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.

 

Navy plan to allow same-sex marriage on bases draws opposition

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

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)





Am aware of ucmj.. But at the end of the day - the mission of any military is to kill people and destroy things. Which regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual preference etc. any idiot is capable of doing.
One facet of human nature people today overlook - that ancient people were aware of is that people WILL fight harder for the ones they love thus back then they served and fought together. Even Alexander the Great was gay - didnt stop him from conquering most of the known world at the time.
A similar case of lovers who fought together - though men and women in this instance were the ancient celtic tribes - rome conquered them but the cost of doing so was a high one.
In both cases the ancient greeks and the celts they fought fiercer and harder for one very simple reason - lovers fought side by side they understood human nature and used it to their advantage. Thus as I stated before its a silly none-issue that westerners squable over.
No law will ever be able to control the most basic aspects of human nature nor break a bond between two people who
love each other regardless of gender. People can legislate all they want - it will not change basic human nature.
edit on 10/5/11 by Expat888 because: Tengu...

edit on 11-5-2011 by dbates because: Shortened quote




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
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



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

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?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

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?


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).

Im sure i can get my hands on the training but im also sure you could too. I just had surgery on my foot and im on Convalescant leave so i dont really have access to any authority figures or my direct sources as of currently.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

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.


That's what the legislative process is for. DOMA passed into law and there is plenty of litigation in the system to fight it. However, it is not the job of the president or the Navy to sidestep the law. They are sworn to uphold it. If it needs to be changed then get the ball rolling in congress. According to the Navy they will perform the ceremonies in States that recognize same sex marriage.

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...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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).


Oh I am sure you got the training. No argument there. And I know this issue is being treated with extreme caution on both sides.

I believe it was projected it would be 2012 before gay rights would be implemented.

Is that what you meant by not anytime soon?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

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...


Its difficult to take anyone seriously when they read/link to extreme right sites.

What Obama did has been done before. He is not the first president to do this. (different subject - of course)

How and what he did is not illegal.

There are threads on ATS discussing this.


edit on 10-5-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

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..

Exactly, that's your beliefs...

Marriage, though, is not controlled by any one religion or belief. The institution of marriage is beyond any of that, and I applaud that two people of the same sex will have the right to be married on a naval base.

It is time that our country becomes a country of equal rights.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


outserve.org...

This is pretty much going to answer all of those questions for you.

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:


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)


As I commented before - this is the most ironic part of the deal, as this is one of the -major- factors influencing any military-military relationships.


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)


So, pretty much - same-sex relationships don't get you kicked out of the service. That's about all that's been changed. The actual policies and -rights- of same-sex couples has not even been addressed, yet.

The effect of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is merely 'cosmetic.' The DoD - under current and foreseeable laws - cannot grant 'equal rights' to same-sex couples as it is a federal institution operating under federal law. In this respect, it's almost a step backward, as it the whole repeal effort is being used to try and bolster a "Military that welcomes all" image... but the actual fact of the matter is that someone who desires a same-sex marriage should not even really be considering military service until these issues are addressed.

In my opinion - it seems like a slight-of-hand by the administration and the CNO and other respective military heads-of-branches were either negligent in bringing up these facts to the administration, or the administration simply valued appearance over function and twisted arms to get answers of "well, no, it won't really negatively impact operational capability...."


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)


And, if you've been paying attention - you know that a same-sex partner does not qualify as a dependent, while an opposite-sex partner would.

So - really, the whole repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is all a bunch of hot air with no real attempts (or care) to change what is really important. In the military - I should be able to qualify -anyone- as a dependent for various legitimate reasons - none of which should include "he/she/it is my wife/husband/object-of-possession" : "we live together and rely on each other for mutual financial and legal/authority support - 'nuff said."

I've got two room mates now - and we may as well all be able to claim each other as dependents. We know each other just about as well as brothers do - and if anything happens to me, I trust them with a number of decisions that I -couldn't- trust to my under-age brothers. And if something happens to one of them, I'm strained to make up the financial and other differences - as well as doing some running for their families and other such things.

But this has never been about equality. This has been about titles and agendas. That is why, generally, I don't like the attitude of "rights activists" and the accompanying movements. They do less to actually bring equality and more to award separate titles and further various agendas.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Aim64C because: Fixed my epic ex-tag failure.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

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:


I've heard that sentiment before.

When blacks were allowed into the military.

When women were allowed into the military.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
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.

Further, amendments and laws had been passed at the federal level that recognized both blacks and women as fully legal and appreciable citizens - PRIOR - to federal laws allowing those groups to serve in the military in an unrestricted manner.

As I highlighted in the official training regarding the changes in policy - same-sex couples are not federally recognized and not entitled to the same benefits and legal powers as opposite-sex couples within the military.

The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell does nothing to address these issues.

