Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

EssoEssex OP t1_isrojpl wrote

>The change applies to survivors who -- because of bans before a Supreme Court ruling that year making gay marriage a constitutional right -- weren't wed long enough before their spouse died to qualify for benefits under the previous policy.
>
>"VA is closing a gap in benefits for surviving spouses of LGBTQ+ veterans, righting a wrong that is a legacy of the discriminatory federal ban on same-sex marriages," VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a statement Oct. 13. "It is VA's mission to serve all veterans -- including LGTBQ+ veterans -- as well as they've served our country, and this decision is a key part of that effort."

Between 1993 and 2011, an estimated 14,000 U.S. troops were discharged other-than-honorably because of sexual orientation; just imagine all the gay soldiers that made it through without getting outed. Post-Don't Ask Don't Tell, we know it's roughly 6% of the whole military, and probably was before it, too. In between 2001 and 2011, over 7,000 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Six percent of that is at least four hundred; and it's great their service is being recognized.

317

sapphicsandwich t1_iss6smk wrote

The worst thing about realizing I was trans in the military was seeing people be horrific to gay people and literally beat up people for being gay while I was deployed. Particularly the Filipino workers they would bring in who would do things like hold hands (from what I could tell, not even gay, just different culture). Getting shot at by people who wanted to harm me, while being surrounded Marines who would happily do the same.

203

Letouristeperdu t1_istho0l wrote

Which is interesting bc gay chicken often went way to far in that branch.

Or not far enough ;)

17

sapphicsandwich t1_istsxnj wrote

Oh yeah, most homoerotic branch for sure. But the whole joke is based on the idea that it's "icky." If they found out you enjoy it unironically...

15

captain-burrito t1_isu96iu wrote

> Particularly the Filipino workers they would bring in who would do things like hold hands (from what I could tell, not even gay, just different culture).

That just makes me so sad.

14

PlainSimpleElim t1_isscw7p wrote

Did the Supreme Court make gay marriage a constitutional right? I thought they simply banned states from making it illegal.

21

gorillatick t1_issjqcs wrote

They confirmed marriage in general is a right, adopting the same language as Loving v Virginia (which permits interracial marriage). By the Equal Protection concept, government can’t protect rights for some and not others. The same legal logic protects gay marriage and interracial marriage in the US. Both rulings are much stronger than Roe, but not as strong as an actual law passed by Congress.

46

Lallo-the-Long t1_isszr13 wrote

>Both rulings are much stronger than Roe, but not as strong as an actual law passed by Congress.

That's not really accurate. Look at how much work Republicans put into overturning Roe (and threatening Loving and Obergefell). It wasn't just a matter of having control of the house and Senate. They had to control the Senate long enough to force their justice picks through. If Roe v Wade were just a law passed by Congress, it could also be overturned by Congress much easier than disrupting a supreme court ruling.

18

gorillatick t1_ist0axi wrote

I mean, we’re a representative democracy. Nothing is set in stone.

8

Lallo-the-Long t1_ist0yew wrote

Of course, but a supreme court ruling that the constitution protects lgbt people too is much stronger than a law passed by Congress. Same with Roe v Wade. That ruling was much stronger than any simple bill passed by Congress.

12

treefitty350 t1_istnyik wrote

You say that, but my state votes 55/45 Red/Blue and the representation we have is 75/25. This state is fucked, possibly forever. Republicans here would have to grow a conscience and willingly give up power to redraw district lines fairly, which will literally never happen.

6

P-W-L t1_isujph0 wrote

That's why for stuff that will be a new basis for all future laws to come you write them directly in the constitution.

1

Lallo-the-Long t1_isukytg wrote

The supreme court is responsible for interpreting the constitution. Including the part of the constitution that talks about the unlisted freedoms that are guaranteed to citizens. Which is the basis for things like obergefell, loving, and roe.

1

P-W-L t1_isun7je wrote

But if you want to make double sure a constitutional right is respected, nothing stops you from marking it black on white in the constitution, something even disagreeing Justices could not interprete how they want.

You can always change the constitution back if there is a true political change wanted, it's just much, much harder to do. (makes sense it's not supposed to evolve at every law)

1

Lallo-the-Long t1_isunprf wrote

Lots of things prevent that, namely, the inane restrictions on making constitutional amendments combined with the wildly contentious climate of the political parties. Besides, you just said that we should make the basis of every law a constitutional amendment and then now you're saying that it's not supposed to do that.

