Skip to main content

View Diary: The b(ogu)s appeal of 'enormous consequences' (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Where benefits go, etc... gets adjudicated anyway. If there is confusion about how to settle benefits, it winds it way through the judicial process just like anything else. Nothing changes by including "teh gays" in the calculation.

    Do we really believe that, even if Congress repeals DADT, there won't be lawsuits and such trying to overturn the repeal?  Of course there will be litigation whether it's overturned judicially or by Congress.

    If your argument is that LESS litigation would occur via Congressional repeal vs. Judicial fiat, I'd probably agree and then ask: So what? If equal rights NOW means more litigation later(but still resolved in our favor), that's ok by me considering the alternative is NO rights now vs. less litigation later.

    •  Not at all... (0+ / 0-)

      I don't care how it ultimately happens, and who hits the "Hooray Gays" or "Now Gays Can Get Shot Too" button depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on.  I just think there are many more logistical issues than the initial post went on, the most profound being the sizable benefits packages that our armed services people deservingly get.

      My understanding is that benefits don't apply to committed relationships if marriage hasn't occurred in traditional circumstances. This is a problem considering there essentially is no marriage for same-sex couples so consequently there would be no way to become eligible for benefits.

      As the initial post stated, separate but equal is not only a terrible sentiment, but ill advised. If you deny same sex couples the opportunity at benefits, that's unfair. If you deny traditional couples the opportunity at benefits in unmarried committed relationships, even though you offer them to "the gays" you're going to engender an absolutely terrible break between "the gays" and "the straights".

      I'm not saying wait forever, but if they are actually working on rolling out a sweeping uniform change across the board it'd make more sense to halt all DADT discharges effective immediately, and then repeal it entirely once you have the changes ready to go.

      My suggestion/best guess would be to allow all servicemembers in "committed relationships" the same access to benefits. Define it how you want to, share the same address, time frame constraints, whatever, but separate marriage from the issue. This would not only take care of the "gays" v "straights" issue, but would also help out heterosexual service members, by no longer encouraging convenience marriages for enhanced benefits.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site