Connect with us

Follow Me: Military LGBT Will Lead Marriage Equality Implementation

Published

on

Bridget Wilson, one of America’s top civilian lawyers practicing military law, argues that LGBT military activists have earned a place at the leadership table of the LGBT civil rights movement and now will  lead through implementation of marriage equality in a post-DOMA world

LGBT service members and veterans, who now, after many years of being the “poor stepchildren” of the gay civil rights movement, in a post-DOMA world, are likely to lead the country on implementation of marriage equality rights and benefits.

And after years of working to reverse state sanctioned discrimination in the uniformed services, LGBT military activists can proudly take their rightful place in leadership of the movement, as they are now ideally situated to to be leaders in the efforts to implement marriage equality implementation in a post-DOMA world  and to also advance new territories of LGBT civil rights in America.

For decades, small numbers of individuals who fought for the rights of LGBT service members, were often ignored and ridiculed by those in the movement (who should have known better).   As time has passed, the hard work of service members, veterans and their families and allies, has paid off.

Many of those in leadership positions of LGBT community organizations around the country, finally realized during the efforts to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law that discrimination against gays in the military, was and is, a fundamental issue of citizenship and therefore, equal rights, especially during the course of fighting two wars simultaneously.

Two major problems remain for LGBT service members–currently, no legal redress or remedies exist for discrimination based upon sexual orientation and transgender candidates are barred to military service by medical disqualification.

Despite these decided disadvantages, the plight of service members moved the marriage equality battle forward following the repeal of DADT.  And because almost every aspect of a service member’s life is controlled by federal regulations and statutes, the burden of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) upon their daily lives was immediately apparent to the families, the public, as well as within military commands.

Now, because DOMA has been struck down, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and members of the Coast Guard, can designate his or her spouse as next-of-kin for death notification purposes.

And now, in a post-DOMA world, when a service member dies in the line of duty and pays the ultimate sacrifice, their spouse will be recognized as the rightful survivor, entitled to all legal benefits, privileges, that had  been previously available only to heterosexual spouses and their children.

Now, the surviving gay spouse will be honored with the customary presentation of the nation’s flag at the graveside ceremony, with the gratitude of the nation directly expressed to them by the officer leading the burial honor guard.

Ironically, the military services became allies in marriage equality fight because commanders  readily recognize that in order to maintain unit cohesion, morale and discipline,  soldiers must be treated  equally and because today’s military is a “married” one, commanders prioritize family support programs to relieve pressure on the  service member during overseas deployments.

Gay families were formally excluded from these programs under the onerous discrimination of the DOMA statute.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor did not come in time for the spouses/partners of Chief Warrant Officer Two Charlie Morgan, Staff Sergent Donna Johnson and Captain Reid Nishizuka.   When Donna Johnson was killed in action, because of DOMA, her spouse was not notified of her death.  But rather, she received a call from her mother-in-law, who told her that soldiers had arrived at their house [who notified her of Donna’s death]. She was not presented an American flag at the gravesite. Fortunately, in this case, the in-laws were loving people who included her in these processes that are routinely extended to the legal next-of-kin.

But not all families of gay partners are as kind or inclusive in death. Now, with the legal ability to be designated as the next of kin and military dependent, the post-DOMA world enables the availability and right to access these important practical benefits of military life.

Now, gay spouses will be issued military dependent identification cards that provide access to subsidized stores, such as the post exchange, gymnasiums, healthcare and base housing. Military gay families will now have access to family support services and childcare. Gay service members and their families will be able to live with access to the same benefits afforded to heterosexual families in a military environment, a challenging place for any family.

Following the Supreme Court decisions rendered in Windsor and Perry, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a statement on behalf of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who said that the Pentagon will immediately implement the benefits available to all military spouses, “because it is the law and the right thing to do.”

The statement continues:

Every person who serves our nation in uniform stepped forward with courage and commitment. All that matters is their patriotism, their willingness to serve their country and their qualifications to do so. Today’s ruling helps ensure that all men and women who serve this country can be treated fairly and equally, with the full dignity and respect they so richly deserve.

This formal DoD statement reflects an amazing turn around in just two years.  If this approach toward gay service members is pursued and implemented, it will ease the burdens that must be borne by service members and their families in military life.  Attempting to take care of a gay service member’s  family with the frequently ineffective “work arounds” has been brutal. It was even more burdensome when DADT forced LGB service members to hide. The decisions in Windsor and Perry open the door to equal treatment in the federal realm, including military members and civilian employees of the military.

Because many states will  continue to not recognize the marriages of service members, there will be corners of contradiction. An example is documenting the birth of children born to a same sex couple in a state that does not recognize their marriage. Birth certificates are in the control of the states.   Many states will not place a same sex spouse on a birth certificate. Service members have little choice about where they will live.  If the service member and spouse are assigned to serve in Texas or Nevada, the couple may not be able to obtain a birth certificate that reflects the names of both parents.

