Gov. Brad Henry, Oklahoma Legislature honors state military veterans

Gov. Brad Henry and the Oklahoma Legislature are honoring the state's 334,000 military veterans.

[Frank USN retired]

Thank You Governor Henry. Please support the troops with your signature on Oklahoma HB 1053 for all Veterans

[Writer]

Oklahoma HB 1053 is not a support the troops bill! It is just being strategically spun as a support the troops bill to mask the fact that it is a discriminatory bill against military spouses, unprecedented in any state in the U.S.

Does Oklahoma really want the national embarrassment of being the 1st state to strip military spouses of pension division rights, rights that are currently standard legal rights provided to all Oklahomans regardless of profession?

A non-Oklahoma native and a non-Oklahoma special interest group are behind the bill and they are creatively spinning the bill as a "support the troops bill" in a very patriotic state pro-military state (Okla)as a "test" to see if a state anywhere in the country can be found to pass their outrageous and discriminatory special interest bill. The bill really has nothing to do with Oklahoma. Oklahoma handles military divorces the same way every other state in the nation does.

Oklahoma .... don't be fooled by the bill. Let another state in the country be the 1st state to lash out legally at military spouses at a time of war.

Let's keep Oklahoma proud.

[Frank USN retired]

To Writer, Washington, DC

Apparently you are an attorney from Oklahoma who has never worn the uniform or understand what it is to serve. HB 1053 does not strip Military spouses of anything. This bill will finally bring fair and equitable treatment for both parties. Current law singles out Military members for dicriminatory treatment by the state courts to include stripping away of VA Disability Compensation which is in violation of Federal statute. Military Retired/Retainer Pay is a Federal entitlement and not a qualified pension plan in accordance with DFAS. There is no monetary contribution by the member or the spouse and is treated by the IRS,U.S. Comptroller,DOD ect as a stream of income akin to alimony.It is reduced pay for continuing reduced srevices post active duty. Military members are subject to recall,UCMJ,maintain U.S. Citezenship, employment restrictions, criminal convictions not attaching to a former spouse. A Military members can lose retired pay for failure of these conditions. The former spouse can violate any and all of these restrictions to include a felony conviction and/or incarcaration and STILL COLLECT the Members retired pay while sitting in jail. Other Federal agencies to include CIA and the Forgien Service terminate their Federal entitlement payments upon remarriage of the former spouse. The Oklahoma State Public Employee Retirement Plan which benifits all state employees to include legislators allow for their "Qualified Pension Plan" to terminate payments upon remarriage of the former spouse. Is there an "Attorney Former Spouse Protection Act"? Why are Military members the only profession that has a Federal Divorce law specially targeting Military personell? Are you aware that some attorneys are charging contingency fees base on how much Military Retired/Retainer Pay they can get for the former spouse? Isn't this unethical in a domestic relations matter? HB 1053 would undoubtly DECREASE the Military divorce rate by eliminating the incentive to Divorce for a "LIFETIME" Payment to a former spouse. I challenge any attorney to prove that current alimony laws are not sufficient to provide for a former spouse. I would suggest supporting our Veterans and a little less concern of making a profit off the backs of veterans. Would you agree?

[Larry - Combat Veteran]

OK will just bring fairness into a system that generates millions of dollars for divorce attorneys at the expense of veterans - look at the big opponents of HB 1053 -- lawyers. Alimony laws provide more than enough protection for former spouses. Let's eliminate laws that provide financial incentives to divorce.
OK is not the only state where this will happen!
Writer - you are from Washington DC -- that's outside of OK too, right?

[Frank USN retired]

Writer wrote:

Oklahoma HB 1053 is not a support the troops bill! It is just being strategically spun as a support the troops bill to mask the fact that it is a discriminatory bill against military spouses, unprecedented in any state in the U.S.
Does Oklahoma really want the national embarrassment of being the 1st state to strip military spouses of pension division rights, rights that are currently standard legal rights provided to all Oklahomans regardless of profession?
A non-Oklahoma native and a non-Oklahoma special interest group are behind the bill and they are creatively spinning the bill as a "support the troops bill" in a very patriotic state pro-military state (Okla)as a "test" to see if a state anywhere in the country can be found to pass their outrageous and discriminatory special interest bill. The bill really has nothing to do with Oklahoma. Oklahoma handles military divorces the same way every other state in the nation does.
Oklahoma .... don't be fooled by the bill. Let another state in the country be the 1st state to lash out legally at military spouses at a time of war.
Let's keep Oklahoma proud.

