Damn, your husband’s getting more “same-sex semi-sexual contact” than a lot of gay guys I know.
In the end, a majority of the members of the US military can be counted on to observe (a) proper military discipline - when the lawful order comes, you say Yes Sir/Ma’am and perform to accomplish the mission and (b) basic human decency towards their comrades. It was kind of annoying and disrespectful that some of the crusty politicians seemed to believe otherwise.
It also helps a lot that it is a volunteer military, so if you’re too disgusted you can always leave at the end of your enlistment; but even if you’re an older-generation upper enlisted or middle-grade officer, who may be uncomfortable with gays, you still are going to think twice about throwing away your career just for this. As someone else mentioned, there’ll probably always be some internal *social *selection as to where it’s most comfortable - Marine Infantry will probably continue to affect typical macho mores for quite a while, as opposed to, say, USAF health care.
I predicted years ago it’d largely be a non event.
Of course, that’s because I served through the Canadian military’s rescinding of anti-homosexual rules, and despite predictions of doom, it was a non-event. It was obvious that it would be a non-event.
As JRDelirious points out, it’s a volunteer military and most of the people in it, even if they have opposing personal views, are going to follow orders and do their jobs, rather than raising a shit-fit about something that doesn’t really much affect them personally. If you don’t like it, find another job.
For the sake of thoroughness, let’s also note that until DOMA has been repealed, same-sex spouses will continue to be denied the benefits afforded to other, mixed-sex spouses.
That’s missing the point entirely. There’s a standard of what a ‘spouse’ is, that while DOMA is still in place, rules out the possibility of a same-sex spouse.
Pardon my densocity, but I don’t understand how DOMA can negate a legal marriage performed in a state which recognizes same-sex marriages. To obtain dependent benefits, a service member needs to show a valid, registered, raised-seal (or similar stamp) marriage certificate.
~VOW
The Full Faith & Credit Clause requires states to recognize the acts of other states. It doesn’t require the federal government to recognize the acts of states, so Congress can make sure it doesn’t.
Actually it isn’t. Until DOMA, the federal government has always left the definition of marriage to the states. This practice is so well-established that the federal courts will not take even take diversity jurisdiction in domestic relations cases (though they otherwise could), preferring instead to leave that matter to the state courts. Note also that the Constitution does not commit the power to make domestic relations law to the federal government (although setting standards for the receipt of federal benefits is an inherent power of the federal goverment, within other Constitutional parameters, such as the Equal Protection Clause or the Establishment Clause, etc. etc.).
Thus, the only reason a supposed federal standard of spouse came about was to do an end-run around the evolution of the bodies that had hitherto been the determiners of that standard.
I really didn’t know if I’d see the end of DADT in my lifetime, but now that it’s gone, I think we’ll see full spousal benefits pretty shortly. Fighting same-gender spousal benefits seems like an expensive delaying of the inevitable, not to mention seeming mean-spirited, spiteful and petty.
According to my dad, you put a boat on a ship. Except a submarine. 
I’d expect to see more tolerance among the officers, frankly, as they’re as a group more educated than enlisted servicepeople, right?
It’s really impossible to come up with a better, less offensive, symbol of DADT’s demise than that. Incidentally, the Pentagon’s PR arm has a bigger budget than the entire State Department.
ETA: Thus, the only reason a supposed federal standard of spouse came about was to do an end-run around the evolution of the bodies that had hitherto been the determiners of that standard.
… And therefore, saying that same-sex spouses merely stand in the same position as other, unmarried mixed-sex couples pretends that DOMA has any other warrant for its existence besides animosity to gay couples.
You missed one - young. And that makes all the difference. All the homophobes I knew in the Army were approaching 40. The lower enlisted are generally 18-24.
Speaking as a vet, I think the differences in attitudes you’ll find in different occupational specialties is greater than enlisted vs. officer. The medical branches are one big gay party compared to your average tank unit or something, where just walking alone a night can be dangerous, gay or straight.
There’s no pretense here. No suggestion of a moral decision one way or another. The Army (and, I imagine, the other branches) is pretty fantastic about applying regulations to their letter, without trying to apply the sort of judgement-based reasoning you’re assuming here.
The reasons behind DOMA are irrelevant to the military’s decision, only its legality. You can hardly deny that it does have an impact on the legal definition of marriage for a federal organization.
Before anyone gets all complacent…
Has anyone recently checked the living arrangements of dogs and cats?
These might also be of interest:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/20/earlyshow/main20108774.shtml
So how long until a legally married gay couple takes their case to the Supreme Court to have their marriage recognized by DoD?
The reaction by most of the personnel that this is a “non-issue” simply reiterates something I said years ago: the “legality” of gays in the military will simply acknowledge something that has been in existence ALL ALONG.
~VOW
I recall that there were predictions of mass migration out of the armed forces if DADT was repealed. Does anyone here know of anyone who actually left based on this? or was it more along the lines of people vowing to go to Canada if George Bush was re-elected.
When a person is complaining about a law that denies recognition and benefits to same-sex marriages, isn’t it a little bit pointless to say “Well, of course they can’t get the benefits of marriage - the law says they aren’t married.” That’s exactly the problem being complained about.