A quandry

[CSM]

SO ... here is a real no kidding dilemma in which a certain first sergeant finds himself :

The chain of command of * National Guard (state specifically omitted) has decided that a certain event is mandatory for all units. Unit members may not (according to orders given) bring non- DEERs dependents to this event. However, because of political pressure brought by a certain group, one member WILL be allowed to bring a non DEERS civil union partner. More specifically, a gay officer is being given permission to bring a civil union partner (which under current law is restricted from being a DEERS dependent; this may change if and when the Marriage Act is repealed). All other soldiers are specifically ordered NOT to bring non DEERS partners (girlfriends, fiances, common law spouses, etc.).

The dilemma is that soldiers are now asking if the can also bring non DEERS partners and if not why not? Certain members of the chain of command realize that the state is breaking federal law and that the senior leadership has issued what is essentially an illegal order. Those members are now placed in a moral and ethical dilemma; do they tell their soldiers they cannot bring a non DEERS member even though a certain gay officer is allowed to or do they point out the discriminatory and illegal nature of the order (knowing full well that if they do so they will be ending their own career)?

The safe thing to do would be to ignore the whole thing and hope it goes away. However, this could very well garner national media attention and the whole chain of command be called upon to state why they allowed this to happen. If that does occur, the media will most certainly point out that the entire chain of command issued and enforced an illegal order (this usually results in some lower level scape goat being sacrificed). Some of the chain of command feel the right thing to do is to question the order under legal and well defined processes but they know if they do so they will be ending their own career for the sake of ethics.

Please understand that the issue is not about gay/civil union but rather about different (legal and illegal) standards being applied to soldiers and their dependents. Also understand that these are the kinds of issues that occur regularly when discussing "illegal orders" which do not receive national attention.

Not sure how all this will end up but history shows that this will all be swept under the rug and, once again, the military chain of command will have placed leaders in a moral and ethical dilemma for the sake of politics and get away with it.

[CSM]

The certain first sergeant has aked for clarification:

"As my immediate supervisor, I am requesting guidance on the current yellow ribbon situation.
<O:p
The talking points I have been told to make my soldiers aware of are as follows.
<O:p<O:p
TPs for YRRP:

1. As of Nov. 16, logistical changes will be in place for the *state* National Guard to be in compliance with new DOD guidance for YRRP events. All events prior to Nov. 16 will be conducted as originally planned.

2. *state*NG continues to hold events open to all service member supporters, the most recent of which was on September 24th, 2011.

3. *state*NG will be fully compliant with the new policies by 16 November for both *unit* and *unit*.

As a senior Non Commissioned Officer my current job is to advise my officer counterpart and enforce the execution of orders. Under Public law 111-383 dated Jan 7, 2011, Subtitle C – Travel and Transportation Allowances, a soldier may designate “one or more persons” to receive travel and transportation allowances to attend a Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program event. In Department of Defense Instruction Number 1342.28 dated March 30,2011 which covers YRRP, an Event, as defined by the DoDI may include service member, family member, or designated representative as applicable. Family member is defined as spouse, children, parents, grandparents, or sibling as recognized by DEERS. Enclosure 2 Paragraph 7.c. states that the National Guard may limit the number of family members eligible for ITA according to logistic and finical criteria and limitations. Are there other governing regulations that I am not aware of?

My question is this – what are my standing orders to enforce with regards to upcoming yellow ribbon events that occur prior to 16 Nov 2011? As understand it, no ITA will be issued for non DEERs personnel, and no non-DEERS personnel are authorized to attend, as the *state*NG is limiting ITA authorized under Public Law 111-383 based on Enclosure 2 Paragraph 7.c. Is that correct?

So when a soldier asks me about how some personnel are bringing their non-DEERS dependents and they cannot, under what regulation is this authorized?

In short what lawful orders am I being asked to enforce, and more importantly how do I enforce them if they are being selectively applied based on the above regulatory guidance? Please note I am not at odds about the position the *state*NG has taken, I am asking how do I enforce the decision without stating it is based on either arbitrary or discriminary practices?<O:p
<O:p
Very Respectfully,
<O:p1SG *name*"

[Monkeybone]

Would think that it could be oversimplified as " No is no" doesn't matter who you are. If you aren't in the Unit, you don't come.

[CSM]

Would think that it could be oversimplified as " No is no" doesn't matter who you are. If you aren't in the Unit, you don't come.

You would think so.

[SassyLady]

Order says only dependents registered with DEERS .....pretty clear to me.

