Pentagon push to extend benefits to same-sex couples stirs debate

[ptif219]

Here come the special rights for a liberal special interest group. If they give these benefits to gay couples it should also apply to opposite sex couples

Stop the special rights for so called special interest groups. Rights should not be limited to just one group


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-stirs-debate/

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has directed Pentagon personnel to immediately begin efforts to extend certain benefits to same-sex domestic partners of military members. But the move has sparked a heated debate, with critics arguing the policy gives special treatment to one class and winds up discriminating against others.
"I think this does qualify as discrimination against opposite sex couples who are essentially in the same position, unmarried by living together," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
In its own 2010 report on the impact of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- which banned gays from serving openly in the military -- the Pentagon warned against the scenario which is now playing out.
"If ... the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department ... itself would be creating a new inequity -- between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples," the report said.
The report goes on to state that the "new inequity," or even the perception of preferential treatment, would stand in stark contrast to the military's "ethic of fair and equal treatment."

[Chloe]

in my opinion the difference is that the opposite sex couple is allowed to be legally married in order to get benefits as a married couple, whereas the gay couple is already discriminated against by not being allowed to be married in order to get certain benefits that a married couple would be able to enjoy and have. By not allowing gay marriage you automatically cast the gay couple as a permanent boyfriend status and not as a spouse basically denying them the same benefits a straight married couple could have in any situation including in the case within the military. That in itself is discrimination in my opinion. If anybody is considered second class it isn't the straight couple, and gay people aren't a special interest group they are simply human beings that want equal rights and recognition. straight domestic partners choose not to be married even though they are allowed to be if they wanted to, gay people don't have the choice. They are denied based on prejudice, there's a difference.

[ptif219]

in my opinion the difference is that the opposite sex couple is allowed to be legally married in order to get benefits as a married couple, whereas the gay couple is already discriminated against by not being allowed to be married in order to get certain benefits that a married couple would be able to enjoy and have. By not allowing gay marriage you automatically cast the gay couple as a permanent boyfriend status and not as a spouse basically denying them the same benefits a straight married couple could have in any situation including in the case within the military. That in itself is discrimination in my opinion. If anybody is considered second class it isn't the straight couple, and gay people aren't a special interest group they are simply human beings that want equal rights and recognition. straight domestic partners choose not to be married even though they are allowed to be if they wanted to, gay people don't have the choice. They are denied based on prejudice, there's a difference.

That is not a military issue. If gays get it heterosexual couples also should get it. There should be no special rights only for gays

[Peter1469]

That is not a military issue. If gays get it heterosexual couples also should get it. There should be no special rights only for gays

That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

[oceanloverOH]

That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

I do not personally agree with that lifestyle choice, but I support anyone's right to make that choice. I don't understand what the big deal is in passing a law to allow gays to marry. Any two people who desire it should be allowed to legally commit via civil union or marriage, which would entitle everyone to the same benefits, in the same situations. Why not? Who would it hurt? Certain ultra-conservatives and ultra-religious types just need to shut the hell up, lose their holier-than-thou attitude, pass the damn law and be done with it, end of issue.

[ptif219]

That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

They have that

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/0...tes/?mobile=nc

[ptif219]

I do not personally agree with that lifestyle choice, but I support anyone's right to make that choice. I don't understand what the big deal is in passing a law to allow gays to marry. Any two people who desire it should be allowed to legally commit via civil union or marriage, which would entitle everyone to the same benefits, in the same situations. Why not? Who would it hurt? Certain ultra-conservatives and ultra-religious types just need to shut the hell up, lose their holier-than-thou attitude, pass the damn law and be done with it, end of issue.

The other alternative give all couples the same benefits

[Dr. Who]

They have that

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/0...tes/?mobile=nc

As of January 2013, nine states—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia, representing 15.7% of the US population (based on 2011 population) and two Native American tribes^[1]—have legalized same-sex marriage. In addition, Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions,^[2][3] and California, which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.

Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).
The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana, which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent jurisdiction.

So where does that leave same sex couples in the other 85% of the US.

[ptif219]

As of January 2013, nine states—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia, representing 15.7% of the US population (based on 2011 population) and two Native American tribes^[1]—have legalized same-sex marriage. In addition, Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions,^[2][3] and California, which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.
Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).
The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana, which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent jurisdiction.

So where does that leave same sex couples in the other 85% of the US.

Should we cry? Creating more discrimination is your answer? That makes no sense and will only create more disdain for gays because they are being given special rights. This is Obama bowing to a special interest group

[Chris]

That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

True, except gays aren't asking for "gay marriage" just marriage.