It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
The situation is this.The PTB have decided that people of the homosexual orientation will be able to serve openly,but there had not been a discussion of changing the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Originally posted by mthgs602
Hey ya hi,
Just to help clear the air on the issue. I am currently in the Navy and was just recently briefed on the rules being put into effect.
All i gottta say is that, same sex marriages, if even at all, will not be happening in the navy for years to come. The foundation of the new rules regarding being homoesexual in the navy are still a bit shaky and arent even in effect yet.
This is an issue that will be talked about for YEARS to come befire any real consideration will be given on the matter.
Late
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by mthgs602
Hey ya hi,
Just to help clear the air on the issue. I am currently in the Navy and was just recently briefed on the rules being put into effect.
All i gottta say is that, same sex marriages, if even at all, will not be happening in the navy for years to come. The foundation of the new rules regarding being homoesexual in the navy are still a bit shaky and arent even in effect yet.
This is an issue that will be talked about for YEARS to come befire any real consideration will be given on the matter.
Late
That's possible - - but where are you getting your info?
Is this partly an opinion by your commanding officer?
Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by jibeho
There are many examples of state law contradicting federal law. One of the most prevalent examples right now is medicinal marijuana use because while some states have enacted laws allowing for the growing, selling, and use of marijuana for medical purposes BUT federal law is still firmly pitted in marijuana being a drug and thus in totality is illegal. Should Obama start sending the DEA to the AIDS/HIV, Cancer, and MS patients to arrest them because federal law says so?
When talking about unconstitutional laws, yes, government officials should ignore them because people come before the laws. The government is suppose to protect, support, and represent the people and by ignoring/abolishing/changing legislation that discriminates against citizens they are doing just that.
Originally posted by mthgs602
No opinion on the matter. Just the facts. The entire Northwest Region just went through the training.
At my base we literally all gathered into a large dormitory with a projector and a screen. The CO of the base then presented the new instruction with the XO and the CMC (Command Master Chief).
Originally posted by jibeho
Its a slippery slope but we do have processes in this nation and we have a president who is merely looking for votes and is using this issue as a political tool. Obama is in deep with this issue and it will most likely backfire right in his face
www.realclearpolitics.com...
Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
If that was one of the basic tenets our country made, then it would've happened along time ago,don't you think?
I'm not going to argue. There is nothing wrong with our beliefs. We said what we feel and that's that..
How does this policy affect co-location?
The DoD provides the Navy discretion to consider dual military spouse status in matters of duty assignment. The term “spouse” can refer only to opposite-sex married couples under the Defense of Marriage Act. As a result, a Sailor in a same-sex relationship with another Service member is NOT eligible for co-location consideration.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 12, p. 55)
Gay, lesbian and bisexual Sailors in committed same-sex relationships, like their unmarried heterosexual counterparts, can make an individualized, hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 12, p. 55)
Current law limits the ability of the DoD to fund and support accompanying travel for a Service member’s same-sex partner.
Gay, lesbian and bisexual Sailors are eligible for the same benefits as any single Sailor.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 22: FAQ 5, p. 71)
The Defense of Marriage Act and current benefit laws do NOT allow the DoD to extend many key benefits – including dependent medical coverage, dependent-rate Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), and dependent-based travel, transportation and separation allowances – to a Service member in a relationship with a same-sex partner. Nor will Survivor Benefit Plan annuities be paid to any non-dependent when death of the Service member occurs on active duty.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 8, p. 53)
The DoD is NOT – at this time – creating a new relationship status for military personnel applicable to same-sex relationships for purposes of eligibility for benefits or personnel management policies and practices.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 11, p. 54; Topic 12, p. 55)
Current federal law, including the Defense of Marriage Act, precludes the DoD from providing BAH to Service members at the with-dependent rate unless the Service member has a statutorily authorized dependent, such as a child. (Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 9, p. 54)
Current Navy policy states that non-dependents are NOT allowed to reside in MFH. There has been no change to this policy. (Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 9, p. 54)
Any exception to policy to allow a non- dependent to reside in MFH must be administered without regard to sexual orientation. (Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 9, p 54)
Originally posted by Aim64C
The reality is that this is just one giant experiment, and it is not at all going to be as smooth as the rights activists (such as yourself) want it to be:
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Annee
The UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is the rules that governs all branches of the military. It is a code and series of laws, that applies only to the military and the people that serve. There are points in the UCMJ that strictly forbid acts of homosexuality. So that means if a gay man, serving in the military, were to be caught in the act of sex, could be charged with violating the UCMJ and this discharged from the service on those grounds. So while it may seem like it is a step forward, ultimately it is a trap unto itself, until the UCMJ is changed to reflect the new policies.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Annee
When blacks were allowed into the military, it wasn't federal law that the marriage of a white woman to a black man (or a black woman to a white man) be unrecognized.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Equality is equality. There's no such thing as "almost equal". And yes, gay people can be gay and just be normal. Normal people love each other and get married and have kids. Gay is being NORMALIZED. Some people just need a moment to catch up.
Originally posted by Pinke
Plenty of gay persons walk past you every day and you don't notice.
This would be like a person basing their idea of heterosexuality on a BDSM goth club.
Originally posted by Nightchild
You are reeeeally generelazing here. Firstly; Can you describe "Normal"? Exactly how do one act to be considered normal and not standing out? Like in 'The Body Snatchers'?
I can tell you right away that a bunch of people would consider YOU to be far from normal only for sitting on a board like this, so already you have fallen in the cathegory of being outside the Norm yourself.
Originally posted by Nightchild
Plus, this one;
Originally posted by RSF77
Nobody wants to be on a ship with a homosexual, being surrounded by straight men it seems the resentment alone would be too much for the homosexual himself.
This, I have true issues with. Apparently you are only selecting those that you know have the same opinions as you have- Not the other groups, that, for instance, actually outweighs the opponents in this thread. Only a coincidence or is it actually reflecting the balance of the main-vew on this matter? Who knows, but one thing IS certain, and that is that alot of people would NOT have any problem what so ever with "Being on a ship with a Homosexual".
Plus, I can guarantee you that they that have a problem with being on such a ship, already have a number of times anyway, they just don't realise it.
The Sentiment was the same. The same words were used.
I don't need a history lesson.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Annee
The Sentiment was the same. The same words were used.
We can talk about how old you are, later.