Senior leadership in *state* NG can be just as politically corrupt as anyone else....especially at JFHQ.

[Psychoblues]

The military is top to bottom attempting to come to complete terms with the integration of the open serving of gay and lesbian personnel and how to view and treat their families. If the more historically traditional families of other personnel are being allowed or encouraged to attend then absolutely these new families by whatever definition should also be given the exact rights and considerations and subsequently be welcomed as equals in every respect. That is what the new armed forces regs are all about. There is some confusion and some resistance but I hope and think it will all be resolved in short time.

Psychoblues

[SassyLady]

Doesn't matter what the military is attempting ... until the laws are changed to reflect what they are attempting ... when an order is given and exceptions to it are handed out ... like allowing a civil union partner to attend even though they are not in DEERs is like spitting in the face of those who are abiding by the order.

[Psychoblues]

Doesn't matter what the military is attempting ... until the laws are changed to reflect what they are attempting ... when an order is given and exceptions to it are handed out ... like allowing a civil union partner to attend even though they are not in DEERs is like spitting in the face of those who are abiding by the order.

Hyperbole at best, SL. You need to get your anger limit readjusted. These considerations that I advocate are happening as we speak and much more is in the pipeline and will become fully clear and in accordance with the new regs very soon. Until then, however, in the case of the gay and lesbian couples and families I would err on the side of already approved liberties and understandings. You don't have anything against liberty and understanding do you, SL?

Psychoblues

[SassyLady]

Hyperbole at best, SL. You need to get your anger limit readjusted. These considerations that I advocate are happening as we speak and much more is in the pipeline and will become fully clear and in accordance with the new regs very soon. Until then, however, in the case of the gay and lesbian couples and families I would err on the side of already approved liberties and understandings. You don't have anything against liberty and understanding do you, SL?

Psychoblues

If they allow an unregistered DEERs family member for one individual, then it should be applied to all. You're not against equal treatment, are you Psycho?

[Psychoblues]

If they allow an unregistered DEERs family member for one individual, then it should be applied to all. You're not against equal treatment, are you Psycho?

Like I said, things are being sorted out as we speak. A "family" even though possibly homosexual and having not been able in the past to participate in DEERs considerations should absolutely not be considered on the same level as a girl-friend boy-friend relationship. I think that's what you are trying to imply. Like I said earlier, there will be resistance galore to some of these new policies but the armed forces are already on alert for it and prepared to take actions up to and including punitive to address the bigots, hard heads and generally poorly disposed. They, the armed forces, have my complete support.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Best guess:

Live in heterosexual well be axed. Not so with any gay stuff. To be clear, think that all should be able to attend. Gives CO's an understanding of what they are dealing with.

[Psychoblues]

Best guess:

Live in heterosexual well be axed. Not so with any gay stuff. To be clear, think that all should be able to attend. Gives CO's an understanding of what they are dealing with.

The United States Air Force recognized common law marriages in 1968, Kath. They still do. That didn't apply to "any gay stuff". They are trying to do better, think so?

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Damn, I don't know what I meant here. Too tired.

Bottom line. If the parameters say dependents only, then it should go across the board. If live-ins, same for gays as other.

Clear enough?

[Psychoblues]

Damn, I don't know what I meant here. Too tired.

Bottom line. If the parameters say dependents only, then it should go across the board. If live-ins, same for gays as other.

Clear enough?

All I am saying is that the armed forces are just now recognizing and integrating gay families into the various systems, opportunities and considerations. Again and especially in this very new case of official recognition of gays and their families I would err on the side of liberty and understanding for them. I could also go on and on why the commanders may be against boy friend girl friend participation in a unit function. Been there, done that.

Clear enough?

Psychoblues

[SassyLady]

All I am saying is that the armed forces are just now recognizing and integrating gay families into the various systems, opportunities and considerations. Again and especially in this very new case of official recognition of gays and their families I would err on the side of liberty and understanding for them. I could also go on and on why the commanders may be against boy friend girl friend participation in a unit function. Been there, done that.

Clear enough?

Psychoblues


My question is this – what are my standing orders to enforce with regards to upcoming yellow ribbon events that occur prior to 16 Nov 2011? As understand it, no ITA will be issued for non DEERs personnel, and no non-DEERS personnel are authorized to attend, as the *state*NG is limiting ITA authorized under Public Law 111-383 based on Enclosure 2 Paragraph 7.c. Is that correct?

So when a soldier asks me about how some personnel are bringing their non-DEERS dependents and they cannot, under what regulation is this authorized?