It's not about sentiment. It's about reality, princess.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Aim64C because: fixed a dissosciative typo



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I believe this is an issue that effects only US military personnel, and therefore should be decided by them. Let them decide by vote, poll or some form of consensus.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

What that means, is that openly gay service member would not be allowed to engage in any sex with a member of the same sex, while serving in the military until the UCMJ is changed, nor can they be so open about their relationship with their partner, without there being initially some form of discrimination on the part of those who they would serve with. This is going to take a long time, and there will be mistakes made along the way, as the military will not only have to figure out what changes in the UCMJ needs to be done, but also what role gay service members would serve in the military. Not too long ago, gay people were considered a security risk, and were not allowed to hold a security clearance, so change is slowly coming.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

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.


Are you living in the past?

I realize gays must stay in the closet until - - the military finalizes the repeal of "DADT".

Suggested date is 2012.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

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.


The Sentiment was the same. The same words were used.

I don't need a history lesson.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Okay good replies, sorry I was off ATS for a while. Even though I think there are more important things, I'm forced to make a reply.


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.


Maybe I do need a moment to catch up, but I don't really think its necessary for men (gay or not) to talk in such an effeminate way on purpose. It's a little disgraceful and how would that look in a combat environment, remember, these men obviously seem to care more about being gay than being a soldier in the military.

This is mostly what I was talking about being "normal", the way a lot of homosexuals talk and act... very homosexually. This is just not acceptable in the military I don't think. A lot of these men are also scared of practically everything it seems like they are very easily "startled" I guess, which is cool for being gay, but not for being a soldier.

Of course if all gay men who join the military are "normal", this point is invalid, but you have to realize it will probably creep in sooner or later and cause problems.


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.


Also in regard to your other quote and ex-text:

So, what does that have to do with being a soldier? Can homosexuals perform as a soldier and should their be some limit to how "gay" a person is to be in the military?

We can't exactly run around wearing pink BDUs and being more worried about sex and the city than an ongoing battle. I would not want these kinds of people covering me in a firefight, I want someone who knows how to fight.

That is not to say there isn't some very beefy gay guys around, I'm sure there is, but where do we draw the line and could that be considered prejudice as well?


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.


I mean not acting like a sissy basically, people like this aren't military material so then we have to open up the whole can of worms on which gays are accepted and which aren't.

I don't consider myself normal either really.


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.


I am really not quite sure about what you are saying here, but I was making that statement out of compassion for the gay man on that ship and not my own opinion. Maybe I was wrong about this statement, I just don't see one or two openly gay men getting along very well with the rest of the crew. I wasn't in the Navy though.

I am probably wrong about all this, I'm not very knowledgeable on this after all, just my opinion. Maybe one of the stupidest opinions I have on anything, but take what you want from it.
edit on 10-5-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



The Sentiment was the same. The same words were used.


We can talk about how old you are, later.


I don't need a history lesson.


You need a reality and a present lesson.

The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell simply puts an end to the policy of discharging members based on homosexual conduct.

It does -not- allow same-sex couples in the military to apply for cohabitation and co-location as opposite-sex couples are (both military-military and military-civilian relationships).

While the UCMJ will be modified to allow consensual sodomy, many other laws are still in place that do not allow the DoD to treat same-sex couples equally to opposite-sex couples.

That's the problem.

It's not about equality. It never was. Were the administration really trying to bring about equality - those issues would be addressed -before- attempting to repeal DADT. Simple as that.

That is what is different here than in policies that allowed blacks or women into the military. A black man married to a black woman was immediately eligible for the same military benefits as a white man married to a white woman or a black man married to a black woman (both mil-mil and mil-civ).

As it stands - the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage and several laws that apply to the military prevent the DoD from recognizing same-sex marriages. They can't kick you out for marrying someone of the same sex - but they can't recognize you as being married or having a spousal status.

Which - honestly, is kind of #ed up. "Gays can be in the military!" Is the word in the streets and the proclamation by the administration.

Yeah - they can be in the military - but they cannot be recognized as being married by the military and will have to jump through extra hoops to allow a same-sex 'spouse' to live in base housing with them - as they would have to route a special request chit to the CO rather than go through the more expedient process 'legitimate marriages' have available to them.

As I've said before - when you all, as civilians, can get your own house under control, then you can come in and start trying to tell the military what its demographics should be like. Until then - I politely advise you to take a dose of your own wisdom before attempting to apply it to systems that are not broke.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
In theory;
It'll go smoothly. Training has already started (above posts) and the military is made up of noble, honerable men and women who will obey the dictates of the UCMJ and of their commanding officers.

In reality;
People are already talking about this. Intergration into the mainstream rank and file won't be easy.

Personal note;
I could care less. What irritates me though, is the comparison between gay and black intergration. Skin color is a phenotype. Gay is a behaviour.
At the end of the day, if everyone does their job, and does it right, there should not be a major issue. Although I see the media blowing up any and every confrontation that may occur.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

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.


I'm 65. The Civil Rights Act was the year I graduated high school.

I remember George Wallace - - - heralded as the "Savior of the Whites". Seriously - - some were talking presidency.

Today - - he is remembered as a pathetic ignorant racist.

In a few years those who continue to deny equal rights for gays - - will be looked at - the same way George Wallace is today.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join