In Brief to Justices, Former Military Officials Support Same-Sex Marriage

[JonLP24]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — The most influential friend-of-the-court brief in living memory was filed by a group of retired military officers in a 2003 affirmative action case.

<snip>

The law firm that filed the brief, now called Sidley Austin, has filed a new one by former military officials in the same-sex marriage cases to be heard next week. Their message this time is that the patchwork of marriage laws around the country hurts military families and threatens national security.

Most workers can turn down transfers to states that do not recognize their marriages. Members of the military, who are more than twice as likely to relocate than their employed civilian counterparts, do not have that choice.

<snip>

“Those willing to risk their lives for the security of their country should never be forced to risk losing the protections of marriage and the attendant rights of parenthood,” the brief said, “simply because their service obligations require them to move to states that refuse to recognize their marriages.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/us/in-brief-to-justices-former-military-officials-support-same-sex-marriage.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

---

Much more an the link.

[brett_jv]

1. Wow I'd pin a medal on THESE guys, for sure!

This is just flat-out awesome.

Even if ultimately they're more concerned with the nat'l security impact over actually 'caring' about the human rights of the soldiers, it's still just SO FAR from the mentality of the DOTA days, you gotta love it.

And given that IS kinda 'their job' (nat'l security I mean) ...

[JonLP24]

2. I think the concern is with morale mostly

A spouse unwilling to relocate from a state where their marriage is recognized to one with a backwards legislature hurts because having your family there makes it easier to deal with the day-to-day demands. The brief also mentions benefits such as death, loans, & disabilities depends on the laws of the state where the couple resides so the concern seems to be primarily human rights.

In theory, low morale would hurt national security in that you don't have people motivated to do the job so while sometimes you have to speak their language "national security" to address concerns, it is a serious one with the roadblocks in this case so both human rights & national security views are legitimate.