1

P-W-L t1_isuss48 wrote

What I meant is that constitutional amendments are a big deal as you said. It's stronger than any supreme court ruling they can turn around as they want a few years later.

1

captain-burrito t1_isu9vo0 wrote

Congress has no constitutional authority to pass a law legalizing same sex marriage other than pertaining to parts of marriage that affects the federal branch such as federal taxes, immigration purposes.

Marriage is a state right unless their laws conflict with the constitution.

The recent bill they are wanting to pass to protect marriage in congress contains a part which obligates states to recognize same sex marriages from other state. If Obergefell is overturned that part of the law will likely be overturned too.

2

Huntercd76 t1_issdxhy wrote

It's partly a tax issue as well. Government would have to say tax credits for marriage are no longer a thing.

10

yungrii t1_isrs2e6 wrote

Supreme Court : "Yoink!"

😔

64

neoikon t1_isswnpg wrote

It's great to see this labeled as uplifting news.

26

electric-angel t1_ist7v8e wrote

how would it not be?

10

Ok_Skill_1195 t1_istf1ow wrote

Like a third of the country is vitriolically homophobic. They've been pretty focused on trans women lately, but they would definitely have less than positive takes on this if they were made aware

42

electric-angel t1_isurgjl wrote

so its subjective ?

honestly though what has trans to do with homophobia. dislike of one state of human isnt dislike of another. if we even should be comparing those 2 human traits,

1

MyHoopT t1_itd8syu wrote

Yes but there is considerable overlap between the homophobes and transphobes.

1

electric-angel t1_itemddg wrote

Is there i find there are nearly non who argue against rights of gay persons while trans rights or atleast trans issues have far more opposition

0

MyHoopT t1_iteu6s2 wrote

Just visit your local church or school board in the Midwest or south and you’ll see the overlap. Actually I’ll add some more. Check out Parler, 4chan, 8chan, Bitchute, and iFunny. Or check out r/ForwardsFromKlandma and you’l get a bunch of examples.

2

electric-angel t1_itgfg4g wrote

So joke and humor sides?

0

MyHoopT t1_itgmeta wrote

It’s more like hateful propaganda thinly veiled behind memes.

2

electric-angel t1_itgni3r wrote

But there also memes? Jokes And propaganda is just a word

So are you disliking people voicing there opinions?

0

MyHoopT t1_itgo8go wrote

No, I’m disliking them for their opinions. Not the fact they are expressing it. Their opinions are racist, queer-phobic, antisemitic, and often include views and imagery related to nazism and theocracy.

2

electric-angel t1_itgpfxx wrote

That seems like a stereo type

0

[deleted] t1_itgqajr wrote

[removed]

2

electric-angel t1_itgvayz wrote

Thats the core of hatred and close mindedness Taking one impression of 1 trait of a person and then generalizing it. 1 bad trait must mean the whole person is bad. You do t know me we have talked once now. Wouldnt it be a little arrogant to assume tou have a good image of who i am.

0

MyHoopT t1_ith69qo wrote

No it isn’t a generalization. Because you showed sympathy for neo Nazis. Fascism as an ideology lead to the deadliest conflict in human history killing an estimated 50 to 80 million people. Anything remotely humane as anti-fascist, I’m not arguing with you any further.

This conversation is over. I got a cheese board waiting for me.

2

electric-angel t1_ithb6nl wrote

Generalisation is at the root of nazisim. I should know i can find there scrap in the fields around town.

0

TheJasonaut t1_ist8uu8 wrote

Hey, an actual win these days, heck ya! I mean, should be a given, but good none the less.

15

Bhimtu t1_issuez1 wrote

Good. It's about time.

9

TheGeckomancer t1_isu24v6 wrote

While this is extremely good news... Medical care AND affirming LGBTQ people as HUMANS?! I don't know what branch of government will fuck this but in our current political climate, I don't expect this decision to last long. Not sure what branch determines this but between the supreme court and the house.... I just see the right tanking this.

7

AutoModerator t1_isroc71 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Nigredo78 t1_istb2j2 wrote

cool, now lets clear the backlog of people still waiting since 1976

−1

KungFuDabu t1_ist43ji wrote

This policy will get abused by the junior enlisted warriors.

−29

page_one t1_istc09s wrote

Conservatives claimed that, if same-sex marriage was legalized, then same-sex straight people would be getting married just for the tax/healthcare benefits--that was even the plot of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry". Turns out, pretty much nobody is actually doing this (and besides, opposite-sex straight people have been able to do this all along).

