Gay Marriage in Canada battle

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>As for "woodlawn," your argument isn't very convincing. The

>logical conclusion is that the U.S. military should never have

>integrated, either racially or sexually, because of the

>bigoted attitudes of many of its members, and because of the

>generally discriminatory cultural environment at the time.

>And we wouldn't ever have wanted that to change, would we?

>No, I'm not blind to the fact that there have been problems

>arising from integration of the military,

 

My argument seems to have convinced you to move away from your untenable position that integration of the military -- whether by race, sex or sexual orientation -- is not disruptive. You seem to have abandoned that position and to be focusing instead on the real question, which is whether the objective is worth the very real disruption that results.

 

 

>but the benefits

>have far outweighed the problems. Should we tolerate the

>continuing discrimination against gays in the military just

>because some soldiers are bigots?

 

I think you pose the question backwards. What's the purpose of the military? Is it to provide jobs for gay men, or for straight men either? No, its purpose is to protect the nation from our enemies. Before 9/11 the Left seemed to think that America has no remaining enemies who pose a serious threat, so the downside to making social changes in the military, even if that causes disruption in the near term, is not so big. After 9/11 that position can no longer be accepted. No one can any longer deny that the nation has enemies who are capable of striking at us where we live. Their power comes from overseas, and we must have a military capable of going there and dealing with it. The only changes we can make to the military are those that do not threaten that essential mission. From now on, everything must be weighed against that objective.

 

>Also, the U.S. military does ask, and forces people to tell,

>in spite of the policy.

 

 

Which simply goes to prove my point that the people who have to enforce the policy you want are not willing to enforce it. So what do we do, get rid of all the Americans in our armed forces and import mercenaries from Israel?

 

 

> It also interferes regularly in the

>private sex lives of military members, including heterosexual

>ones. Or don't you recall the whole messy episode a couple of

>years ago involving a woman air force officer who was drummed

>out of the service because of an adulterous love affair?

 

But the incident you speak of has nothing to do with discrimination against gays. The military has long had rules against sexual relationships between superiors and subordinates. In the case you refer to, a female officer had an affair with a male subordinate. When his wife brought the matter to the attention of the military, the female officer lied about it. This is another good example of the problems that arise from integrating the military sexually.

[dick_nyc]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

I wonder if we know for sure that the private burned the house down to keep the military from finding out about the videotape. I think he might have been more worried about his family and friends finding out about the tape or of the officer putting the tape into general circulation. That would put a whole different slant on the issue.

 

The other thing that strikes me is that if you get married in Canada on the premise that you will then qualify for married benefits on your job and then find that your home state will not recognize the marriage, just how are you to get you married benefits? It seems to me as a layman with not real knowledge of the law that the company would not have to give you those benefits under that premise. Any responses on this one??

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

I don't really think I'm pulling back from anything, because I never believed that everyone was enchanted with racial/gender integration of the U.S. military, and I don't think they will be if gays are allowed to serve openly. But the military has a disciplinary system for dealing with people who violate its policies, and people who can't deal with the racial integration are dealt with. The same has happened in the case of gender integration. The "don't ask, don't tell" situation is anomalous, because in effect we have a military establishment in open mutiny against the law of the land. The failure to enforce DADT amounts to nothing else. The civilian leadership of the military (i.e., the Secretary of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief) are also remiss in not carrying out the law. But sooner or later, that will change, as it has in so many other countries.

 

As for why young gay people wish to serve in the military, for many it's obviously a job, just as it is for straight recruits. Maybe that's not the best motivation for going into the military, but it certainly isn't uncommon. More interestingly, it's always remarkable that when the chips are down and there's a high need for cannon fodder the military suddenly doesn't much care about sexual orientation. They'll take anyone and turn a blind eye to to the ones they think are queer. Ordinarily it's only when peace comes that the witch hunting resumes. The current situation is a bit different in this regard; twenty or thirty about-to-graduate students at the Language Institute in Monterey were recently kicked out for being gay, thereby depriving the U.S. of the skills of highly qualified translators/interpreters in Middle Eastern languages. There's a desperate need right now for those skills, but evidently the sexual insecurity of certain military personnel trumps our national security needs! Saddam and Osama (who have probably had more than their share of M4M sex) are undoubtedly chortling in their hiding places!

