Skip to comments.DOD: Gay Troops Will Get Extra Time Off to Go to Same-Sex Marriage States and Get Hitched
Posted on 08/14/2013 10:41:23 AM PDT by Nachum
The U.S. Defense Department announced on Wednesday that it will make "spousal and family benefits" available no later than Sept. 3, 2013, regardless of sexual orientation, for all service members who can provide a valid marriage certificate. And what about same-sex military couples who live in a state where same-sex marriage is not allowed? No problem. "We recognize that same-sex military couples who are not stationed in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage would have to travel to another jurisdiction to marry. That is why the department will implement policies to allow military personnel in such a relationship non-chargeable leave for the
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
where does it stop !?!?
Our military is being destroyed .
wish they had that when I was in.
maybe a special exemption for those who celebrate Festivus.
Obama vs. The U.S. Military file
Obama Gay file
well, apparently, no, they are not....they see their fat PENSIONS and they'll do anything or say anything to get to their 20 yrs...afterthat, there's always political appts that really pay the big bucks, so carry the dirty water they will.
I've said it before and I'll say it again......there should absolutely be NO defined pensions for military....its too much of a dangling carrot...they can have transferable 401 k's like most people......
our military is becoming too much like the Russian military....they're treated better than other Russians, eat better, better pay, better health care, and for that, they'll shoot at their own citizens if they have too...
All this goes away if Obama is found in eligible to serve as president.
That conservatives don’t focus ALL their energies on this one easily attainable goal is the true tragedy of this Age.
With the U.S.A. as a third-world, anti-God, secular, hedonistic, paganistic Hellish land. With the U.S.A. left in tatters like Israel, post-Babylonian Captivity.
0bama knows that they most ideal way to STOP any insurgent military from taking action against HIM, is to give power to those who are BEHOLDEN to him; the gays who idolize him as a fellow homosexual. Ask ANY gay person if 0bama is gay and they will answer in the affirmative.
Sssssshhhh!! We’ll defeat him on ‘the issues’.
You know, like in 2008 and 2012!!
I can’t believe I actually served in this country’s military. I do not recognize this country’s current military.
If you have control of the military you don’t need to fuss about distractions like laws, constitutions, the bill of rights, elections or golf course green fees.
Insanity running amuck.
I don’t recognize this country.
I can wait for the special uniform exemptions-
Skinny jeans and shiny sequinned shirts?
Freeper libertarians kept trying to hide behind the “states issue” as they promoted the national homosexual agenda.
I notice that when they get a portion of their leftist agenda into law, they quietly move on to their next leftist goal.
Capri floods and Che V-neck t-shirts.
It’s called Permissive TDY. It’s used for all sorts of things. Sports, picking up kids from overseas, house hnting, etc.
I see a potential 14th Amendment Equal Protection challenge coming.
Who wants to join the Roman military forces with a Roman majority in Congress and a non-Roman majority in the general population?
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Apologies for not keeping up with pinging very well lately. I do appreciate all alerts to relevant articles. I will try to do a lot of pinging right now and at least try to keep up with the most relevant articles.
All I can add is this off the cliff into the Marianna Trench of grossest immorality backed, promoted and enforced by an utterly tyrannical government, along with the destruction of many if not most of our Constitutionally protected rights, is what I feared for years. Now it's happening at lightning speed. May God have mercy on us.
Anyone wantint on/off any of my pinglists, freepmail me.
Libertarians hiding behind the skirts of states’ rights have been utterly exposed. Any time I tried to engage any of them about states rights, they either left the discussion, lied, or hedged. Only one finally admitted that yes, theoretically the states could be “allowed” to have laws curbing vice, but they shouldn’t.
The LP is the party of vice and mass illegal immigration.
BTW - I’m way way behind trying to find that quote from I think the 1980s, a libertarian advocating the legalization of child pornography. If you have it, I’d appreciate it.
Sorry, but this (L) doesn’t jive with this DoD policy. This is preferential treatment of a gov’t approved group.
Now, you want to discuss vise. Liberty and Freedom come with all SORTS of ‘problems’; quandaries, choices, vices, addiction and consequences for ones’ actions. The *HORROR*.
Do *I* have a prob. w/ laws vs. vices? HELL yeah. Like to eat? ‘Over-weight’ per the State? Vice. Like to drink? No more 6-pks says the State...vice. CAN States pass those kind of Laws? Sure, if enough people allow their Reps to do so...as much as those being over-taxed, over-regulated, etc. have the ability to MOVE to a State more of their choosing.
For quite a while I was trying to get libertarians to admit to or at least acknowledge the federal aspects of their leftist agenda, the military, immigration, federal employment and how gay marriage is also a part of all that, but they refused to even acknowledge those posts, as they stayed focused on promoting gay marriage as a state issue only.
Skip this little thing about some leave time.
Are you saying that your libertarianism supports discriminating against homosexuality by the federal government, for instance, that the military should not recognize a marriage, if it is of homosexuals?
Basically they are rabidly pro-vice, using states’ rights as a smokescreen. And not one of them I’ve ever seen is honest.
You’re comparing overeating with sodomy?
The libertarianism you espouse has nothing to do with Constitutional principles or the vision that founded our country. The founders of our country saw nothing wrong with laws criminalizing homosexual acts; in fact they saw such laws as necessary. Article is too long to copy in its entirety. Libertarianism as a philosophy very little to nothing in common with the founding principles of our Republic.
The Founders on Homosexuality
Apologetics Press ^ | Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Posted on Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:35:50 PM by Conservative Coulter Fan
Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of political correctness have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality.
The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by Americas Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals, Blackstone stated:
IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....
So do many recent changes/decisions/policies involving fagdom.
