Same-sex military couples to receive new benefits.

LINK [washingtonpost.com]

My reason for posting is not should they receive benefits, I'm just curious if anyone knows how long the same-sex couple has to be together before they can apply? My husband is military (24 years), and was told by his command that benefits would be extended to those couples that had been together for as little as 6 months.

We're curious because we know several military guys that live with their girlfriends. One couple even has a child together but are not married. They have been together for years.

Anyhow, extending benefits to same sex couples if fine but how are they going to argue against benefits for couples that are not of the same sex? It just doesn't seem fair to say "okay, you've been together for 6 months and we're gonna give you housing and privileges, but you over there that have been together for years, nope, not gonna offer you squat."

Quote from MsGal : LINK [washingtonpost.com] My reason for posting is not should they receive benefits, I'm just curious if anyone knows how long the same-sex couple has to be together before they can apply? My husband is military (24 years), and was told by his command that benefits would be extended to those couples that had been together for as little as 6 months. We're curious because we know several military guys that live with their girlfriends. One couple even has a child together but are not married. They have been together for years. Anyhow, extending benefits to same sex couples if fine but how are they going to argue against benefits for couples that are not of the same sex? It just doesn't seem fair to say "okay, you've been together for 6 months and we're gonna give you housing and privileges, but you over there that have been together for years, nope, not gonna offer you squat."

It seems about as fair as saying "okay, you are legally married in your state but we're not going to give you medical and dental care to your spouse and dependent children, transferable education benefits, reassignment expenses, in state tution rates, family and medical leave and employment services because of doma."

This another example of the 0bama administration using economic incentives to encourage roommates of the same gender to engage in homosexual behaviour.

Quote from BigBananaMess : This another example of the 0bama administration using economic incentives to encourage roommates of the same gender to engage in homosexual behaviour.

Quote from BigBananaMess : This another example of the 0bama administration using economic incentives to encourage roommates of the same gender to engage in homosexual behaviour.

Oh, come'on now. The main point of this is to find out how long a same sex partner needs to be with one another to get the benefits not to bash Obama.

I personally think 6 months isn't long enough. I'd be more comfortable with something like 2 years but at the same time there are plenty of heterosexual couples out there who marry and get benefits in a lot less time than 2 years, and heck even 6 months. The problem is that in most states those same sex couples who would marry can't so they have to come up with some arbitrary amount of time. I don't exactly envy them for that as no way are they going to make everyone happy.

What I would however like to see is a rule that states that the benefits are only granted if you're in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriages. If you are in a state that does, and you haven't gotten married I don't think you should be given benefits as the same holds true for couples that don't marry. If you have the option to get married but don't I think that hetero and homosexual couples should both be treated in the same way.

Quote from LivninSC : What I would however like to see is a rule that states that the benefits are only granted if you're in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriages. If you are in a state that does, and you haven't gotten married I don't think you should be given benefits as the same holds true for couples that don't marry. If you have the option to get married but don't I think that hetero and homosexual couples should both be treated in the same way.

I agree and would like to see that happen as well. But generally speaking, we (military) are uprooted every 3 or 4 years and move to a new state. What would happen to those same-sex couples that married in say, D.C. but are now stationed in Mississippi where same-sex marriage is illegal? They are back to just being a cohabitating couple. If they continue to get benefits, what do you say to "Joe" and "Shelia" that are stationed in MS and have been together for a year but aren't married either?

Quote from MsGal : I agree and would like to see that happen as well. But generally speaking, we (military) are uprooted every 3 or 4 years and move to a new state. What would happen to those same-sex couples that married in say, D.C. but are now stationed in Mississippi where same-sex marriage is illegal? They are back to just being a cohabitating couple. If they continue to get benefits, what do you say to "Joe" and "Shelia" that are stationed in MS and have been together for a year but aren't married either?

Based on what I know it doesn't matter where you move to. Why did so many people flock to those states that granted it? I presume because they will have a marriage certificate on file in that state forever. It's not like if you marry in a state that allowed it and moved to another state you have to transfer your marriage certificate or anything.

I maybe should have clarified it a bit better but my point is that if you are married, either because you live in a state that allowed it or you traveled to a state that allowed it and got married, that you should get the benefits. I would want some form of checks and balances where if you are from or live in a state that allows same sex marriages yet you aren't married that you shouldn't get the benefits, or in actuality get the same benefits as hetero couples. On one hand I want them to get the benefits if they did get married and at the same time if they can't get married because their state doesn't allow it to grant the benefits after X amount of time. On the other hand however if they are able to get married yet chose not to I don't want them getting more benefits than a same sex couple that also chooses not to marry would.

I'm all for the equality, just want to make sure it goes both ways (no pun intended).

In b4 EV chimes in with 'slippery slope'.

Quote from LivninSC : Based on what I know it doesn't matter where you move to. Why did so many people flock to those states that granted it? I presume because they will have a marriage certificate on file in that state forever. It's not like if you marry in a state that allowed it and moved to another state you have to transfer your marriage certificate or anything. I maybe should have clarified it a bit better but my point is that if you are married, either because you live in a state that allowed it or you traveled to a state that allowed it and got married, that you should get the benefits. I would want some form of checks and balances where if you are from or live in a state that allows same sex marriages yet you aren't married that you shouldn't get the benefits, or in actuality get the same benefits as hetero couples. On one hand I want them to get the benefits if they did get married and at the same time if they can't get married because their state doesn't allow it to grant the benefits after X amount of time. On the other hand however if they are able to get married yet chose not to I don't want them getting more benefits than a same sex couple that also chooses not to marry would. I'm all for the equality, just want to make sure it goes both ways (no pun intended).

The problem is DOMA prevents them from getting the same benefits. This basically exists as a partial work around until it gets struck down.

Quote from BigBananaMess : This another example of the 0bama administration using economic incentives to encourage roommates of the same gender to engage in homosexual behaviour.

good grief

Quote from new33 : good grief

I think the policy is called "Gay 4 Pay".

WTF. Granted it's been a while since I've been in... But, it used to be you only received benefits when you are MARRIED.

Quote from JackHandey : WTF. Granted it's been a while since I've been in... But, it used to be you only received benefits when you are MARRIED.

Once DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional, there should be no problem returning to such a standard. Until then, this is a necessary (& important) work-around.

Quote from BigBananaMess : This another example of the 0bama administration using economic incentives to encourage roommates of the same gender to engage in homosexual behaviour.

Lmao.