Video: States denying military benefits to same-sex spouses "is wrong," Hagel says

Nov 1, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS News

During a speech in New York, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sharply criticized U.S. states that are defying the Pentagon by refusing to allow National Guard facilities to issue ID cards that enable same-sex spouses of military members to claim benefits.

Comments
1 - 14 of 14 Comments Last updated Nov 3, 2013

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

we the sheeple will be along shortly, this is right up his/her alley
Gary

Bellingham, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

There is nothing new about that kind of bigotry
and lack of gratitude.
During and just after WWII black soldiers in
U.S. Army uniform who had served their country
were denied their rights in the same way.
German prisoners of war were allowed to go
to see movies where black servicemen in uniform
turned away because of their color.
Ingratitude and bigotry go hand in hand.
1 post removed
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Gary wrote:
There is nothing new about that kind of bigotry
and lack of gratitude.
During and just after WWII black soldiers in
U.S. Army uniform who had served their country
were denied their rights in the same way.
German prisoners of war were allowed to go
to see movies where black servicemen in uniform
turned away because of their color.
Ingratitude and bigotry go hand in hand.
Bigotry and lack of gratitude? Why does it always come down to these kinds of accusations? Because they've been so effective in muzzling everyone?

How about states rights, as defined in the Constitution? Can the Pentagon force a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage to recognize same-sex marriage? Will complying with the Pentagons directive cause a lawsuit for same-sex marriage, under the premise that a given state recognized it by complying with the Pentagon? Does a state have the Constitutional right to say no? Does a state have the right to follow its own state Constitution concerning an issue that is the premise of the states, not the Fed, or take the time to assure that by complying, they won't be opening themselves to a decision they wouldn't like due to precedent?

Yes, they do.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

If a person of any race ...gender.. or orientation risks his or her life for me...the least I could do is give that person what they are due...
Have you no shame...
no decency......
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 2, 2013
 
States rights is a myth, besides the 14th Amendment clearly spells out equal treatment and access to all citizens the rights and . privileges every other citizen enjoys.

There is no two classes of citizens in America. Some of you would like that to be the case but it's not.

Those States are attempting to nullify the law, the cases will just have to go to the Supreme Court for enforcement.

Marriage in America is first a contract between to consenting adult, the philosophical differences about marriage is rooted in religious belief. Every citizen in America doesn't subscribe to religious theory and superstition and that has no place in government.
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigotry and lack of gratitude? Why does it always come down to these kinds of accusations? Because they've been so effective in muzzling everyone?
How about states rights, as defined in the Constitution? Can the Pentagon force a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage to recognize same-sex marriage? Will complying with the Pentagons directive cause a lawsuit for same-sex marriage, under the premise that a given state recognized it by complying with the Pentagon? Does a state have the Constitutional right to say no? Does a state have the right to follow its own state Constitution concerning an issue that is the premise of the states, not the Fed, or take the time to assure that by complying, they won't be opening themselves to a decision they wouldn't like due to precedent?
Yes, they do.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
States rights is a myth, besides the 14th Amendment clearly spells out equal treatment and access to all citizens the rights and . privileges every other citizen enjoys.
There is no two classes of citizens in America. Some of you would like that to be the case but it's not.
Those States are attempting to nullify the law, the cases will just have to go to the Supreme Court for enforcement.
Marriage in America is first a contract between to consenting adult, the philosophical differences about marriage is rooted in religious belief. Every citizen in America doesn't subscribe to religious theory and superstition and that has no place in government.
<quoted text>
States rights is a myth? Since when?

The Supreme Court only recently ruled on this issue...and guess what? They upheld states rights concerning marriage.

The post you responded to wasn't about any opinion on same sex marriage. It was about states v. federal law and whether or not a state has a Constitutional right to uphold it's own marriage laws and state Constitutions. Or whether or not they have the right or obligation to research whether or not compliance with the Pentagon would set any legal precedents...because you know law is all about precedent. The post concerned legality, not your personal feelings, assumptions, emotions and tar brush accusations. You don't have the first clue where I stand on this issue, but that doesn't stop you from making a whiny ass out of yourself.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
States rights is a myth? Since when?
The Supreme Court only recently ruled on this issue...and guess what? They upheld states rights concerning marriage.
The post you responded to wasn't about any opinion on same sex marriage. It was about states v. federal law and whether or not a state has a Constitutional right to uphold it's own marriage laws and state Constitutions. Or whether or not they have the right or obligation to research whether or not compliance with the Pentagon would set any legal precedents...because you know law is all about precedent. The post concerned legality, not your personal feelings, assumptions, emotions and tar brush accusations. You don't have the first clue where I stand on this issue, but that doesn't stop you from making a whiny ass out of yourself.
It is well established...a state can not violate the constitution.
For example Mississippi could not declare slavery to be legal.
Or...Alaska could not declare that women can not vote...
A state can not violate the constitution..
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
It is well established...a state can not violate the constitution.
For example Mississippi could not declare slavery to be legal.
Or...Alaska could not declare that women can not vote...
A state can not violate the constitution..
.
failing to find the part in the constitution where any entity has to grant special privilege to a couple of rumprangers, maybe i'm missing it.
Sterkrontein Swartkrans

Warrington, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 3, 2013
 
lolol wrote:
<quoted text>
.
failing to find the part in the constitution where any entity has to grant special privilege to a couple of rumprangers, maybe i'm missing it.
Maybe you could ask your boyfriend!
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 3, 2013
 
Amendment 14

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If gay marriage is recognized on the federal level or in one state, it will be recognized in all states, it's just a matter of the specific issue coming before the court.

