Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:13 AM Nov 2013

Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples

Source: The New York Times


By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: November 10, 2013

The two women handed a sheaf of official papers, including their 2008 California marriage license, to a clerk who glanced at the documents and declared, “It’s one of those.” She then called over her boss, who told the couple that they would have to travel to a federal military base like Fort Hood, 70 miles to the north, to get the ID, Ms. Butler recalled.

The reason: Texas is one of six states refusing to comply with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s order that gay spouses of National Guard members be given the same federal marriage benefits as heterosexual spouses. Mr. Hagel’s decree, which applies to all branches of the military, followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act that had prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

While a majority of states ban same-sex marriages, most are not fighting the new policy. But Pentagon officials say that in addition to Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and West Virginia have balked. Each has cited a conflict with state laws that do not recognize same-sex marriages. (A West Virginia official said, however, that the state intended to follow the directive.) While the president has the power to call National Guard units into federal service — and nearly all Guard funding comes from the federal government — the states say the units are state agencies that must abide by state laws.

Requiring same-sex Guard spouses to go to federally owned bases “protects the integrity of our state Constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people,” Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma said last week....


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/us/texas-and-5-other-states-resist-processing-benefits-for-gay-couples.html?hp

25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples (Original Post) theHandpuppet Nov 2013 OP
I bet they pulled this same shit for interracial couple decades ago. sakabatou Nov 2013 #1
Of course they did. My cousin married a Chinese man Glorfindel Nov 2013 #21
The federal government should just pull all funding from those states. Zorra Nov 2013 #2
+10 SoapBox Nov 2013 #4
Or even just military bases and contracts quakerboy Nov 2013 #8
I like that idea theHandpuppet Nov 2013 #10
It's a very Red State. libdem4life Nov 2013 #24
Damn right. elleng Nov 2013 #18
I'm endlessly amazed at how these States of Hate SoapBox Nov 2013 #3
+1. There must be Big Bucks in the Statehouses to be dix. blkmusclmachine Nov 2013 #5
Texas never misses an opportunity to embarrass itself Skittles Nov 2013 #6
ha! Maybe Texas produces many great artists because of the social/political challenges Zorra Nov 2013 #17
while there are many teabagger types here Skittles Nov 2013 #23
Duh bucolic_frolic Nov 2013 #7
National Law pipoman Nov 2013 #9
So if there was a national law banning gay marriage hack89 Nov 2013 #11
You folks may have a point bucolic_frolic Nov 2013 #13
Other than withholding christx30 Nov 2013 #25
On behalf of other liberal Georgians I'll say this action is an embarrassment groundloop Nov 2013 #12
Thank you theHandpuppet Nov 2013 #15
This is just another backhanded slap in the face toward Obama as CIC davidpdx Nov 2013 #14
Here's a two-for: Let's close the military bases in those states. Save money sinkingfeeling Nov 2013 #16
Not all bases! atreides1 Nov 2013 #22
Administering Federal Benefits should be for All or None One_Life_To_Give Nov 2013 #19
Let them take it to the SCOTUS Rstrstx Nov 2013 #20

Glorfindel

(9,730 posts)
21. Of course they did. My cousin married a Chinese man
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:22 PM
Nov 2013

even though they lived in Georgia, they had to travel to Tennessee to get married. (This was in 1968.) When even Tennessee is more progressive, you know you're in deep doo-doo.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
2. The federal government should just pull all funding from those states.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:59 AM
Nov 2013

Most Red States take more from the federal government then they pay into it.

They'd be squirming, screaming, crying, and pleading in no time flat, and it would be a beautiful thing to see.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
10. I like that idea
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 08:40 AM
Nov 2013

Even if the chances of that happening are nil. I don't understand why there are so many bases in Texas to begin with.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
17. ha! Maybe Texas produces many great artists because of the social/political challenges
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:40 PM
Nov 2013

of growing up in there.



Tooth for tooth, eye for an eye
Sell your soul just to bop on by
Beggin' for a dollar, stealin' a dime
Come on can't you see that I'm
Stranded, caught in the crossfire
I am stranded, caught in the crossfire
I need some, kind of kindness
Some kind of sympathy, oh no

(Lead) Save the strong, lose the weak
Never turning the other cheek
Trust nobody, don't be no fool
Whatever happened to the golden rule

Stranded, caught in the crossfire
I am stranded, caught in the crossfire

Skittles

(153,169 posts)
23. while there are many teabagger types here
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 08:43 PM
Nov 2013

when you run into a Democrat they really are true blue - like flowers hardy enough to grow with weeds

bucolic_frolic

(43,181 posts)
7. Duh
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:59 AM
Nov 2013

"... the federal government ... cannot simply ignore our laws or the
will of the people,” Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma said last week....

The Federal government is the will of the people. National law trumps
state law. Ask the Confederacy.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
11. So if there was a national law banning gay marriage
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:24 AM
Nov 2013

Individual states would have to stop allowing gay couples to marry?

Does it also mean that state laws legalizing marijuanna are invalid because they violate federal drug laws?

bucolic_frolic

(43,181 posts)
13. You folks may have a point
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:40 AM
Nov 2013

it ain't as clear as the 1950s

but if states are allowed to ignore federal laws, which ones do they
get to ignore? just the ones the federal DOJ doesn't wish to prosecute?

Voter laws, federal gasoline tax laws and highway funds, Social Security
laws, ACA .... we're headed toward controlled anarchy, or at least
mass confusion.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
25. Other than withholding
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 01:17 AM
Nov 2013

funds, what can the Feds do to force an issue if a state wanted to make a stink? If Rick perry wanted to pull a "Mr Holder has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

groundloop

(11,519 posts)
12. On behalf of other liberal Georgians I'll say this action is an embarrassment
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:36 AM
Nov 2013

Not that I think it will do much good, but after reading this I'm emailing my tea-bagger state reps to complain about it.



theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
15. Thank you
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:43 AM
Nov 2013

At least your reps will know that there are constituents out there who are appalled by this BS!

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
14. This is just another backhanded slap in the face toward Obama as CIC
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:04 AM
Nov 2013

All of the states listed (except for WV which said they would comply) have right wing nutjob governors.

I wish there was a line item veto so Obama could start stripping projects from these states and taking away money and jobs. If the wackjobs don't want to cooperate, don't give them anything.

atreides1

(16,079 posts)
22. Not all bases!
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:55 PM
Nov 2013

Just those that are manned by the National Guard, after all the Guard is a "State agency...", and unless it's been called to duty by the Commander in Chief...then those states should be footing the entire bill for non-federal bases!

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
19. Administering Federal Benefits should be for All or None
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:57 PM
Nov 2013

Issuing a Federal ID and processing Federal Benefits paperwork. You either do it for all of the eligible people or none. Now if they want to send everyone to Fort Hood, etc. that is their option I guess. But you can't just administer Federal Benefit's to White people, or Christian people, or those with Chartreuse hair.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Texas and 5 Other States ...