Gay Servicemembers Warned About Calif. Same-Sex Marriages

(Washington) An organization that advocates for gays in the military is warning servicemembers that if they take advantage same-sex marriage in California they risk being drummed out of the armed services.

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as heterosexual couples under the California State Constitution.

But the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says that under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" members of the military face dismissal if they marry a person of the same sex.

"The California Supreme Court should be applauded for its decision extending rights to same-sex families. It is heartening to see further recognition of our fundamental right to enter into legal relationships. Unfortunately, our celebration is tempered by the reality that lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel cannot take advantage of these opportunities without risking their careers," said SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/05/052108mil.htm

Has anyone tried that before? Seems to me that a court in today's climate might well throw it out as discriminatory, particularly now that gay marriages are legal in some states. How can the feds simply ignore states rights on this one?

like medicinal mariujana and the like... I expect this will just be another case like that.

Don't know when, but it will happen. And gays will win.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_us/military_gays

Federal court rules against military gays policy

SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.


The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

The second part of the "Defense" of Marriage Act was codified as 1 U.S.C. § 7 and states:



Even if the military were not obligated by DADT (10 U.S.C. § 654) to kick out of the military any and all gay people, the government would still be obligated to ignore any and all same-sex marriages.

Thanks, President Clinton! We owe you a lot, and I hope against hope that someday, you will be repaid in full.


(For those who might be interested, the first part of DOMA was codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1738C)

because they're not able to recognize any definition of the word marriage other than the "one man one woman husband wife" nonsense.

How can they logically base a decision to kick someone out on something they can't legally recognize?

Saying, "I have a boyfriend" will get you thrown out of the military if you are a guy.

Saying, "I have married my boyfriend" will also get you thrown out of the military if you are a guy, because to get married to your boyfriend you must first have one. That the government is not allowed to recognize the marriage is irrelevant.

It is a textbook example of a catch-22.

Elect Obama and end this DOMA/DADT farce.

Obama is very solidly and clearly on the record as opposing "on religious grounds" our right to marry. I dare say that if Congress passed a bill to reverse DOMA, Obama would immediately veto it.

But then I also don't think he'd do any footwork to encourage such a bill in the first place.

I suspect problem in making it an effective argument is that I believe marriage licenses are public records. Even though you are correct that the military would be required to ignore the reality of the marriage the military is not necessarily required to ignore the public statement made by the marriage license, which (as someone suggested) would probably amount to "telling" in the "don't ask - don't tell" scheme of things.

In translation...

Federal court rules against military gays policy
SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_us/militar...