It’s gone totally 100% insanely off the cliff.
never offered that when I was in the Army.
Let’s start with the verbiage here: Marriage, being a religious matter, as far as I’ve EVER know, has always been man/woman.
Let’s not play the lib game ‘how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?’...They say 5 and everyone else goes WTF?
I’m saying, if we had a Constitutional gov’t, there would be NO need to recognize ANY marriage, civil union, etc.
It’s amazing how fast gov’t is able to jump on this (ludicrous speed it seems), but try to the same logic for Constitutional carry and boy watch the turtle
I was discussing, and specifically sited, vices....one of which IS sex (vaginal, oral or buggery, I made no distinction).
I guess it is time to start talking to my nephew about getting out of the Army.
If marriage was only about religion then law wouldn’t be involved and atheists would be out of luck, and polygamy and gay marriage would have been legal all along, don’t get silly and start all that childish pretending stuff.
Like libertarians always do, you want to play games of evasion, you are fine with the military treating gay marriage the same as they do actual marriage.
That is why you can’t just answer the obvious question posed, I know the answer, you know the answer, we all know the answer, but you don’t want to say it out loud.
“”Are you saying that your libertarianism supports discriminating against homosexuality by the federal government, for instance, that the military should not recognize a marriage, if it is of homosexuals?””
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
(Un)fortunately, I am 1) non-religious 2) do not believe the Bible to be the end-all of right vs. wrong (it IS a good basis, as much as many of the World’s religions) 3) can read/comprehend/understand/debate the plain words of the Constitution.
Now, you are more than welcome to your ideas about the (L) Party. Those which you have stated I can only reply, WTF?
Aside from a few planks, IMHO can be ‘remedied’, I can’t see where you’re coming from: Fed. gov’t has few/defined roles, all else, as Rights only exist with the Individual, belong to the People or the State to which they authorize certain tasks. How is that not following the principles/vision?
I, for one, am glad we have evolved past the notion of disemboweling Citizens, depriving TWO (possibly) people of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit, for the ‘sin of sodomy’.
If anything THAT flies in the face of the Constitution and all it stands: Free Peoples able to do what they wish, at any time, as long as it does not interfere or abridge the Rights of others, w/out the threat of the all-mighty State.
I answered it already, but maybe I can put it into verbiage (aka ‘words’) you’ll easily digest: As we are a nation of Laws, applied equally upon all Citizens, where all ‘marriages’ are to be treated the same.
Now, does that mean I am in favor of the same? HELL NO. But that’s why you get when you allow the gov’t to meddle into areas it has no authority to inject itself. As I’ve stated, multiple times, gov’t has no authority in the marriage business to start, let alone to give ‘special favors’ based on the same usurped authority.
Now, go back to having your mental masturbation temper tantrum. If you don’t like it, change the Law. Or, better yet, get the gov’t out of the F* middle (this would be my ‘childish pretending’...a Constitutional Republic). There would be no benefits nor privileges to worry about giving away by those in power. Then, maybe then, we can both get onto getting gov’t out of the next area of intrusion.
Why must libertarians be so evasive? You don't disagree with this do you?
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
So why waste everyone's time avoiding saying so, while defending it and promoting it, in between the lines?
It has been a quick trip from “Don’t ask, don’t tell” to preferential treatment for gays.
What idiocy, when was the government not involved in marriage? You think that early America was just people making up their own marriage definitions? You really think that a Muslim American could have multiple wives, or that two homosexuals could marry if they started a religion?
Do you think that Greece and Rome, and New Guinea tribesmen and Apache Indians did not have marriage formally defined, to be able to apply law for inheritance and divorce and death?
Yours is the most silly, dishonest argument of all as you deny the facts, truth, and history, to promote your gay marriage, and anti-American agenda.
Moral absolutes are practically the same in every monotheist religion, including some that are not, such as Buddhism.
Hedonists such as yourself want “freedom” - but what you really mean is “licence”. You’re in the same group as others who want such “freedom” - pedophiles, bestiality practitioners, those who want polygamy legalized and incest practitioners. They all want “freedom” to do what they want.
Without moral absolutes based on universal religious principles, we have nothing but a frenzied free for all of the most vicious less-than-animal life, and since according to people such as yourself, there are no boundaries at all, so off into the abyss we go.
You’re a clever little libertarian, what with bringing in disemboweling and all. Of course, since homosexuals are now running the government, disembowelment is okay as long is it’s their child victims getting disemboweled, such as Jesse Dirkhausing.
And, btw, I get my “ideas” about the LP from their website and reading the comments of self identifying libertarians.
The Libertarian Party is the official Pro Vice party.
He’s a very slippery one.
RE: “You don’t disagree with this do you?”
Yes, I DO disagree with your statment. NO subject can be so ‘lumped’ and still remain black/white. There is a myriad of gov’t intervention/tentacles that need to be chopped/unwound...THEN look at the subject at hand.
Case in point: this thread. Special treatment of some over others...NO (quite black and white)
vs. adoption: are we basing what is in the best interest of the child, or are we equally applying the Law/Rules? (IE: there is no guarantee of abuse by a homo couple [increased risk? I’d THINK so, but that’s not a basis for Law] vs. no guarantee of a loving/non-abuse by a hetero couple).
What about artificial insemination? Though the gay community cannot reproduce w/out ‘help’ does that make that baby NOT their child vs. hetero that cannot conceive w/out the same help...
There is nothing evasive, but I think I’m smart enough to see there is more than one angle to every ‘problem’, and most of that involves getting gov’t out of the process to reduce the variables.
Your mind is too mushy and confused to try and make sense of, but I’ll try again.
So you disagree with the libertarian position, or are you agreeing with it?
“”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””