30

KungFuDabu t1_istfaz4 wrote

Come to the barracks with me and they'll tell you who no longer lives there and why.

Do you know what junior enlisted warriors do to get out of the barracks?

−20

ProbablyTrueMaybe t1_isthlpw wrote

The same thing they've been doing for decades. When DADT was repealed men and women werent going out in droves to marry into a same sex contract marriage, but they did continue to marry the first person that afforded them the escape. This isn't going to change that. Please stop rehashing old arguments.

15

KungFuDabu t1_istkd00 wrote

Lots of stright folks in the barracks are getting married to each other and getting out the barracks. Before they actually had to convice some random girl to marry them. Now all they need is someone to be a roomate to double their income and to get out the barracks. Who wouldn't do it?

−18

Narthan11 t1_isu1po9 wrote

Convince some random girl to marry you 😊 Convince some random guy to marry you 😡

8

KungFuDabu t1_isu6uxa wrote

It's a lot easier to ask a fellow marine to marry you for the benefits than a random girl.

−2

007meow t1_isv2cah wrote

You’d have been able to do that ever since DADT and Obergefell. Nothing about this policy change allows junior enlisted to do more than they could have before.

This is for surviving spouses.

It doesn’t change the rules for BAH.

If junior enlisted were going to do the kind of scam you’re suggesting, then they could have been doing so for years.

3

Redditis4npcs t1_ist01oy wrote

As a disabled OIF vet I don't find this uplifting. Feels much more like empty virtue signaling... all the while veterans will remain criminally under served and continue to commit suicide because of the VA's incompetence, disrespect, and gross neglect.

​

But ya know... good for the gays I guess. Now they can be treated like equal shit like the rest of us.

−41

very_loud_icecream t1_istby9z wrote

>VA is closing a gap in benefits for surviving spouses of LGBTQ+ veterans, righting a wrong that is a legacy of the discriminatory federal ban on same-sex marriages

​

>Feels much more like empty virtue signaling

So enacting real change is what virtue signalling means now? Got it.

​

>all the while veterans will remain criminally under served..

Dont disagree with the rest of your comment though

27

avoidgettingraped t1_isu6drq wrote

His comment history makes clearer where he's coming from.

"Do you think the years of anti-white rhetoric and dehumanization of white people in corporate media had something to do with this?"

"They're only women when democrats are trying to rape them."

"Isn't it clear to everyone that black teens are targeting white people? The days of me caring about being called racist for pointing this out are long gone."

"y'all really don't smell anything wrong with the obvious sexulization of children recently? You really don't see how "trans" identity is being used by the powers that be?"

Not to mention more racism, antivax sentiments and vax conspiracy theories, 9-11 conspiracies, anti0Muslim bigotry, and more.

The guy is a walking stereotype.

No wonder he doesn't understand why this news is positive.

18

very_loud_icecream t1_isufafm wrote

No surprise. u/Redditis4npcs pretends they're only mad because the policy is "virtue signalling," because thats a more socially acceptable criticism. But really they just dont like the idea of righting a historical wrong against gay people.

10

waxillium_ladrian t1_isubpr4 wrote

Sure, your "disability". We all definitely believe you're "disabled", Skippy.

Hush. Your service meant nothing.

4

Redditis4npcs t1_isul1z6 wrote

You tell me, sport... what do you know about it?

−2

waxillium_ladrian t1_isunoxv wrote

I know that if you really do have a disability (doubtful) you deserve it for who you are as a person.

0

[deleted] t1_issg2jx wrote

[removed]

−55

Mediamuerte t1_isssz3m wrote

Your personally don't agree with the way they were born? Would you say that about a person for the color of their skin or about someone who was born needing a wheelchair?

39

DextersApprentice t1_isswtwx wrote

I'm not going to downvote you for saying you don't agree with our "choice" because I at least appreciate the sentiment that we deserve equality in your eyes. However, as a trans man who previously identified as a lesbian, I can say 100% not a single choice was made here. I was, as they say, born this way and so was everyone else in the LGBTQ+ community. I'm not going to downvote you but I'm here to simply say that your acceptance from a legal standpoint while you publicly argue that being gay is a choice, is not enough. If you're already in the mindset that we are "equal" or at least deserving of equality then I think we should also be deserving of your understanding.

28

230flathead t1_ist7erp wrote

It's not a choice.

