Military Gay Marriage

[BLUEHAWK]

:cd:

I do not prefer suggesting this thread on this particular Forum, but maybe it could be for the best if the conversation can be kept to the point and not allowed to become invective again. The point is worth discussing, calmly.

In the Family Forum, which seemed correct at the time, I posted a thread (and poll) titled "Military Gay Marriage"... it rightly had to get locked off because things got personal, which is a shame since that was not the intent of the thread. From July - December 2003 it ran pretty steadily, gaining 48 posts and 807 reads on four PF pages with a 5 star rating. The question was then and is now, ever more sharply (due to recent legal developments in San Francisco, Austin, Vermont and now Massachusetts):

WHAT IS THE LIKELY EFFECT OF GAY MARRIAGE UPON THE MILITARY?

Just that much, not whether gay people should or should not marry, nor whether their marriages or civil unions are to be recognized state by state or federally, nor whether there should or should not be a Constitutional Amendment, nor whether it is or is not against or within God's Will, etc etc etc.

Simply, what do people think will be the effect of the now all but inevitable presence of married persons of the same gender on military life, garrisons, DoD policy, combat readiness, Judge Advocates and the like... please.

If the Moderator will let this run for awhile, just to see whether we can focus on the military consequences of the apparently inevitable, and should readers see fit to honor the post with their thoughts, we might be better prepared as patriots for what is to come.

My own opinions have been stated about as well as can be on the original Family Forum thread, so do not need repetition... and are still there with other ones for review.

[Seascamp]

In terms of first things first I believe the issue of Gays in the military is still very much in limbo. The Clinton don?t ask don?t tell policy is still in place as far as I know and people are still being discharged because of homosexual orientation. So the issue of Gay marriage will probably follow what ever the law of the land becomes eventually but I see it getting real complicated in terms of dependent care provisions and official military recognition.

During my Navy time the homophobes caused more disruption and difficulties than the Gays did and I don?t know if the military is more tolerant these days or not. My last calibration point on that was when my daughter?s boyfriend came home from Marine boot camp with a head full of counterproductive notions. He had big plans to go to Reno and beat up on some Gays. My message there was that was called assault and battery and he would go to jail, Marine or no. Plus he couldn?t go out with my daughter until he cleared his head of such notions. He didn?t have those thoughts before becoming a Marine so someone had to prime his pump with all that stupid stuff. And I went and had a chat with his recruiter figuring a message from the USMC would be effective, and it was. The message from the recruiter was that if he got in trouble with the law, he would be on his own and probably get a not so good discharge from the Marines. That was a real good wake up call, for sure.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

I read today in the paper that Philadelphia has, along with the other locales listed above, enacted a law permitting legal same-gender unions.

Normally, after a long period of debate and airing of opinions and positions, when a divisive issue such as this finally does get some formal recognition at the "grass roots" level, then the ball is definitely rolling in the direction of the protagonist's will (as was projected in the original thread on Family Forum).

The arguements for and against seem to go through a phase of intense debate, then a second phase of pullback and reformation, then the one with the most momentum suddenly arises again (usually due to supportive court or legislative action), which is followed by a deeper entrenchment of the opposition without much change in their essential points (all or most of which have by then been answered, as far as the opponents are concerned), followed by a codification of the advocate's propaganda into daily jargon and the eventual adoption of the controversial movement.

[Keith_Hixson]

Here Comes the brimstones.

Keith

[Andy]

It?s my understanding that during Clinton?s term in office a federal law was passed saying marriage is, as the dictionary says, one man and one woman. What we have going on now is a 10th amendment issue, states rights. If the federal constitution does not prohibit an activity (such as prostitution in Nevada), is it or can it be legal in one or more of the several states?

A few states have more or less decriminalized marijuana. The federal government has only taken token action against those states and it?s residents. This seems to have open the door for other (perhaps questionable) behavior. But those are state Vs federal questions.

A member of the military takes an oath to the federal government and must abide by federal rules, laws and of course the UCMJ. Gay?s getting married while in the military would be a no-no. Even if they were stationed in Massachusetts after May 19th. Or at least that?s my guess.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[BLUEHAWK]

Interesting point Andy... I see what you are meaning.

Taking that to a logical end then, even with such marriages sanctioned in any state(s), so long as the Federal law under which the UCMJ operates remains as it is today, then even with certain expectable complexities deriving from the normal function of Family Law type suits, the net effect, as things now stand, is likely to be slight...

Yes?

[BLUEHAWK]

Scamp -
Exacraly...the issues of dependent care, housing, allowances, divorce, domestic violence, VA benefits, in-service medical care, survivor's rights et al.... THAT is where I see the difficulties arising mainly too...a potentially very serious, costly and time consuming problem for the military not because same-gender activities are Federally prohibited (Andy's point being well made and taken), but rather because it is highly probable, given the history of vehemence the Gay Rights movement has shown in the past 30+ years, when such domestic/Family Law issues DO arise while one or more partner is in service (and they WILL arise with about the same frequency among them as they do among everyone else, as we know!), then I strongly suspect there will be a second wave, if you will, movement to insist that the rights granted by a state must be recognized by the military judiciary.

In other words... I wish it had never come to this, I wish it would all go away immediately if not sooner, but it did not, is not and will not... in fact within a fairly short number of years hence things are more likely to get worse than better in this regard.

Eh?

[Andy]

Federal law always trumps State law. But only Federal Constitutional law trumps State Constitutional law OR decisions made by a State supreme court on the state?s Constitution.

I see this like the 1850s. Some states said their constitution indicated it was ok to have slaves, others said the opposite. We fought a long war, in part, about slavery but it wasn?t until the Federal constitution changed with the 13th and 14th amendments in, what was it, 1867, that slavery was abolished. Hey, this is Massachusetts being South Carolina!!!

If there is no amendment to the Federal constitution states like Ohio who have passed laws banning gay marriage will not recognize the marriage of people from Massachusetts. The Ohio folks will say their state law is in accordance with federal law. Massachusetts will say, as they always do, our constitution and our supreme court are older than the Federal government and although we can not abridge rights given under federal law, we can give more rights. (Example: Federal law enforcement can use body wires or tape record conversations with criminals. Cops working for the state or towns in MA can not). More rights than are required.

This bring up an interesting question. Two men are married and both are in the MA National Guard. However, once they are activated to go to Iraq or do their two weeks in another state, such as Ohio, they are no longer married, right?

The Colonies revolted against England. England was making stupid and confusing laws and our founding fathers said, ?Hey, we can make our own stupid laws, we don?t need you!? I guess they were right.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[BLUEHAWK]

Yes Andy!

"Massachusetts being South Carolina"! Exactly... and who knows how many other states attempt to follow suit. I look for California and New York making the effort, though they might not succeed as Mass. seems about to do.

Is it not rather odd, all things considered, that the political side which so often renounces conservatives for the stand usually taken on "State sovereignty" (i.e. rights), is now gleefully and vociferously invoking those same principles in defense of a moral position which a very large number of Americans oppose?

[BLUEHAWK]

p.s.

One difficult effect upon the military that the unpleasantness of the 1850-60 era had was to divide off some officers (and probably men as well, Tamaroa would know those details) from the Federal forces... they whose loyalties had been damaged or challenged went over to the "other side". One wonders if this matter is of the magnitude to have such a result, one day. To hear the adversaries talk, it would appear they are prepared to do practically ANYthing to make their points.