Mary Fallin, Oklahoma Gov., …....
-
Tells National Guard To Stop Processing Benefits For Gay Couples
By SEAN MURPHY
OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has ordered the National Guard to stop processing requests for military benefits for same-sex couples, her office confirmed Tuesday, despite a Pentagon directive to do so.
Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz said the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples.
"Because of that prohibition, Gov. Fallin's general counsel has advised the National Guard not to process requests for benefits of same-sex couples," Weintz said. "Gay couples that have been legally married in other states will be advised they can apply for those benefits on federal facilities, such as Tinker Air Force Base, rather than state run facilities."
Fallin ordered the policy change on Sept. 5, Weintz said.
The policy is a shift from how the Guard had been handling requests for benefits from same-sex partners in the ranks of the roughly 9,500 guard soldiers and airmen in Oklahoma, said Oklahoma National Guard spokesman Col. Max Moss.
Moss said the agency had been processing benefits for same-sex soldiers just like those from heterosexual couples until Fallin's office ordered the change in policy. He said state officials already had helped process benefit requests for two gay soldiers before Fallin's directive.
Moss added that any soldiers who request marriage benefits for their same-sex spouse will be informed how they can receive those benefits.
"If we have a situation where we have a soldier who's in a same-sex marriage, we're going to explain to that soldier how they can go about acquiring those benefits," Moss said. "At this point, that's directing them to a federal facility.
"We want our soldiers to have all the benefits to which they're entitled to."
The Pentagon announced last month that same-sex spouses of military members will be eligible for the same health care, housing and other benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex spouses starting Sept. 3. That decision followed consultation with the Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
After the U.S. Department of Defense began allowing same-sex couples to apply for identification cards and benefits, National Guard officials in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana said they would refuse to process the applications. Like Oklahoma, all three states have gay-marriage bans and are led by socially conservative Republican governors.
Fallin's decision prompted the president of a support group for gay military families to call for the Defense Department to "stop this discrimination."
"Since the governor of Oklahoma has decided to join Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana in playing politics with our military families, we need immediate and decisive action from the administration and the defense department in affirming that all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation, will be treated equally," Stephen Peters, president of the American Military Partner Association, said in a statement.
Sean Murphy can be reached at www.twitter.com/apseanmurphy
This article has a video clip and slideshow included in the original post.
-
While I firmly believe in the separation of church and state as well that the government has no place in social issues I also believe in a regions ability to decide these things for it's self. Oklahoma has very right to say our voters say no so you need to go through federal facilities and use federal resources for these benefits. I don't agree with the discrimination but the whole issue would be resolved if marriage was abolished all together and everyone drew up contracts and have it be dealt with by contractual law instead. These issues come up in places where social mores still exist; both the good and the bad. Because of this we can't expect nor require people to turn away or support things they don't believe in. We can however use the federal government to fulfill these requests and it is doing so. Requiring a state to go against its peoples wishes is wrong thats why we have regional and a federal government people believe and different things always have always will. There is a stark difference between police raids and not allowing the use of state resources to process claims. One requires outside intervention the other should be respected. If we don't respect those issues we are as bad as the Catholics who try to intervene in more socially liberal states to change there laws and we should try not to lower ourselves to their level.
-
As I explained in another thread, in order to give you and your partner the same rights as marriage through contracts will cost a fortune in legal fees, compared to a civil marriage.
In the UK, basic wills (granting the same rights covered under marraige) cost pretty much the same as getting married in the Registrar's office (think; Justice of the Peace). Then you have to draw up the various contracts and anytime there's a change, you have to change the contracts.
The argument over civil contracts and civil marriage has been done before and it's not cost effective, nor is it really viable in many situations. There are many rights that would be lost if we did away with marriage, such as the right not to testify against your spouse. You can not make a contract that grants you that right, only civil marriage grants that. Many other rights are in a similar situation.
-
And the vast majority of those rights came about because of religions influence on our culture. Drawing up a basic legal contract is fairly simple and not all that expensive especially if theres not much negotiation you wouldn't need a lawyer on either side at that point. The fee for example for a will is not excessive very rarely would an exceedingly intricate contract be required an the ones that would need to be regarding money or an estate can use prenupt agreement as a template. Not to mention other than a filing fee there are no legal fees associated with contracts in the us at least unless your handing over property or money. Now going back to the right not to testify against your spouse or tax exemptions etc those should be done away with anyway and dealt in a strictly dependent nondependent manner.
-
After I posted my previous post, I did a bit of digging in our filing cabinet and here's what I found;
Basic (I really mean basic) wills granting the same rights as marriage £75 + £30 filing fee, for each will. That's £210 for the pair. (2003)
Civil Partnership which is marriage lite, £128. (2005)
We haven't even gotten to the contracts.
Scotland is extremely protective of it's legal profession, so pretty much everything needs a lawyer.
-
Ah well in the Us for a contract dealing with cash or property you simply need two witness and a properly worded document no legal process other than filing.