Overseas assignments will also be a challenge. There may be locations where a same sex couple would be unacceptable to the national population. How will these issues be addressed in the agreements made with host countries of American military bases?  Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) which control the legal status of service members and those dependents accompanying them can be a difficult negotiation. What if a country demands a SOFA that prohibits individuals in same sex relationships? What about the criminal liability of civilian dependents in a foreign nation with strongly anti-gay laws? How will these considerations affect command sponsorship of a spouse for an overseas tour? The DoD news release mentions only that the Pentagon will be “reviewing” these issues.

Of course, the battle is not over.  Only 12 states, including the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages. For example, there is a patchwork quilt of veterans’ benefits that may not be available to those spouses living in states that don’t recognize same sex marriages. The devil will be in the details.

If the Pentagon moves to adopt these administrative benefits for gay service members and their families within 6 to 12 weeks, as formally stated this week, it would set the bench mark as the most efficient of all government agencies to implement equality. Perhaps the old infantry phrase “follow me” will prove to be true.  Progress on marriage equality in America could very well be led by the armed forces.

The image of the Pentagon is courtesy via Wikimedia Commons.

Bridget 150Bridget Wilson is an attorney in private practice in San Diego, California, where she practices military law, including boards, courts-martial and appeals.  She has assisted thousands of service members in fighting the U.S. military’s anti-LGBT policies for more than three decades. 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

Trump Threatens to Violate Gag Order and Go to Jail: ‘I’ll Do That Sacrifice Any Day’

Published

4 mins ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Just hours after a New York State Supreme Court Justice held Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for violating his gag order and threatened him with jail time, the ex-president attacked several of the judges overseeing his cases, and suggested he may violate the gag order for the good of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and says you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day,” Trump claimed.

Trump is on trial for 34 criminal felonies for falsification of business records, which experts describe as election interference after he paid “hush money” to an adult film actress in an effort to keep his alleged affair away from the public eye just before the 2016 presidential election.

The ex-president, who announced his 2024 run for the White House, insiders say, to escape prosecution for a wide variety of alleged crimes, began his Monday post-trial news conference with reporters by criticizing the prosecution’s announcement it expects to wrap up its portion of the trial in about two weeks.

READ MORE: ‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

“The government just said that they want two to three more weeks,” Trump complained. “That means they want to get me off the [campaign] trail for two to three more weeks. Now, anybody in there would realize that there’s no case, they don’t have a case. Every legal scholar says they don’t have a case. This is just a political witch. It’s election interference. And this is really truly election interference, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace, and in every poll I’m leading by a lot.”

Those statements are false.

The New York Post reports, “Prosecutor Josh Steinglass estimated that the DA’s office would wrap up its case around May 21, two weeks from tomorrow. But he cautioned that’s a ‘rough estimate.'”

Concluding the District Attorney’s Office did have a case, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts.

A great many legal scholars say there is a case.

There is no evidence of a “political witch-hunt.”

Trump is not leading in all the polls, nor, in all the ones he is leading in, is he leading by “a lot.” Nor do political candidates get exempt from prosecution because they may be leading in a particular poll.

The ex-president went on to claim prosecutors “figure maybe they can do something here, maybe they can do, this case should be over, this case should have never been brought.”

“And then Alvin Bragg brought the case, as soon as, when I’m running and leading, that’s when they decided, let’s go bring a case. So it’s a disgrace. But we just heard two to three more weeks. I thought that we’re finished today and they are finished today. We look at what’s happening. I thought they were going to be finished today and then 2 to 3 more weeks,” he again complained, again saying prosecutors “all want to keep me off the campaign trail. That’s all this is about. This about election interference. How do we stop it? And it’s a disgrace.”

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Trump then brought up the gag order.

“Where I can basically, I have to watch every word I tell you people, you asked me a question, a simple question I’d like to give it but I can’t talk about it,” he claimed, falsely.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and say you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day.”

Trump attacked three of judges overseeing his case, excluding U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.

“But what’s happening here is a disgrace and the appellate courts ought to get involved. New York looks so bad, system of so called justice was so bad between this judge and [Judge Arthur] Engoron and [Judge Lewis] Kaplan the triple teamed with the corrupt judges is a disgrace to our nation. So I should be out there campaigning.”

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Last year in January, in the wake of a study that found 650,000 children have developed asthma because of gas stoves, Bloomberg News reported: “US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears.”

There was no ban in the works or on the way, and the chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was forced to issue a statement promising, “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

Republicans however, went on the attack, with some, like U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a physician, shouting on social media, “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”

Congressman Jackson soon doubled-down, appearing on Newsmax.

One month later, West Virginia Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin teamed up with several Republicans to protect Americans’ “right” to non-electric cooking.

