Navy To Offer Same-Sex Partner Benefits

[carlie]

"Navy to Offer Same-sex Partner Benefits

Week of February 18, 2013

The Department of Defense announced the extension of benefits to same-sex partners to ensure fairness and equal treatment to the extent allowable under law on Feb. 11.

The U.S. Navy will begin offering these benefits no later than Oct. 1.

To qualify, Sailors and their same-sex domestic partner will be required to sign a Declaration of Domestic Partnership, which is similar to that in use by other federal agencies.

Servicemembers will file the declaration at their PSD, where a DD Form 1173 ("dependent" ID card) will then be issued allowing access to benefits.

Children of same-sex domestic partners will also qualify for the ID card and benefits.

Benefit information and updates to policy on benefits for same-sex partners and families will be posted as they become available on Navy's Don't Ask Don't Tell Post Repeal website on Navy Personnel Command's web page under Support and Services.

For more military family support resources, visit the Military.com Family Center."

Full article:

http://www.military.com/military-report/navy-to-offer-same-sex-partner-benefits?ESRC=miltrep.nl

[john999]

I think gays and straights should have exactly the same rights for marriage and spousal benefits. When I was a child I grew up in the south. Blacks could not eat with me as a white, sleep with me as a white, go to school or even go to the toilet with me. We see this now as barbaric. We will see discrimination against gays the same way in a few years. My marriage is not threatened by what other people do. The straight person who lives with someone, and has five children with that person, but never gets married is flouting a system designed to protect all parties.

John

[carlie]

Teac,

According to my good buddy Ron,

Ron on Common Law .tiff

Here's a link for Navy / Marine - Common Law Marriage:

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/61/Docs/HQ%20Svc%20BN/BAH%20Manual%5B1%5D.pdf

" DEPENDENCY DETERMINATION AND BAH MANUAL

4. Common-Law Marriages. A common-law marriage is an informal marriage

recognized as valid in some states and in some foreign countries. For a

common-law marriage to be valid, three required documents must be

provided:

a. a present mutual intent of the parties to contract a marriage;

b. proof of cohabitation; and

c. a representation to the public by the parties that they are

husband and wife.

A common-law marriage, if valid where contracted, is valid elsewhere.

Cohabitation alone will not create a common-law marriage. A

NAVMC Form 10922, with supporting documentation, must be forwarded

to the CMC (MRP-1) for determination and/or approval."

Here's a Link for Air Force - Common Law Marriage

http://www.usafa.edu/superintendent/ja/CommonLawMarriage.cfm?catname=JA

"The provisions for handling questions concerning military benefits for common law spouses are as follows.

First, common law spouses in Colorado may be entitled to the same military benefits as legally married spouses.

The procedure for common law spouses obtaining a military identification card is provided in AFI 36-3026I, Identification Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, Their Eligible Family Members, and Other Eligible Personnel, Para 2.4.2.

The common law marriage must have been entered into within a state that recognizes common law marriages. Colorado recognizes common law marriages as established in the case of Graham v. Graham, 130 Colo. 225, 274 P.2d 605 (1954) and in C.R.S. 14-2-104 (2004). Since a common law marriage is valid in Colorado, it is entitled to be given recognition by the jurisdiction of any other state of the United States. In a common law marriage, the parties are in fact married and the marriage can only be terminated by divorce. To obtain a divorce, the Colorado state divorce procedures must be followed in state court.

There is no specific formula as to how parties become common law married. Generally, the mutual consent or agreement of the parties to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship, establishes a common law marriage.

The assumption of a marital relationship consists of cohabitation as husband and wife. Cohabitation alone does not establish a common law marriage. The strongest evidence of the assumption of a marital relationship is the general reputation in the community that the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife.

The problem with a common law marriage is the difficulty proving the relationship since there is no process for registration of the marriage. It may be subject to challenge at any time if it appears the requirements of a common law marriage have not been met. It will also be more difficult to prove the marriage to governmental agencies for entitlement to benefits.

In order to receive benefits, common law marriages require the sponsor or spouse to prove to the satisfaction of the local legal authority that the relationship is valid (e.g., tax returns, bank statements, statements from disinterested parties attesting the couple was holding themselves out as husband and wife).

A statement from the local legal office attesting to the validity of a common law marriage constitutes acceptable documentation to establish eligibility as a spouse.

Common Law marriage cannot be a sham to collect benefits. The marriage may be scrutinized if it appears not to be valid.

Legal Assistance attorneys can advise clients on common law marriages and produce affidavits for clients, if needed."

You posted,

"Everyone has the legal opportunity to get married, however to redefine the definition of marriage for the sake of a small percentage of the population in my opinion is wrong."

That is simply not true - now the hetero's that you mentioned that have been together

for 20 years - YES - they have had the legal opportunity to be married

BUT for whatever their reasons are - they have CHOSEN to NOT be married.

[Teac]

Teac,

According to my good buddy Ron,

Ron on Common Law .tiff

Also, you posted,

"Everyone has the legal opportunity to get married, however to redefine the definition of marriage for the sake of a small percentage of the population in my opinion is wrong."

NOT SO - NOT 'EVERYONE HAS THE LEGAL OPPORTUNITY TO GET MARRIED'

BUT - Hetero's that have spent time - even your 20 years together one's -

DO HAVE and HAVE LEGALLY HAD, the legal opportunity to get married -

BUT FOR WHATEVER THEIR REASONS ARE,

THEY CLEARLY MADE A CHOICE TO NOT GET MARRIED.