In short what lawful orders am I being asked to enforce, and more importantly how do I enforce them if they are being selectively applied based on the above regulatory guidance? Please note I am not at odds about the position the *state*NG has taken, I am asking how do I enforce the decision without stating it is based on either arbitrary or discriminary practices?

Based upon this person's question, how would you answer the 1st Sgt?

[Kathianne]

All I am saying is that the armed forces are just now recognizing and integrating gay families into the various systems, opportunities and considerations. Again and especially in this very new case of official recognition of gays and their families I would err on the side of liberty and understanding for them. I could also go on and on why the commanders may be against boy friend girl friend participation in a unit function. Been there, done that.

Clear enough?

Psychoblues

Do tell, PB. We'll all be enlightened with your tales of wars gone by. Really.

[Psychoblues]

Do tell, PB. We'll all be enlightened with your tales of wars gone by. Really.

I suppose every veteran has stories of their girl/boy friends being forbidden from attending unit functions, even hot dog and chili cook outs. They are not uncommon at all. Families? Very common for them to be included. Been there, done that.

Clear enough?

Psychoblues

[darin]

Hyperbole at best, SL. You need to get your anger limit readjusted. These considerations that I advocate are happening as we speak and much more is in the pipeline and will become fully clear and in accordance with the new regs very soon. Until then, however, in the case of the gay and lesbian couples and families I would err on the side of already approved liberties and understandings. You don't have anything against liberty and understanding do you, SL?

Psychoblues

How the fuck is that Hyperbole?

First: Logical fallacy of ad hominem - you don't agree so you'll simply accuse her of being mad.

THEN you claim if somebody doesn't agree with you they must "have something against liberty and understanding" - as if liberty and understanding were teh point of discussion.

It's CLEAR to people in this thread - except YOU, it seems, the point is "Rules state 'x'" ONE person is being granted exception to rules for what SEEMS to be a political reason. Most people in this thread, except you it seems, Follow the VERY SIMPLE understanding: "Breaking the rules for certain people sucks" - especially when there is NO valid reason to do so.

Just 20 seconds ago I asked my sober 9 year old son: "Son - if a boss makes a rule all Soldiers have to follow, is it GOOD to allow ONE Soldier to break the rule ONLY because the person making the rule is scared to hurt their feelings, or 'look bad' on facebook, etc (when the one Soldier starts complaining)?" My son, who is NINE YEARS OLD was able to answer "No dad, if a Boss makes a rule affecting everyone, it should matter to everyone."

So, PB, you are NOT smarter than a 9-year-old. Now, keep in mind, my 9 year old has an IQ approaching 150, so - that's like...twice yours I'm sure.

Sometimes it helps to make the fonts bigger, if you have trouble reading. Depending on your browser (the thing you use to view the internet), it should be under options or tools.

If that fails... www.hop.com

[fj1200]

Bottom line. If the parameters say dependents only, then it should go across the board. If live-ins, same for gays as other.

The problem being that gay couples can't define dependent the same way in every state or in most states not at all.

[Psychoblues]

How the fuck is that Hyperbole?

First: Logical fallacy of ad hominem - you don't agree so you'll simply accuse her of being mad.

THEN you claim if somebody doesn't agree with you they must "have something against liberty and understanding" - as if liberty and understanding were teh point of discussion.

It's CLEAR to people in this thread - except YOU, it seems, the point is "Rules state 'x'" ONE person is being granted exception to rules for what SEEMS to be a political reason. Most people in this thread, except you it seems, Follow the VERY SIMPLE understanding: "Breaking the rules for certain people sucks" - especially when there is NO valid reason to do so.

Just 20 seconds ago I asked my sober 9 year old son: "Son - if a boss makes a rule all Soldiers have to follow, is it GOOD to allow ONE Soldier to break the rule ONLY because the person making the rule is scared to hurt their feelings, or 'look bad' on facebook, etc (when the one Soldier starts complaining)?" My son, who is NINE YEARS OLD was able to answer "No dad, if a Boss makes a rule affecting everyone, it should matter to everyone."

So, PB, you are NOT smarter than a 9-year-old. Now, keep in mind, my 9 year old has an IQ approaching 150, so - that's like...twice yours I'm sure.

Sometimes it helps to make the fonts bigger, if you have trouble reading. Depending on your browser (the thing you use to view the internet), it should be under options or tools.

If that fails... www.hop.com (http://www.hop.com)

You talking to me, bitch? I sure as hell wasn't talking to you but if you want I'll ram your ass like the big girl you are. And you need to stop bringing your 9 year old kid into these conversations. You ain't fooling anyone.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

The problem being that gay couples can't define dependent the same way in every state or in most states not at all.

