Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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