Writer from DC if thats who you really are. There are documented cases of former spouses who have married 2,3,4 or more military members and are collecting multiple military retired/retainer awards for "LIFE". These odds are conservatively better than state run Lotteries. The attornys are factually aware of this. By the way, I was unaware that military spouses/former spouses deploy to a combat zone in time of war. Is this a new DOD directive?

[William Gill USN RETIRED]

I have personally known two females that got married to two different NAVY men and then divorced each of the men (one after 7 years the other 9 years)
BOTH went after the SERVICE MEMBERS retirement and VA DISABLITY after they retired and received appox (42% and 46%) and will get it for LIFE. One is working on her third military husband.
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!!!
I am currently disabled and at times can barely walk due to injuries I received while on active duty, and on top of that I am recovering from cancer.
I can’t work for some countries or my retirement stops, I am subject to recall to active duty, I am subject to Military Laws and regulations, Federal employees are not subject to any of these laws.
SPOUSES ARE NOT!

[Jessie Edwards]

The notion that military spouses deliberately marry service members for pension division is deeply offensive. There are many military spouses who make great sacrifices and are very active in supporting military bases/posts in official leadership positions in the military community and who have done so for 25-35 year military marriages.

Let's also not blame military spouses (by legally disadvantaging them with HB 1053) for the unique commitments of military careers.

Service members and military spouses both deserve thanks and respect from their country. Military families as a unit make tremendous sacrifices for their country.

Recall former Secretary Powell's often used words: "when the military hires a soldier, the military retains a family."

[Larry - Combat Veteran]

Jessie - yes families are indispensable and spouses deserve our gratitude, but former spouses are not supportive spouses. Former spouses walk away from the military and the service member -- why don't they walk away from the money too?

No one is implying that the vast majority of spouses married the military member for the retirement pay, but that data shows there to be such cases. If you are offended as we are by such conduct, you should support a measure prohibiting a former spouse from getting more than one "cut" from servicemembers.

Gen Powell said nothing about former spouses being indispenable -- in fact, the data shows former spouses have a negative effect on retention and on second marriages (where that spouse is supporting the militay), so they weaken our country with their continued insistance on lifetime support. Alimony, yes when appropriate, but not a lifetime lifelife from the government they are hurting. No one has ver shown why alimony laws will not work instead of carving out an exception for only servicememer retention pay. The spouses have no obligation to be recalled in times of national emergency like the servicemember does -- why should they received part of the compensation for that obligation then?

[Frank USN retired]

More than 70% of spouses had careers/were employed as of 2002.(1)
There is no longer the “requirement” for spouses to sacrifice their careers and accompany military members on every change of station. The spouses’ career is a common reason for the Geographic Bachelor/Bachelorette military member.
Department of Defense Directive 1400.33, Employment and Volunteer Work of Spouses of Military Personnel, Feb. 10, 1988 made it no longer the requirement for spouse participation in order for the military member to succeed. Spouse groups are not mandatory and there is an understanding that many have their own careers and are not able to devote the time to these groups.

(1) Military Personnel Human Resources Strategic Plan, Change 1; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, August 2002

[Dennis in Salt Lake]

HB 1053 will finally reconcile the target service member's pay with the regulations that govern their lives until they are discharged, resign or die. If the regulations say it is pay for services to the service member, it isn't jointly earned marital property to a divorcing spouse. If they are needy, the judge will award an appropriate amount of alimony. No more having their cake and eating it too

[Hunter41663]

Writer wrote:

Oklahoma HB 1053 is not a support the troops bill! It is just being strategically spun as a support the troops bill to mask the fact that it is a discriminatory bill against military spouses, unprecedented in any state in the U.S.
Does Oklahoma really want the national embarrassment of being the 1st state to strip military spouses of pension division rights, rights that are currently standard legal rights provided to all Oklahomans regardless of profession?
A non-Oklahoma native and a non-Oklahoma special interest group are behind the bill and they are creatively spinning the bill as a "support the troops bill" in a very patriotic state pro-military state (Okla)as a "test" to see if a state anywhere in the country can be found to pass their outrageous and discriminatory special interest bill. The bill really has nothing to do with Oklahoma. Oklahoma handles military divorces the same way every other state in the nation does.
Oklahoma .... don't be fooled by the bill. Let another state in the country be the 1st state to lash out legally at military spouses at a time of war.
Let's keep Oklahoma proud.

