Here's one reason we need equal mariage rights

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    This is why, right here.

    How sad, that in this day and age, this can still happen.

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/08/04/Lesbian_Soldier_Snagged_in_DOMA_Red_Tape/
     
  2. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #2
    The policy is short-sighted and just flat-out wrong. The real problem lies in here:

    Gay or straight, a single individual with a child should be allowed to serve in the armed forces if there is a plan in place to have the child cared for. An unmarried couple - gay or straight - is still a family if they live as a family.
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    That's a nice thought. But I understand if the military is concerned if there is no legal framework in place for the welfare of the child.
     
  4. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #4
    There is a legal framework; it just isn't what the military's policy wants.

    Millions of single people are parents and they're allowed to make whatever legal provisions they see fit for someone to care for their children in their absence. Just because the military's policy doesn't accept it doesn't mean it isn't legal. The policy is harebrained and outdated, and needs to be changed. They're hiding behind loopholes, IMO.
     
  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Are you saying that maybe they would have accepted a heterosexual single parent? I'm just wondering if maybe you're right here and they are hiding behind this antiquated policy.
     
  6. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #6
    I'm saying they should accept ANY parent, married or single, gay or straight, as long as the parent has some sort of plan in place to have the child cared for. The problem is that their policy isn't worded that way, and I think it's for a not-very-well-disguised reason. The way the policy is worded it would seem to exclude a single heterosexual parent, but I doubt they would pursue that out of discrimination that they'll never openly admit to.

    It sounds to me like the military is instituting this policy as a thinly-veiled attempt to keep homosexuals with children from serving - the "loophole" I was talking about is that they're leaning on DOMA as their basis for saying, "Oh well, since you don't have a LEGAL (as the military defines it) plan for child care, you can't serve" - without wording their policy so that it screams out that it's discriminatory.

    It's always been a pet peeve of mine when someone or some organization tries to define what a "family" is and isn't. The people involved should get to make that decision, not the military, not anyone else. A couple who live together as a family but are not married - regardless of their sexual orientation - is, in my opinion, no less a family than a married couple with six children all conceived in wedlock, if that's how that couple sees themselves.
     
  7. codymac, Aug 4, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011

    codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #7
    AFAIK, the policy referred to in the article is absolutely false.

    Here's a link to the policy under DOD Instruction 1342.19, which defines the alternate caregiver:

    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134219p.pdf

    Here's the directive on family policy:

    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134217p.pdf

    And here's the one on family readiness in the Reserve forces:

    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134223p.pdf

    Nowhere in these policies, regarding alternate caregivers for single parents, can I find any reference that the alternate caregiver must be a spouse. The policies merely outline that a plan must be in place and what that plan must cover.

    If someone knows of an official policy that lists that the alternate caregiver has to be a spouse, please point it out.

    eta:

    A minor bit of google-fu turned up the rest of the story: It appears that both women are in the US Army and the guidelines for family readiness specifically call out that, in that situation, the alternate caregiver cannot be a member of the armed forces or civilian expeditionary workforce.

    Funny how it's in the WILX article referenced by the Advocate, but the Advocate dropped that fact.

    http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Gay_Lesbian_Family_Faces_Red_Tape_in_Military_126619188.html

    Reality is, if they were both in the military and a married straight couple, they'd be facing the same situation according to the DOD policy: the alternate caregiver has to be someone who isn't serving.
     
  8. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #8
    Is it not possible to get a legal guardian for the underage child? A friend of mine lives with her divorced, single mother and her legal guardian (a female friend of her mothers). I don't remember how that came to be since her father is still around, re-married with children, but it apparently works.
     
  9. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Well- that's embarrassing. Thanks for posting the correction.
     
  10. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #10
    Maybe. I'm not sure we've got enough of the story or know enough about military policy on this one to be confident about it - the holes in the reporting are just too big.
    :confused:

    The fact that the Advocate and WILX's reporting couldn't stand up to five minutes of googling is an embarrassing statement about the current state of journalism and does the soldier a disservice if she's actually being discriminated against.
    :(

    I'm hoping some of our military/ex-military members might come along and give us the first-hand scoop on family policy.
     
  11. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Yeah, but I think you got to the root of it.
     
  12. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #12
    I think we should petition Al Jazeera to have a look into this. ;)
     
  13. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #13
    Well said, this is the point I was about to make.
     

Share This Page