Exactly, but the forces are changing as quickly as they can. Some commanders are testing the new directives and more power to them. But, I do hope any clearly intentional obfuscation will be dealt with just as quickly and with an equal amount of vigor.

Psychoblues

[darin]

I'll ram your ass



That's pretty gay.


Again, you can't participate with even a modicum of reason or rational thought. I'm not sorry I so completely destroyed your 'argument' - but I feel bad, just a little, at how broken you are, mentally - and probably emotionally. SEEK HELP. Since i think you're NOT a veteran, the VA isn't an option - but am sure there are plenty of low-income mental health clinics if you googled.



The problem being that gay couples can't define dependent the same way in every state or in most states not at all.

That's not a problem, because regulation prohibits NON-DEERS folk from attending. This story should be a non-issue. If somebody doesn't have a DEERS card, they can't attend. That should be it - so its fair for everyone. Until DEERS changes eligibility, people need to be grown-ups and play by the rules.

[Psychoblues]

That's pretty gay.


Again, you can't participate with even a modicum of reason or rational thought. I'm not sorry I so completely destroyed your 'argument' - but I feel bad, just a little, at how broken you are, mentally - and probably emotionally. SEEK HELP. Since i think you're NOT a veteran, the VA isn't an option - but am sure there are plenty of low-income mental health clinics if you googled.

You came in stomping like a big girl and you just can't take the rebound. What a bitch. I couldn't care less what you think about my status as a veteran of the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard and my service in Viet Nam, Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Saudi Arabia all through Desert Shield and Desert Storm and I don't believe for a second all your bullshit about taking incoming every time the President mentioned draw downs in Iraq or the extraordinary observations of your 9 year old young one. You are a liar plain and simple, dmp. Everyone here already knows that. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Go ahead. I know your neggie finger is itching to give me another on this same thread. What a slut you are.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

That's pretty gay.


Again, you can't participate with even a modicum of reason or rational thought. I'm not sorry I so completely destroyed your 'argument' - but I feel bad, just a little, at how broken you are, mentally - and probably emotionally. SEEK HELP. Since i think you're NOT a veteran, the VA isn't an option - but am sure there are plenty of low-income mental health clinics if you googled.




That's not a problem, because regulation prohibits NON-DEERS folk from attending. This story should be a non-issue. If somebody doesn't have a DEERS card, they can't attend. That should be it - so its fair for everyone. Until DEERS changes eligibility, people need to be grown-ups and play by the rules.


Looks like the convoy just took a direct hit

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vYAWrkvyYdc" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[darin]

You came in stomping like a big girl and you just can't take the rebound. What a bitch. I couldn't care less what you think about my status as a veteran of the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard and my service in Viet Nam, Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Saudi Arabia all through Desert Shield and Desert Storm and I don't believe for a second all your bullshit about taking incoming every time the President mentioned draw downs in Iraq or the extraordinary observations of your 9 year old young one. You are a liar plain and simple, dmp. Everyone here already knows that. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Go ahead. I know your neggie finger is itching to give me another on this same thread. What a slut you are.

Psychoblues

You POOR, broken person. Its clear you hurt inside. :(

[Psychoblues]

You POOR, broken person. Its clear you hurt inside. :(

I think quite the opposite, dmp. You are the one giving out all the negs, questioning military service of others, excusing your ignorance by bringing your kid into these conversations, going on the attack even if only via message board and using/abusing your powers as a board manager to inflict whatever devilish deed you deem appropriate knowing your victims have little or no recourse. I think it's you that hurts greatly inside, dmp. You certainly aren't much for an adult and especially not a healthy one.

Psychoblues

[darin]

I think quite the opposite, dmp. You are the one giving out all the negs, questioning military service of others, excusing your ignorance by bringing your kid into these conversations, going on the attack even if only via message board and using/abusing your powers as a board manager to inflict whatever devilish deed you deem appropriate knowing your victims have little or no recourse. I think it's you that hurts greatly inside, dmp. You certainly aren't much for an adult and especially not a healthy one.

Psychoblues

So...you are sorta doing this:

"No...YOU ARE!" as a reply to me describing your emotional problems?

wow.

Yeah, I think you're full of shit. I highly doubt you are a veteran, because of your stupidity and blatant 'always being wrong'-ness, there's NO chance you could have passed basic training.

[red states rule]

So...you are sorta doing this:

"No...YOU ARE!" as a reply to me describing your emotional problems?

wow.