Actually every one does have the legal right, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. ( right or wrong)

Your argument is like comparing apples and oranges, they are not the same, they come from different trees, so they can't be compared...

The same sex community wants the laws changed so that they can call their unions marriage. I don't understand why this is so important to the same sex couple... their union is not the same as a heterosexual couple, and The family unit doesn't look the same.

But again, I am really not intelligent enough to present an argument that supports or denies such unions. I could argue the moral/religious aspects of marriage, but some people don't believe in God so find the argument is moot. I could argue for equal protection but I don't think it is a civil issue.

Life would be so much easier if society did not impose boundaries, however without boundaries society could not function...

When I was in service, at no time did I ever hear of the Army recognizing common law marriage, they didn't exist, at least not as far as the Army was concerned. However, just because I was in a position of authority doesn't mean I knew everything.. So for the sake of argument lets say the Army does recognize common-law marriage and as you stated.... from those states that recognize these marriages. Now if your friend Ron is correct, then wouldn't you think that the Military should only recognize the same sex marriages from only those states that recognize same sex marriages. This however is not the case, the Military has decided to accept same-sex for all issues regardless of what the states have decided.

The biggest problem I see with this issue, is that it comes from the most liberal government in the History of the United states. The majority of Americans find this to be a very hard issue to decide, but once again this administration has decided to ignore laws, skirt laws and change laws by executive order without the consent of the congress, senate or the American People....

This is a states issue, and I firmly believe that the laws that govern this issue will be changed by all of the states in time, the US Government has no authority to decide what is a legal marriage yet they have decided to act as if the issue has been decided by the states. Good bad or indifferent... I really think it has nothing to do with what is right or wrong for the country, but that these decisions are being made based on the liberal political agenda of the current administration and how many votes they can collect in the next election.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Teac

[carlie]

When I was in service, at no time did I ever hear of the Army recognizing common law marriage, they didn't exist, at least not as far as the Army was concerned. However, just because I was in a position of authority doesn't mean I knew everything.. So for the sake of argument lets say the Army does recognize common-law marriage and as you stated.... from those states that recognize these marriages. Now if your friend Ron is correct, then wouldn't you think that the Military should only recognize the same sex marriages from only those states that recognize same sex marriages. This however is not the case, the Military has decided to accept same-sex for all issues regardless of what the states have decided.

The biggest problem I see with this issue, is that it comes from the most liberal government in the History of the United states. The majority of Americans find this to be a very hard issue to decide, but once again this administration has decided to ignore laws, skirt laws and change laws by executive order without the consent of the congress, senate or the American People....

This is a states issue, and I firmly believe that the laws that govern this issue will be changed by all of the states in time, the US Government has no authority to decide what is a legal marriage yet they have decided to act as if the issue has been decided by the states. Good bad or indifferent... I really think it has nothing to do with what is right or wrong for the country, but that these decisions are being made based on the liberal political agenda of the current administration and how many votes they can collect in the next election.

teac,

The issue and topic is benefits for service members and veterans, so don't start throwing the political crap

in there as YOU, surely know better.

http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

No political discussions we are not a political forum our focus is VA disability claims. Political discussions lead to flame wars, it takes up valuable space and is not what this board was set up for. There are many other boards to discuss politics, this is not one of them.

[Teac]

teac,

The issue and topic is benefits for service members and veterans, so don't start throwing the political crap

in there as YOU, surely know better.

http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

No political discussions we are not a political forum our focus is VA disability claims. Political discussions lead to flame wars, it takes up valuable space and is not what this board was set up for. There are many other boards to discuss politics, this is not one of them.

Carrie ,

With all due respect, this issue is more complex than just veterans benefits, and I understand that the rules concerning political discussions, IMHO, there is no other valid reason for these changes to come into being now if not political..... and while I am in not trying to make it a political discussion, it is very hard to discuss the issue without stating the reasons for the policy changes.... with that said.....I will refrain from anymore comments about this issue, because this is a hot potato no matter how one feels, and it could lead to bad feeling among the members...( Heck I got suspended from one board about two years ago because my comments on this very subject, were deemed not acceptable.

Perhaps this issue should not have been open to discussion, but for informational purposes only.......JMHO...

Edited February 19, 2013 by Teac

[carlie]

Carrie ,

With all due respect, this issue is more complex than just veterans benefits, and I understand that the rules concerning political discussions, IMHO, there is no other valid reason for these changes to come into being now if not political..... and while I am in not trying to make it a political discussion, it is very hard to discuss the issue without stating the reasons for the policy changes.... with that said.....I will refrain from anymore comments about this issue, because this is a hot potato no matter how one feels, and it could lead to bad feeling among the members...( Heck I got suspended from one board about two years ago because my comments on this very subject, were deemed not acceptable)

Perhaps this issue should not have been open to discussion, but for informational purposes only.......JMHO...

teac,

DUH - it deals directly with benefits for veterans and service members.

There is plenty of room for discussion - but not for political discussion.

For some reason you see as political - I see it as a civil right matter of equality,

that directly relates to all benefits and protections, enjoyed by those that are

legally recognized as "married".

How about this, try to explain to me how my same-sex partner of over 20 years

having her cremains buried in the same hole as mine at my nearest VA National Cemetery -

negatively effects, changes or belittles the marriage of someone such as yourself

or someone that is recognized as having the benefits and protections of a legally, contractual marriage.

I think we can remain civil and without dragging in politics on this.