It’s amazing that Obama’s defenders like to go on and on about his being so highly intelligent, and like to embellish his adjunct professor position at the University of Chicago Law School to his being a Professor of Constitutional Law.

But if he is a genius and an expert at Constitutional Law, why did he not know that DOMA would invalidate his executive orders extending partner benefits to gay federal employees? Which lie is true?

MARINE TRAINING PRESENTER SCRIPT:
“Federal law and Department of Defense regulations do NOT restrict a Marine or Sailor from designating a same-sex partner as a beneficiary for certain benefits such as the posthumous disbursement of funds from their Thrift-Savings Plan, the selection of a beneficiary for death gratuity and the proceeds from a life insurance policy provided under SGLI, or payment of any unpaid pay and allowances. … The Department of Defense and the Marine Corps currently authorize assignment to military family housing, also known as MFH, to those Marines and Sailors eligible for BAH at the with-dependent rate. Current federal law, including the Defense of Marriage Act, precludes the Department of Defense from providing BAH to Marines and Sailors at the with-dependent rate unless the Marine or Sailor has a statutorily authorized dependent, such as a child.” [This appears intentionally dishonest. They are NOT required to limit MFH to only “those eligible for BAH at the with-dependent rate.” Echoed in Air Force slides script.]

MARINE TRAINING VIGNETTES:
“SITUATION: … A Marine who is known to be gay, recently adopted a son and reports to your office to discuss his Military Family Housing application. … He also requests that his same-sex partner, who is his son’s primary care provider, occupy the quarters as well.
Issues: Benefits and Standards of Conduct. Are there guidelines for same-sex partners occupying Military Family Housing? …
Discussion: You should inform the Marine that because he has a qualifying dependent son that he is indeed authorized Military Family Housing. Local policies regarding live-in child care providers or other non-dependents living in base housing should be followed for the same-sex partner. …” [Those couples who have such minor dependents should not hesitate to use this “workaround”—and threaten to legally challenge any “local policies” that attempt to prevent it.]

NAVY/AIR FORCE/MARINES TRAINING SLIDES:
“Non-dependents are generally NOT authorized to reside in military family housing” [This hedging is encouraging.]

NAVY TRAINING PAMPHLET:
“At this time, given federal definitions, same-sex partners will not be considered dependents for the purpose of benefits eligibility” [This seems to want to have it both way, qualifying with “at this time,” but leaving the impression that they have no choice when, again, some definitions are entirely up to the Secretary of Defense.]

NAVY TRAINING HANDOUT:
“Current Navy policy states that non-dependents are NOT allowed to reside in MFH. There has been no change to this policy.” [Curiously declarative versus the equivocation in the slides.]

“As part of the post-repeal follow-on review, the DoD will REVISIT the issue of benefits and support-resources eligibility, including whether a ‘qualifying relationship’ status should be established for committed same-sex relationships, or for both committed same-sex and committed unmarried opposite-sex relationships, for these purposes. … The DoD and the Navy ARE studying whether some benefits may, consistent with current law, be revised to give the Sailor the discretion to designate a person or persons of their choosing as a beneficiary.” [emphasis mine]

Finally, OF COURSE, Gen. Hummer doesn’t believe it’s “necessary” for the President to issue an executive order banning discretionary benefits discrimination OR the discrimination they are also PREMEDITATIVELY implementing in denying gay and lesbian service members harassed or discrimination against in terms of assignments, evaluations, etc., access to the vital complaint resolutions processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Plan provided to nongays relative to race, gender, ethnicity, and religious and political affiliation. That would mean the Pentagon can’t continue to try to get away with whatever it wants.

Of course, this could all have been avoided in the first place had Obama not backed, per no less than Nancy Pelosi, Secretary Gates’ demand in May of last year that the nondiscrimination mandate in the original repeal bill be gutted.

In short, because actual repeal no longer means actual equality for gay and lesbian troops, our fight is NOT over, but repealing DOMA isn’t necessary to knock down some walls that the Pentagon has arbitrarily built.

This was, hands down, the right thing for the president to do. The
estimated 65,000 active-duty and reserve troops that bravely serve our
nation no longer have to do so in silence this September. The end of
DADT will bring equality to the ranks; an all volunteer force comprised
of Americans from every conceivable background – including lesbian women
and gay men. OutMilitary.com members are happy about Obama’s decision
to finally put an end to a discriminatory chapter in American military
history.

OutMilitary.com provides a supportive environment for “friending,”
sharing and networking between active duty military, veterans and
supporters – around the world.