdy Art
That needs another shoe to drop. Dred Scott was the Supreme Court decision which held that Negroes had no rights or status as citizens, even if they were free and always had been. The Supreme Court has taken rather the opposite tack for people who are gay.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You miss the point; it sets up the attack on states that don't recognize gay marriages from another state. Actually, there were seven different opinions in Dred Scott and no consensus on much of anything. The plurality that you are addressing held that taking a slave into a free state did not free the slave and the slave had no right in a free state to contest his/her status. It was set up to attack enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, instead it was a major proximate cause of civil war.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Howdy Art
It was also Tanney's position that the Constitution applied only to white people.
I'd say it was a stretch to link Dred Scott and this DoD policy or Dred Scott and the DOMA decision. There is certainly this in what you say: it's going to quickly become very difficult to have both recognition and rejection of same-sex unions, on whatever terms, in the same country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's too late in the day to argue with fools; if you can't see the relationship through the hate Dred Scott bias your perfessers taught you, you're a waste of time to discuss this with.

I know very well what Tanney's position was, but there were six others that I don't really think you know much about.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And like race based admissions, it's not that a group was demanding equal rights, but that they were demanding more rights/benefits/preferences than the rest of the population.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I was thinking the same thing. The heterosexuals should demand equal rights. I've always thought that about special programs for the "mentally impaired" The average kid should sue. They don't get their fair share.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All