DOD Extends Benefits Only to Same-Sx 'Partners'
Posted in the Columbus Forum
“animis opibusque parati”
Since: Oct 12
#1 Feb 19, 2013
Heterosexuals Need Not Apply: DOD Extends Benefits Only to Gay Unmarried 'Partners'
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has unilaterally issued a directive stating that the U.S. military will now extend certain benefits to unmarried domestic partners that were formerly reserved for married couples -- but will only do so if the domestic partners certify in writing to the Department of Defense that they are of the same sex.
Heterosexual unmarried partners do not qualify for the benefits -- and thus are treated unequally by Panettas directive on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Panetta issued his directive in a Feb. 11 memorandum to the secretaries of the military departments and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The subject line on the memo said: "Extending benefits to same-sex domestic partners of military members."
"At the direction of the President, the Department has conducted a careful and deliberative review of the benefits currently provided to the families of Service members," Panetta said. "We have now identified additional family member and dependent benefits that we can lawfully provide to same-sex domestic partners of Military Service members and their children through changes in Department of Defense policies and regulations."
"These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners and, where applicable, children of same-sex domestic partners, once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship."
Panetta memorandum included a copy of the "declaration" by which homosexual service members will to attest that they are in what Panetta calls a "committed relationship" with another person of the same-sex. The declaration is specifically for homosexuals and does not make any allowance for people of the opposite sex who are engaged in a heterosexual so-called "committed relationship."
DODs "declaration" states that the "definition" of a "domestic partner" is as follows: "Domestic partner means a person in a domestic partnership with a Service member of the same sex."
The "declaration" also says: "Domestic partnership means a committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex, that meets all the requirements below."
In addition to being human beings of the same-sex, two service members seeking the special benefits that the Department of Defense will bestow on a "domestic partnership" must formally attest to the federal government that: "Neither of us is married (legally or by common law), joined in civil union with, or domestic partners with anyone else."
If two people of the same-sex attest to the Department of Defense that they are unmarried domestic partners, they also must later inform the Department of Defense if they break up and no longer are same-sex domestic partners.
"We also agree to, and understand that:...We must inform my Service not later than 30 days after (a) the date of dissolution of the domestic partnership,(b) the date of the partnership no longer meets the eligibility requirements, or (c) termination of the domestic partnership by death."
Panettas referendum said that because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Defense Department cannot extend all of the benefits given to married couples to unmarried same-sex "domestic partners." But, Panetta said, "In the event that the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer applicable to the Department of Defense, it will be the policy of the Department to construe the words 'spouse' and 'marriage' without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, will be granted full military benefits."....
#2 Feb 19, 2013
More pro homosexual actions by the Obama commie tribe
#3 Feb 19, 2013
These commie pfag_gots must think that our enemies will shrink back when our gay army lays down the guns and gestures for some oral and anal sex instead.
“animis opibusque parati”
Since: Oct 12
#4 Feb 20, 2013
...As he did in his opposition to an Illinois bill that would simply have defined born babies as persons, and in his regulation requiring Catholics to act against their faith by buying or providing health care plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, Obama here has put himself again in direct conflict with the natural law.
In 1937, Pope Pius XI, in an encyclical letter condemning the German Reich, spelled out the implications of a government that flouts the unchanging moral rules that govern all men and nations.
"To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction," said the pope. "The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations."
"We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read," said the pope. "It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend."
America's commander in chief today is trying to finally and utterly uproot our society from a true understanding of the right to life, the nature of family and the freedom of conscience.
Add your comments below
|Who is Mimzy?||22 min||d pants||15|
|Is it Over For Trump?||29 min||d pants||19|
|Hillary Clinton and Timothy Kaine: GOP establis...||1 hr||Vote4DrJillStein||3|
|update on candidates||1 hr||BizzyBee||1|
|Ohio Attorney General's office sues cemeteries ...||1 hr||in a rush||4|
|Why arent I 50 points ahead?||2 hr||Duke for Mayor||1|
|Trump's Wall||2 hr||MrakJ-||811|
Find what you want!
Search Columbus Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC