Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're confusing me, because according to the article you linked to, that's basically what they did. If you are stationed more than 100 miles from a state that has legalized gay marriage, you can take up to 10 days of leave to go get married. It doesn't say you'll get the whole 10 days. It's significant that a big chunk of bases are in the south where it could easily be a three day drive to get to a state that could marry them. I don't see how gay people are getting any special rights through this, or how any are being taken away from straight people. If you want EQUALITY, then you'd have legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, and this discussion would be a non issue. Since things ARE NOT EQUAL for gay people, this is a way to address the inequality fairly so they can make sure they can offer their spouses all the legal protections and benefits that straight couples currently gain through marriage.
It only applies to gay people. It does not apply to heterosexuals who run into the issue of their marriage being legal in one state but not where they are currently stationed. This could be first cousins getting married (legal in 19 states and DC) or marrying a pregnant minor (legal in Kentucky and Georgia). I am not advocating those types of marriages, merely saying if the idea is that uncharged leave is needed to travel for marriage because it is only legal in limited states, but it is legal in some states, for gays then the same should hold true when that situation is created for reasons other than just sexual orientation.
I want the leave policy to be equal. This is disparate treatment, which is specifically against Department of Defense policies. I have no issue with equality - this isn't equality.
I'd imagine you only want it equal because of the whole, you know, gay thing.......right?
I like how you are attempting to put words in my mouth. It suits you when you have nothing to argue with.
Did I specifically say I wanted to treat homosexuals differently? No, I did not. So don't you ever put words in my mouth again, boy.
Sorry, but you don't get to talk for me and I never once said, hinted, inferred, clued, or any other annotation say that I want homosexuals to get preferential treatment.
Sure you did - numerous times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
All these outcries and crocodile tears, man. I swear. It's like you can't be happy enough that heterosexuals get literally thousands of marriage and societal benefits, but because homosexuals get ONE - just ONE - known benefit over heterosexuals and suddenly everyone is crying wolf.
Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
Why is it a big deal to you? Aren't the 1,000+ benefits of being married good enough for you? Is it really that major of an issue that you balk at "dem gays" getting some leverage over heterosexuals for once?
Nothing like a military wife complaining about an issue that has absolutely ZERO to do with her.
How quaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
So basically you're crying because heterosexuals don't get 10 free days of leave despite having all sorts of benefits and other opportunities just because they're straight.
Seriously, stop it with the crocodile tears. It's embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
Seriously how is ONE...ONE privilege that the military of all places giving to homosexuals to get married and doing so with 10 uncharged days of leave unequal or unfair to heterosexuals?
You can assume all you want, but you're not fooling me. You're just upset and are crying over the fact that homosexuals get a neat little perk that won't be taken advantage of on a common basis because guess what? Leave, no matter what, still has to be approved by the CO. That's what your forgetting.
Get the hell off your high horse and stop it with the crocodile tears.
That wasn't your only claim though, you also said you didn't hint, infer, or clue it either. Your words, not mine. You seem to have a problem having ownership of your own words and ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
Sorry, but you don't get to talk for me and I never once said, hinted, inferred, clued, or any other annotation say that I want homosexuals to get preferential treatment.
To any person reading your posts it is clear that you advocate special privledges for homosexual service members. You appear to believe this is due to being owed it for past inequality. I don't agree with that philosophy, not even for gender or race which is to my benefit to embrace, so it should come as no surprise that I feel that way about sexual orientation too, which doesn't impact me. I have less issue with your belief that it is okay than your refusal to acknowledge that that is what you are advocating. Your deliberate dishonesty about your own words is very telling.
You obviously did not read the article. The reason why is because gays have to travel to a state that allows them to get married where as heterosexuals do not. The leave is only for those who are stationed more than 100 miles from a state that allows it. Don't like this, then get all states to accept gay marriage.
The policy only exists because of discrimination in the country at large.
The same country they put their lives on the line for, which pretends to be about "equality and freedom and liberty!"
Gay and straight servicepeople in a state that allows gay marriage will BOTH NOT have the ability to get the extra leave.
Fighting against inequality in the service borne out of NECESSITY is a waste of time when the true remedy is to tackle the underlying inequality in the COUNTRY that would make the policy unnecessary in the first place!
But yeah, go ahead and focus your attention where it's least helpful!
You appear to believe this is due to being owed it for past inequality.
You're not understanding. It's not PAST inequality. It's PRESENT inequality.
Imagine interracial marriage were still illegal in certain states, you'd still have a problem giving people time to TRAVEL where they have to out of NECESSITY to be able to get married in any capacity? Really?
It only applies to gay people. It does not apply to heterosexuals who run into the issue of their marriage being legal in one state but not where they are currently stationed. This could be first cousins getting married (legal in 19 states and DC) or marrying a pregnant minor (legal in Kentucky and Georgia). I am not advocating those types of marriages, merely saying if the idea is that uncharged leave is needed to travel for marriage because it is only legal in limited states, but it is legal in some states, for gays then the same should hold true when that situation is created for reasons other than just sexual orientation.
So just exactly how many soldiers have been denied leave so they can travel to a state where it's legal to marry their first cousin? Twenty seven states allow it, and they're evenly distributed throughout the country. I can't imagine that's a problem that occurs with any kind of frequency AT ALL, because it's pretty rare to begin with. Why would ANYONE, let alone the US military, encourage a minor child to run off to another state to get married without parental consent? Facilitating minor children to run away to marry without parental consent, even if they ARE pregnant, is a whole lot more complicated and controversial of a situation than facilitating a process that allows consenting adults to legally marry. Every state allows minors to marry with parental consent, or in some cases with a court order. Now you're being silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
Last edited by mb1547; 08-21-2013 at 08:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Twenty seven states allow it, and they're evenly distributed throughout the country. I can't imagine that's a problem that occurs with any kind of frequency AT ALL, because it's pretty rare to begin with. Why would ANYONE, let alone the US military, encourage a minor child to run off to another state to get married without parental consent? Facilitating minor children to run away to marry without parental consent, even if they ARE pregnant, is a whole lot more complicated and controversial of a situation than facilitating a process that allows consenting adults to legally marry. Every state allows minors to marry with parental consent, or in some cases with a court order. Now you're being silly.