Gov't opposes full severance pay for military gays

[brentspeak]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON — Two days after repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays serving openly in the military, the Obama administration was in court Thursday opposing a lawsuit seeking full severance pay for those dismissed under the law.

The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking class action status for 142 people who only got half pay after their discharge because of being gay. But the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to dismiss the case.

Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller said she probably will let the case continue and questioned why the government wouldn't pay now that the law has changed.

"Your timing is exquisite — two days after the policy goes into effect eliminating `don't ask, don't tell,' here we are," she said as she took the bench.

Read more: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/22/7905479-govt-opposes-full-severance-pay-for-military-gays

[mike_c]

1. because gays just haven't been discriminated against enough yet....

Sheesh.

[Major Hogwash]

2. No, because its ex post facto.

Applying the change in policy to a previous period in time.

[pasto76]

8. see, thats what I would go with as well.

policy changes all the time, and you have to serve in the now, so to speak. Back then it was against policy to be gay in uniform. Now it isnt. Discharged gay soldiers should now receive full pension.

It's not fair. But many things in life are not. I do not think they will win this one.

[brentspeak]

4. It gets even more outrageous when one figures this is Eric Holder's "Justice" Dept at work

Holder is so pathologically resistant to prosecuting the big banks responsible for the financial crisis -- who should ordinarily be the most obvious targets of a Justice Department investigation -- that he is willing to tie up and divert his department's resources by going after even a small handful of previously-discriminated-against armed service members

[EvilMonsanto]

3. no Ifs And Buts

Firstly I'm not that fond of don't ask don't tell
I would never be present in such a rally

not because I don't think gays can be soldiers, OF COURSE THEY CAN
but because I can't agree with "Gays should be able to participate in these immoral wars"
That itself is an anti-gay argument, at least to me

But anyhow, this is wrong
no ifs and buts, this is hypocritical

[xchrom]

5. Add this to Teh List. Nt

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Obama goes to court to fight severance pay for military gays:

"Fierce Advocate," heh! Time for a pretty picture diary to distract, and don't forget to drag out that weak-tea "List" of GLBT Obama "accomplishments." But in the meat and potatoes of the law, Obama is firmly AGAINST equality. "God's in the mix!" The evidence is varied, long-standing, and on-record. The conclusion is inescapable: Obama says one thing (a LIE), then comes out swinging with his true anti-GLBT agenda (like this lawsuit). Donnie "ex-gay" McClurkin and Rev. Rick "Uganda" Warren were NOT "accidents." IMOO.

[InkAddict]

7. Only 142 got screwed - at least they weren't born in 1947 - look at the

injustice ex post facto here:

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/bad-news-for-people-born-in-1947/

If you were born in 1947, Social Security has bad news for you and your retirement planning. Because of a peculiarity in the way Social Security is calculated, you are going to be shorted thousands of dollars' worth of retirement benefits -- unless Congress fixes the new "notch."

Here's the deal: According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the calculations on which Social Security is based aren't adjusted for inflation or even for an increase in earnings for people between the ages of 60 and 62. Most of the time that doesn't make any difference, but if you were born in 1947, you entered that hiatus in 2008, the year that Social Security recipients got a record-high 5.8 percent cost-of-living increase -- payable in January 2009 -- followed by two years of no increases.

Missing the increase means that people born in 1947 fall permanently behind. The center calculates that an average couple born in 1947 and claiming Social Security at 62 would receive a monthly payment of $2,374, $749 per year less than they would have received if they had been born in 1946. If they survive to 83, which is how long Social Security's actuaries think they'll live, this couple will get nearly $12,729 in lifetime benefits less than they would without this "notch."

Center researcher Andrew Biggs, who was previously the principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, recommends a quick fix. He would make benefits for those born in 1947 comparable to what those born in 1946 get by giving the 1947 crowd a 3.5 percent immediate raise. At the very least, he would give them a 2.7 percent increase, which would keep them in line with the amount received by those born between 1930 and 1946.

[Swede Atlanta]

9. In general I support this President but...............

He has shown his support for LGBT in very strange ways like initially defending DOMA with a stereo-type baiting argument followed by this. I'm not sure if it is a question of the left hand and right hand not knowing what they other is doing or not but this is pretty bad.