 

As for the fraternization aspect of the adultery case, you're right that it was a violation of military law. Whether there should be such a law, and whether or not it was selectively enforced against the female officer in question, are whole different issues worthy of threads of their own. But it does prove my point that the U.S. military DOES actively pry into the private sexual lives of its members. Much more so, I dare say, than do the militaries of other countries.

[Guest]

I will confess that I haven't read all the responses on this string. I just wanted to jump in to point out that while Canada does not have a residency requirement for marriage, there is a one year residency requirement to divorce. Since these marriages are not recognized in the US, getting a divorce would be nearly impossible. Just a fair warning to any Americans thinking of tying the knot up north...

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>I don't really think I'm pulling back from anything,

 

Yes, you are pulling back from your previous untenable position that there is "no evidence" that allowing gays to serve is a problem for unit cohesion. You wouldn't call an officer getting his house burned down a problem? I would.

 

 

>The "don't ask, don't tell"

>situation is anomalous, because in effect we have a military

>establishment in open mutiny against the law of the land.

 

I don't think someone who hires prostitutes needs to be giving lectures on obeying the law of the land, do you? This is what happens when people feel free to disobey laws they think are wrong. Just like all of the people who frequent this website, correct? If you don't feel a duty to obey laws you think are wrong, why would you expect others to do so?

 

>As for why young gay people wish to serve in the military, for

>many it's obviously a job, just as it is for straight

>recruits. Maybe that's not the best motivation for going into

>the military, but it certainly isn't uncommon.

 

I'm not concerned with their motivation for seeking to join the military. I'm concerned that the actual purpose for which the military exists -- which is not to give anyone a job but to protect the nation -- is served, and is put before all other considerations.

 

> More

>interestingly, it's always remarkable that when the chips are

>down and there's a high need for cannon fodder the military

>suddenly doesn't much care about sexual orientation. They'll

>take anyone and turn a blind eye to to the ones they think are

>queer.

 

 

Maybe that's true in your country, but not in America. During Vietnam there were a number of people who got out of serving by pretending to be gay.

 

>But it does

>prove my point that the U.S. military DOES actively pry into

>the private sexual lives of its members.

 

Those are not the facts. The facts are that the military did nothing until one of the people involved brought the relationship to their attention.

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>I wonder if we know for sure that the private burned the

>house down to keep the military from finding out about the

>videotape.

 

That is not what I said. I said, as The Times reported, that a private set the fire in the hopes of destroying nude photos that the officer had taken of him.

 

> I think he might have been more worried about his

>family and friends finding out about the tape or of the

>officer putting the tape into general circulation. That would

>put a whole different slant on the issue.

 

To the best of my knowledge the tape had nothing to do with the private who set the fire. But suppose it had. What's the difference? When you have an officer getting his house burned down because he became involved in some sort of sexual relationship, even if only a voyeuristic one, with an enlisted man, it becomes kind of tough to argue that allowing gays to serve won't be disruptive.

 

>It seems to me as a layman with not real

>knowledge of the law that the company would not have to give

>you those benefits under that premise. Any responses on this

>one??

 

Unless a given state's law provides otherwise, a private employer need not give benefits to an employee's spouse or domestic partner no matter how you define those terms. If the employer chooses to give such benefits it is free to define "spouse" or "partner" in any manner it wishes -- again, unless state law creates some sort of restriction on its choices. So even if a given state recognizes same-sex marriages from Canada the employer need not give benefits to the same-sex spouse if it defines "spouse" in a different manner, unless there is some provision of state law that bans such discrimination.