Yeah, I think you're full of shit. I highly doubt you are a veteran, because of your stupidity and blatant 'always being wrong'-ness, there's NO chance you could have passed basic training.

Well Private Pyle did, so maybe PB could as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAZI4ydY6R8

[fj1200]

That's not a problem, because regulation prohibits NON-DEERS folk from attending. This story should be a non-issue. If somebody doesn't have a DEERS card, they can't attend. That should be it - so its fair for everyone. Until DEERS changes eligibility, people need to be grown-ups and play by the rules.

It is a problem if a gay partner is ineligible to get a DEERS card no matter what they do.

[ConHog]

Hypothetically I would bring my non DEERS SO if I had one and challenge the order. Realistically, that would be suicide.


An anonymous phone call to a local and hopefully sympathetic news station might work well here.


Oh, and is anyone shocked that PB is okay with reverse discrimination?

[darin]

It is a problem if a gay partner is ineligible to get a DEERS card no matter what they do.

That's not a problem. Living-together Hetero couples can't get a DEERS card either, no matter what they do. The rule universally applies. And...it's the rule.

[ConHog]

You came in stomping like a big girl and you just can't take the rebound. What a bitch. I couldn't care less what you think about my status as a veteran of the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard and my service in Viet Nam, Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Saudi Arabia all through Desert Shield and Desert Storm and I don't believe for a second all your bullshit about taking incoming every time the President mentioned draw downs in Iraq or the extraordinary observations of your 9 year old young one. You are a liar plain and simple, dmp. Everyone here already knows that. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Go ahead. I know your neggie finger is itching to give me another on this same thread. What a slut you are.

Psychoblues



I know he's banned. But I've never heard of ANYONE in the AF who has served in so many different war zones. That's one unlucky career.

[fj1200]

That's not a problem. Living-together Hetero couples can't get a DEERS card either, no matter what they do. The rule universally applies. And...it's the rule.

I understand, it's the rule. However, a gay partner has no ability in the state of * to becomes DEERS eligible. I agree living together heteros can't/shouldn't and living together gays can't/shouldn't but those heteros/gays who want to marry should be able to achieve the same status.

[CSM]

Well, it's all been resolved it appears. The decision stands, talking points have been issued to the lower levels of the chain of command to ausuage any soldier that complains and of course lower level leaders are expected to obey orders. It's really nice that military organizations can now choose which federal laws they will obey; especially when they are encouraged to do so by elected officials. I can hardly wait until the military decides a coup is in order "for the good of the country"!

[CSM]

I understand, it's the rule. However, a gay partner has no ability in the state of * to becomes DEERS eligible. I agree living together heteros can't/shouldn't and living together gays can't/shouldn't but those heteros/gays who want to marry should be able to achieve the same status.

Again, the real issue is federal law which prevents a gay spouse from becoming enrolled in DEERs. If and when the law is repealed, the issue will cease to exist. Until that time however, the chain of command is beong told to ignore federal law. Should the military be allowed to pick and choose which laws it will follow (regardless of intent in doing so)? Doesn't that concept bother anyone here?

[fj1200]

Again, the real issue is federal law which prevents a gay spouse from becoming enrolled in DEERs. If and when the law is repealed, the issue will cease to exist. Until that time however, the chain of command is beong told to ignore federal law. Should the military be allowed to pick and choose which laws it will follow (regardless of intent in doing so)? Doesn't that concept bother anyone here?

I agree with all of that and that political pressure shouldn't bear in a seemingly unfair way. But if they're ignoring one Federal law why don't they have the ability to ignore a different Federal law?

[SassyLady]

Well, it's all been resolved it appears. The decision stands, talking points have been issued to the lower levels of the chain of command to ausuage any soldier that complains and of course lower level leaders are expected to obey orders. It's really nice that military organizations can now choose which federal laws they will obey; especially when they are encouraged to do so by elected officials. I can hardly wait until the military decides a coup is in order "for the good of the country"!

I wonder if they will ostracize those non-DEERs people when they need volunteers at their next family support event or homecoming event.

I can't tell you how many times I ended up sitting at the Adjutant General's table at one of these events after a stupid decision like this came down the tubes. Husband (a CSM) was always nervous until the evening was over because he never knew when I would reach my limit and breach protocol and say what I was thinking. As a long time member of the FRG we would run into these type of problems and I just wanted to smack someone for not thinking it through to see how it affects everyone. Sitting in my car and screaming at the top of my lungs would sometimes help.