23

deathnoxxx t1_isumfjz wrote

that’s debatable… show me the science and i’ll disprove it with more science.

−5

230flathead t1_isumtfq wrote

That's bullshit and you know it.

5

deathnoxxx t1_isv0kdu wrote

it’s true… show me the science

−2

230flathead t1_isv0wt6 wrote

Did you choose to be straight?

3

deathnoxxx t1_isv7ygu wrote

i was influenced to be this way by my genetics and the environment i was raised in.

0

230flathead t1_isv93nr wrote

>i was influenced to be this way by my genetics

So you're saying you were born that way.

3

deathnoxxx t1_isveawn wrote

it’s a combination of many factors not just one and hard to duplicate consistently. that’s why so many different groups of scientists cannot agree on is it nature or nurture, it’s a bit of everything and it’s difficult to repeat consistently and im talking about traits and genetics not homosexuality. sure we can do some but there are many more complex things we don’t even come close to. like curing cancers, how to get rid of psychopathy.

1

230flathead t1_isvg185 wrote

Why do you think being gay is a choice? Why would anyone want to be ostracized by people like you who think they chose to be that way?

2

[deleted] t1_isvhwva wrote

[removed]

1

230flathead t1_isvimd0 wrote

What? I'm asking you. Why do you think people choose to be gay?

2

deathnoxxx t1_iswj2i4 wrote

i’ve never-claimed to know the cause of your deviant behaviour, all i know is that like any other species on this planet our main goal or directive is to continue the species. like any other life form, from single cell to animal to us our goal is to propagate. to simply eat, sleep, produce… evolve. why do you think we’re here?

0

MycenaeanGal t1_isst1tq wrote

Wait are you just speaking hypothetically or do you not agree with people being gay?

17

deathnoxxx t1_isunnl1 wrote

people have the inherent freedom to be whatever they want to be, just as everyone else has the same freedom not to accept this.

−1

deepfriedleaves t1_isutlsy wrote

white supremacists don't accept that black people have the same rights as white people, does that make their opinion okay? no. of course, everyone has the "freedom" to believe whatever they'd like, but having freedom =/= their opinion valid or correct.

5

MycenaeanGal t1_isuytp2 wrote

Again, what do you believe?

2

deathnoxxx t1_isv7k00 wrote

as i stated above i believe in freedom. simply put your allowed to love whoever just as the next is allowed to hate whoever.

1

MycenaeanGal t1_isv918k wrote

I don’t believe we should leave it alone if people hate us. That hate can later turn to violence. And I hope you’d agree that violence against me is the ultimate impingement upon my freedom. Societally there just isn’t a case for letting people like that just go about their lives without challenging them and or removing the threat one way or another.

2

deathnoxxx t1_isvds22 wrote

very dangerous grounds you choose to stand upon. starting to look like an oppressor rather than the oppressed.

0

MycenaeanGal t1_isvf13p wrote

What lol???

2

deathnoxxx t1_isvfuji wrote

“Societally there just isn’t a case for letting people like that just go about their lives without challenging them and or removing the threat one way or another.” sounds pretty authoritarian and… sad

−1

MycenaeanGal t1_isvg0rz wrote

How? I’m confused.

2

deathnoxxx t1_iswy3ox wrote

i just quoted what you said

1

MycenaeanGal t1_isxk188 wrote

Well if you agree that I’m not calling for violence like you thought yesterday then I still don’t know what’s authoritarian about that.

2

creativeburrito t1_issigzy wrote

Seriously, outside the bedroom, we all go through challenges. Being a partner to someone, being a team, those benefits should be connected. The slings and arrows of life keep on coming no matter orientation.

8

eatmereddit t1_istxfpf wrote

>The slings and arrows of life keep on coming no matter orientation.

Yeah but you don't get dishonourably discharged from the military for being straight.

You don't lose benefits you risked your life for because you are straight.

7

[deleted] t1_iswucxe wrote

[removed]

1

deathnoxxx t1_iswxs1k wrote

it’s all about choices…

1

EnragedBasil t1_isyv635 wrote

You're factually and morally wrong. It isn't about choice. No one would choose to be bullied and ridiculed for simply being attracted to the same gender/sex. No would would choose to be murdered for liking the same sex/gender if they could just switch their sexual preference. It's not as simple as choosing. Homosexuality is observed in over 1000 and counting different species of animals which are purely instinctually based. No choice there.

3