Until DOMA is repealed or amended there will be no benefits for GLBT military spouses.

[originalpckelly]

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html

The new law repealing DADT specifically mentions that service members who might be married in the states where it is legal, cannot and will not receive any benefits for their spouses, like straight couples in the military.

"(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ and referred to as the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’)."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-4023

I think we need to press on, even next year, to make sure these folks get their due benefits. Even if you have DOMA for all regular Americans, please just let these people be exempt from it. They deserve better than this.

I say this, and I won't even benefit in any way, shape, or form from any changes. In other words, this is not selfish in any way. I just want these people to have their due benefits. They deserve it.

Can you imagine what it will be like for a GLBT soldier serving overseas, to know they will not be able to know their loved ones are protected?

What we have coming will be better than the status quo, but it's still discrimination.

[stopbush]

1. That's why DOMA will be the next thing to get repealed.

[originalpckelly]

4. Oh, that's not going to be easy.

If you do it all the way, that means state determination of gay marriage will not even be real anymore. Why outlaw marriage in your state, when someone could just go to another state, get married and return and have all the benefits of being married?

That's not going to happen without a big fight, and with a Republican House it will be impossible. But maybe it could be if there was a big enough, strong enough movement to push them into it.

I think we need to seriously change some minds. Hopefully, the successful repeal of DADT will encourage people and show them that it's just not that scary.

[peacebird]

8. neither was repealing DADT, but it got done.

We just need to keep putting one foot in front of the other and move forward a step a time. Though for me it helps if we can at least spend some time celebrating the latest win instead deriding it as imperfect and pointing out how far we have to go.... Why can't we pause a moment to reflect on how far FORWARD we have come, instead of always focusing on how much further it is to the mountain top?

[patrice]

5. Is that going to have to be state-by-state? "We" just elected Sam Brownback here

I mean, I'm not certain I want to live in a state that can't respect everyone's Civil Rights, so can this be done at the federal level?

[originalpckelly]

9. I have two thoughts on this:

1. We could go through the courts, but that's undemocratic.
2. Most people will eventually be cool with gay marriage in the future, though they're going to be weirded out now. Once they see that it's just not a world-ending issue, they'll be cool with it. Eventually, it will be widely accepted and people who hold bigoted viewpoints will be ostracized, just like racist groups are today.

Progressives often win the war in the long run. We may lose battles from time to time, but progress usually wins out.

[TheKentuckian]

10. You fight the war on as many fronts as possible and win by any means available

Rights are not up for a vote.

[patrice]

11. The churches and the CoC are REALLY powerful here. Brownback has appointed a state Repealer.

We don't know what's going to happen. There's a minister here who has said positive things about Civil War II against Women's right to choose reproductive services, which could be synched with Kansas DOMA. I expect our LGBT community will put up a fight for this state, but if they lose I'm pretty sure they'll leave and we'll lose some valuable people, certainly quality of life will decline with friends moving away.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[CTyankee]

3. DOMA must be repealed or otherwise declared unconstitutional.

But I can hear people now saying it's a cost issue...depressing...

[originalpckelly]

6. That's the real reason they'd all go along with it.

It probably won't cost that much more to implement this policy. But true equality would mean recognizing gay marriages and rolling out the dough for their benefits.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. There are a number of issues like this...national policy needs to be clear and explicit, supported

by legislation. A major risk to Roe V Wade is since it is only a court decision it could be reversed tomorrow. Harder with Federal law.

[CTyankee]

12. I understand this objection (it has been made for years and years and years).

Fine. We should legislate this. Forget Brown v. Bd of Ed. I get it.

But even a "national policy supported explicitly supported by legislation" could be rejected again and again and again...just like what happened in Connecticut when citizens and doctors went to the state house time and time again to reverse the state's rejection of birth control finally resorted to what became Griswold v. Connecticut. And thank god for that...

[customerserviceguy]

13. I'm looking for the SCOTUS to toss out DOMA

It violates the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, and since we have validly recognized legal same-gender marriage in a handful of states, the other states will just have to recognize them.

In matters of Federal law, the US government always recognizes the states' rights to define marriage as they see fit. The IRS always follows community property law in the states with that variation of marital property rights, for instance.

There's a long tradition of the Supreme Court having the Feds follow state law in unpopular forms of marriage, such as interracial marriage. The only exception I can think of is not recognizing plural marriage in Utah, but at the time, Utah was not a state.