One of my fellow conservative, army wife, SAHM & troublemaker sent me an email today. Receiving an email from this friend is an oddity since her husband used to make fun of us for texting each other with just a wall separating us (seriously, our couches backed up to the same wall and we would just text each other instead of getting up, walking thirty steps to the other person's apartment... Lazy yeah yeah yeah). Anyway, so I open the email and it's the press release from the DoD concerning gay spouse benefits. Oh geez-us. Here we go. You know the drill, I'll give you my background on the "controversial" stance and then I will rant my little conservative heart out after.
Marriage is not a federal issue. It is a state issue seeing as how it wasn't explicitly outlined within the Constitution. Any powers not explicitly granted to the judicial, legislative or executive branch shall be a state matter. I'm not opposed to gay people being legally bound in union to one another, however I do oppose the fact that they call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. (And before someone jumps all over me trying to say I'm hiding behind my religion, please tell me where I just used my religion (which is what by the way, have I even mentioned if I have a religious preference?)). Gay "marriages" cannot naturally procreate, nor are they obviously between one man and one woman. Now if you caught the fact where I stated that I'm not opposed to gay people being legally bound in union to one another here's how I believe that it should work. If a state allows gay unions then legislation should be written to as such: all persons wishing to be joined together by a legally binding union will be joined together by the state at a local county courthouse. No longer will clergy be able to legally marry people, but may still perform ceremonies of a religious nature to symbolize the union of two people (because some clergy are open to marrying gay people so fine whatever). Yay for everyone allowed to be joined together, it's no longer a religious issue as any religious ceremony, party, whatever will not mater as all people must go to the courthouse and be legally bound by a government official. Why no one has done that, I don't know. I'd think they'd be all over it because it would create some form of revenue and then everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. And isn't that what this is all about, equality under the law?
Well, the DoD is starting to slide down a slippery slope. I know, DOMA was rejected by the courts -- again, in my opinion they had no business doing that because it's a states issue, not federal. Rather than trample states' rights and just take over (funny how that seems to be a running theme lately with the government), they should have said that if the service member's home of record does not legally recognize gay marriage, then neither will we. Just about everything in the military is based off of your home of record -- your state income taxes, property tax breaks if they exist, etc. So why shouldn't the DoD just have said that? And what of the military installations in states which do not allow gay marriage? Should they be forced to recognize the union just because the federal government says it should?
The fact that it is specified a gay service member may take non-chargable (basically freebie) leave in order to go to a jurisdiction to be married. Um, I looked for the reg which gives straight service members non-chargable leave to get married. I cannot find it. I know from personal experience, hubby had to take charged leave in order for us to get married. I know plenty of straight service members who either get married on a long weekend, forego a honeymoon, or have a very small ceremony close to their post so they won't be charged with leave in order to get married. Fair & equal, got it. Oh and then there's the issue of the 10 days of paternity leave that married male soldiers get when their wives give birth. While nothing has been said, will a gay male service member be afforded the same paternity leave if he and his partner adopt a child? What about a female lesbian service member whose partner borne the child? I'm honestly shocked that this wasn't outlined in the press release but I'm sure that it'll happen.
Speaking of children, I wonder if Tricare (military health insurance provider) will cover fertility treatment for lesbian couples? There are very stringent guidelines for heterosexual couples concerning fertility treatments, how will they navigate this for lesbians wishing to get pregnant with a sperm donor? I know this sounds ridiculous, but with threats to cut Tricare for military families, these are legitimate concerns. Will all of this plus Obamacare drive our premiums up? Service members pay for their dependents' health and dental, and while it may be cheap, if pay raises are cut for service members and Tricare goes up this could put a lot of military families in a precarious financial situation.
It's all about providing fair and equal opportunities to our service members and their families. Well if that is the case, a non-married couple in a committed partnership of let's say 11 years of the service member's time in service should have benefits extended to them as well. Maybe they don't believe in marriage and have managed just fine. There are people out there in this community who never marry and just go from post to post together and they never have been vocal and demanding about equal treatment. They understand the rules of the game and they just roll with it. These people should be rewarded because they're not there with their hands out, screaming and shouting and demanding more. Next thing too the barracks rats will want benefits too.
I think that overtime, government has gotten far too big for their britches. They have seemed to just ignore the Constitution unless it is pertinent to their cause and have learned one of the most basic lessons in life: life is not fair. If everyone could be millionaires and not be in debt and live in mansions then wouldn't we all be there by now? Granted, I'd have nothing to snark about but at the end of the day, life isn't fair but it is all what you make of it. I just wish that the government would leave the military alone and stop using it as a testing ground for their social experiments -- why fix what isn't broken?
No comments:
Post a Comment