The most recent ruling was against the Defensive Of Marriage Act, or DOMA

The Supreme Court ruling invalidated a section of the 17-year-old DOMA that denied federal benefits, such as Social Security and joint tax filing, to married gay men and lesbians in the 14 states, and the District of Columbia, that allow gay marriage. That measure, the court declared, existed primarily "to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.

What's consistent is that Republicans for all their chatter about the Constitution are always having their rulings and ill conceived laws overturned because they infringe on the personal guarantees and protections written for American citizens in the U.S Constitution.

How could they profess to being so patriot and always in violation of protecting citizen Freedom and Liberty?

States have a right to create laws that don't violate the central tenants of the U.S Constitution, the Republicans try to nullify federal law using the 10th amendment.
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
States rights is a myth? Since when?
The Supreme Court only recently ruled on this issue...and guess what? They upheld states rights concerning marriage.
The post you responded to wasn't about any opinion on same sex marriage. It was about states v. federal law and whether or not a state has a Constitutional right to uphold it's own marriage laws and state Constitutions. Or whether or not they have the right or obligation to research whether or not compliance with the Pentagon would set any legal precedents...because you know law is all about precedent. The post concerned legality, not your personal feelings, assumptions, emotions and tar brush accusations. You don't have the first clue where I stand on this issue, but that doesn't stop you from making a whiny ass out of yourself.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 3, 2013
 
There is none, that is why Gays are allowed the same access, protections and opportunities as non Gays under the protection of the Constitution.

You're looking at the matter in the wrong way, it has no baring on your liking their behavior, but their behavior doesn't preclude your freedoms and liberties, so long as you mind your business and stop fantasizing about their sexual escapades.
lolol wrote:
<quoted text>
.
failing to find the part in the constitution where any entity has to grant special privilege to a couple of rumprangers, maybe i'm missing it.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 3, 2013
 
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
It is well established...a state can not violate the constitution.
For example Mississippi could not declare slavery to be legal.
Or...Alaska could not declare that women can not vote...
A state can not violate the constitution..
Correct, a state cannot violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court struck down the provision in DOMA that recognized marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That will allow for federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

However, the court declined to declare same-sex marriage as a constitutional right...which means that issue is still the province of the individual states.

If a couple is legally married in Massachusetts, but move to Texas, can Texas be forced to recognize that marriage if Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage?

The answer, clearly, is no.

Does that get murky if a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage pays benefits to same-sex couples, therefore, recognizing same-sex marriage?

I think it would. Or at least I can see why it poses a dilemma, from a legal point of view.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 3, 2013
 
lolol wrote:
<quoted text>
.
failing to find the part in the constitution where any entity has to grant special privilege to a couple of rumprangers, maybe i'm missing it.
failing to find the part in the constitution where any enitty has to grant special privilege to a couple ofneice clean cut hetrosexuals, maybe i'm missing it

We all as tax paying citizens have equal rights , no where in the constitution does it say anything, except for fags
Therfore it is you assuming the right to discriminate, that is not supported by the founding fathers....
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal...
Not all men are created equal, except queers....

Show me where gays are exculded from full participation in society.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 3, 2013
 
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, a state cannot violate the Constitution.
The Supreme Court struck down the provision in DOMA that recognized marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That will allow for federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
However, the court declined to declare same-sex marriage as a constitutional right...which means that issue is still the province of the individual states.
If a couple is legally married in Massachusetts, but move to Texas, can Texas be forced to recognize that marriage if Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage?
The answer, clearly, is no.
Does that get murky if a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage pays benefits to same-sex couples, therefore, recognizing same-sex marriage?
I think it would. Or at least I can see why it poses a dilemma, from a legal point of view.
It does pose a contradiction. The court rendered an incomplete verdict. In doing so what the Supreme Court has done is allow the issue of a federal recognition to be defined by future law making and legal interpretations. The POTUS decision on DOMA implies an equality of marriage, in that it is unconstitutional to grant an advantage to heterosexual marriage. By saying it is un-lawful to give "A" an advantage over "B" you have done is recognized the legitimacy of "B" de facto...
The next challenge to marriage inequality will most likely be based on this concept. If the court claims the federal gov't can not discriminate then a citizen of Texas, also a United States citizen, can argue that having obtained these befits under United States sanction, there is a legitimate expectation that this federal protection is portable.
To continue to deny equality Texas for example, would need to show a how denying equality to gay marriage does not violate the decision that strikes down DOMA or argue that their state has some sort of exceptional circumstance that would allow them to deny equal standing.
First will come a ruling that instructs state that they may not attempt to interfere in cases in which the federal gov't is distributing benefits, Then will come the requiring states to honor each other's marriages, just like they must with drivers licensees.
The perhaps a federal marriage
Finally a full equality found under federal protection,

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••