This is another example of someone that has no common sense what so ever. If the 95% of women that was sleeping around while their husband was deployed knew that they would not get that money for the rest of their lives they would not be sleeping around and the rate would drop not increase.

[souljah]

I AM for HB1053, it's and old law and needs to be updated. Women are working, independent and self-supporting.

Also, why is this ideology particular to the military?

[Heather]

Say you have someone who is in the Guard he was married for 9 months , his wife filled for divorce and asked him to leave the martial home.
He did
She filled for divorce is now asking for Alimony?
He gets $1,000 a month from the Guard.
Would she be due any of that money?
Is that all just his Guard pay or is that any kind of allotment the military sometimes offers if you live off base for and for a spouse?
HE started getting the $1,000 shortly after coming home from serving a year in Iraq.
Thank you
Just not sure if she can get alimony unless some of that money he gets each month is an allotment.
Thanks in advance

[Ron]

If he was only married 9 months she doesn't get anything from his guard pay.

[PinkMagnolia]

Well she is asking for Alimony.
She thinks she should get it.
Why I don't know she has a job , lives with mom.
She doesn't have a car note, etc.

[Ron]

get a good lawyer, just another example of a woman that thinks she is entitled to something that she doesn't deserve.

[NC Miliry Veteran]

DC Liberal,
The Military Retirement in divorce is problematic in just about every state.
1. The USFSPA allows for the Military Retirement to be used as community property.
From there each state pretty much puts their own twist on it. NC family law GS 50-20 allows awards at the highest rank and payments for life. NC refers to it as "usable non-vested property"
OK is on track with HB 1053. It is high time a state recognizes that what is happening is not equitable or fair to the Military Member.
Yes you hear the opposition.
I understand that it is hard to lose free money. This is a typical problem in the great U.S.A. Everybody wants something for free and it doesn't matter who suffers for it. Will a former spouse turn to public assistance if their free money is gone? That point is moot. It’s called a job and get along with your life.
Attorneys buckle up and enjoy the new clients. HB 1053 may have not made it this year but it will pass in the near future. I am also confident that other states will follow suit.
I am a USFSPA victim and it feels good to know that things are going to change for the fair

[Frank USN retired]

Right on NC Military Veteran. The attorneys need to reconsider their position and support HB 1053. I have had conversations with a few family attorneys. Beliieve it or not, I recieved Kudo's for providing the info that Retired pay is income akin to alimony. HB 1053 will be on this up coming sessions calander.

[NC Miliry Veteran]

Frank USN retired wrote:

Right on NC Military Veteran. The attorneys need to reconsider their position and support HB 1053. I have had conversations with a few family attorneys. Beliieve it or not, I recieved Kudo's for providing the info that Retired pay is income akin to alimony. HB 1053 will be on this up coming sessions calander.

By no means do I underestimate the support a Military Spouse gives. The issue is what is equal. Equality is a pillar to the foundation of this country. State divorce court’s twists on the USFSPA have steered far from equality for the Military Retiree. It is ironic that the Military Member goes to war and fights for the rights of those making these bad laws. If these laws are so good then why doesn’t similar law get written for members of Congress and State Representatives? I really hate Liberal Politics. Again HB 1053 is on track. I am currently working on legislative options in NC and I am gaining support. This is what I believe to be equal and is what may soon be seen in NC.
1.Awards to the former Military spouse will be at the rank of legal separation.
2.Awards to the former Military spouse will be for the distance of marriage.
3.Award percent should be based on 1/2 of the years of shared service divided by the
total service at the time of divorce or legal separation
4.Current Military divorce decrees can be amended but providing a 24 month protection period for payments already exceeding distance of marriage and no overpayments can be recovered.

Supporters of this movement in NC are encouraged to contact NC representatives and push for these changes to GS 50-20 for the 2010 session
@http://www.ncleg.net/gascript s/Committees/Committees.aspsAc tion=ViewCommittee&sAction Details=House%20Standing_94

Thanks for the thumbs up Frank

[Ron]

Wow i don't know where you are practicing law but i sure don't want to be there as you are still offering them more than they deserve and still making sure your getting paid for your service's. Also SPELL CHECK before you send MILIRY