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

“Gas stoves have been in the news lately and I’ve come out strongly against the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuing any ban of gas stoves,” Manchin declared, despite there being no possibility of that. “In fact, I’m introducing legislation today with Senator [Ted] Cruz that would ensure that they don’t and separately sending a letter to the commission with Senator [James] Lankford.”

For decades the scientific community has known about the health dangers of gas stoves, but Americans love them and there are no plans to have any federal government agency coming to take them away.

The Biden administration would like to help Americans buy new, energy-saving home appliances, but Republicans oppose those efforts as well.

Nearly sixteen months later, Republicans are still working to protect Americans from what some have suggested will be the federal government knocking on the doors of U.S. citizens to take away their gas stoves.

Last month, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson was all set to revive the House’s focus on ensuring Americans can continue to grill baby grill – indoors – childhood asthma-be-damned, and nearly put HR 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, and several others on the floor for votes, including:

The “Liberty in Laundry Act” (HR 7673), the “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act (HR 7645), the “Refrigerator Freedom Act” (HR 7637), the “Affordable Air Conditioning Act” (HR 7626), and the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act” (HR 7700).

But at the last minute he changed the schedule after aid to Ukraine and Israel became the national focus.

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports Monday, “the ‘Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act’ … will likely reach the floor this week, possibly as early as tomorrow.”

One year ago this month, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) delivered amusing remarks during a House hearing.

“I want to apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party that we have decided to put kids’ safety, in their neighborhoods from getting gunned down, in movie theaters, or grocery stores, or school churches, or synagogues – we as Democrats have clearly lost our way that we are not focused on appliances,” Moskowitz said sarcastically in a viral video.

Now he’s back, along with the House Republicans’ renewed focus on the false fear-mongering the federal government is coming for your home appliances, or is going to ban them.

In response to Axios’ Andrew Solender reporting, “Appliance Week is BACK in the House!” Congressman Moskowitz replied, “Israel aid, Ukraine aid, Humanitarian aid, Kitchenaid.”

He then grew even more sarcastically excited:

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem continues to make media appearances promoting her new book, which has received massive attention for the story about her shooting to death her 14-month old dog, Cricket, and a goat, and her reportedly false claim she met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But in discussing that apparent lie that appears in her book, Noem appeared to tell a few more – and seemed to suggest she may have actually met with Kim Jong Un but should not have put that meeting in her memoir. Experts have said it’s unlikely she did meet with him.

“The book is called, ‘No Going Back,’ but it sounds like the publisher, Center Street, is going back on a couple of the details in the book,” CBS Mornings told Noem.

“Well, I don’t believe so,” Noem replied.

After hearing the apparently false details of her alleged meeting with Kim Jong Un being read on-air straight from her book, Noem explained, “when I became aware of that we changed the content, and the future editions will be adjusted.”

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

Noem also said she’s “met with many, many world leaders, I’ve traveled around the world. I should not have put that anecdote in the book, and at my request they have removed it.”

She was then asked, “That specifically didn’t happen?” but Noem appeared to brush off the question.

“What I’m saying is I’m not talking about that meeting, I’m not talking about my meetings with world leaders, there are some that are in the book and there’s some that are not in the book.”

Asked, “Did you tell your ghost writer to write that?” Noem refused to answer the question.

“I specifically have worked on policy for over 30 years, and over that time I have traveled around the world and met with leaders around the world. And that anecdote, I’ve asked them to change the content, and it will be removed.”

“It’s a simple question, did you or did you not meet with Kim Jong Un?”

“That’s the answer that I have for you,” Noem replied.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

She also did not tell CBS why she chose to put it in the book at all, if she knew it was false.

Noem does not mention that she recorded the audio book version for “No Going Back,” and would have read those words about meeting with the North Korean dictator aloud, yet apparently did not ask her publisher to remove it until a local newspaper, The Dakota Scout, published a report starting her account of the event was “in doubt.”

On Sunday, Noem first began to suggest the meeting might have taken place. Speaking with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Axios reported, “Noem declined to talk about specific meetings she had with various world leaders, and never outright said she didn’t meet with Kim during the interview.”

A CBS News transcript of that interview shows “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan saying, “you released video of your recording of the audio book. you didn’t catch these errors when you were recording it?”

“Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected,” Noem responded, before leaping into an attack on the media.

Also on Sunday, The Independent reported, “North Korea experts say it’s highly unlikely Ms Noem ever met the North Korean leader.”

“From 2011 to 2018, Mr Kim did not leave North Korea, according to University of Notre Dame professor and North Korea expert George Lopez.” The Independent added, “Benjamin Young, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an expert on North Korea, told The Dakota Scout that Ms Noem’s account of meeting Kim was ‘dubious.'”

“I cover North Korea very closely, and I have never heard of Kim Jong Un meeting congressmen or congresswomen,” Young said.

Watch Noem’s full CBS interview from Monday below or at this link.

READ MORE: RFK Jr., Embracing Far-Right, Spoke at Fundraiser for Anti-Government Group With J6 Ties

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.