Smart, Smart Move
Just get the hell out in front of it NOW.
Marines tell spouses clubs: admit same-sex spouses
NEW YORK (AP) – The Marine Corps has advised its legal staff that spouses clubs operating on its installations must admit same-sex spouses if they wish to remain on the bases.
It’s a step that the other service branches have not yet announced as they grapple with how to accommodate same-sex couples following repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly.
Underscoring the challenges, the Marines’ legal advisory _ obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press _ refers to an ongoing controversy at the Army’s Fort Bragg in North Carolina where the officers’ spouses club has denied admission to a same-sex spouse.
The Marine Corps commandant’s Staff Judge Advocate, in an e-mail to legal offices throughout the corps, said the Fort Bragg events had “caused quite a stir” and cautioned, “We do not want a story like this developing in our backyard.”
The memo noted that spouses clubs and various other private institutions are allowed to operate on bases only if they adhere to a non-discrimination policy encompassing race, religion, gender, age, disability and national origin.
“We would interpret a spouses club’s decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse’s sex,” the memo said.
A Marine Corps spokesman, Capt. Eric Flanagan, said the Marines cannot directly control the actions of independent organizations such as spouses’ clubs, but added, “We expect that all who are interested in supporting Marine Corps Family Readiness would be welcome to participate and will be treated with dignity and respect.”
Military Thingies, Morality, Politics | tree hugging sister | 
January 9, 2013 6:01 pm
Subscribe
Smart move indeed.
Leave the bases.
Two (or more) homosexuals shacking up and calling it marriage is not marriage and never will be.
I can’t wait until the JAG tells the spouses’ clubs to open their doors to polygamists. Can’t hurt the feelings of multi-wived Muslims, now can we?
Alas, if even the USMC is subordinating sense, traditions, and mission to political correctness, as we have seen other services do (in the case of Maj. Nidal Hassan for example) the country is on the downhill slide indeed.
There are LEGALLY married same-sex spouses in the Corps now, Michael, and, regardless of how any individual feels about it, they ARE “spouses” by the letter of the law.
The Corps is absolutely doing the right thing by them. Sure it might be uncomfortable for all parties concerned (or, here’s hoping, not), but that’s where we are once that wall came down.
Sorry, Michael, but you are dead wrong – and polygamists have nothing to do with it.
Gays have served well in the military since…well…forever (think ancient Greece for a fairly recent example).
You want to limit our warriors? Fine, that’s your choice. It’s NOT mine.
You’re so right, Kathy. Kcruella and I, being WMs, have known gay service members as long as we’ve been in, and that was long before any tap dancing about telling/not-telling semantics.
Let me add I’m proud that my Corps is taking the lead in this.
Well, it’s about time the wives’ clubs were disbanded anyway. I remember similar arguments about whether husbands of women Marines could join. At the time, I thought, what self-respecting man would want to join a knitting circle like that?
The wives’ clubs probably have done some good things from time to time I suppose, but mostly they only served to let the spouses push their weight around as though they had rank too.
Good riddance. They’ve killed off the O-clubs and E-clubs. They should just keep everything off base and stop building communities on base. The military should be a place to work and not a neighborhood.
What kind of self-respecting man or woman would even bring this issue up in the course of their serving in the military.It shows this is all about legal nuances,playing a game in the legal grey areas.
Gays know the system,play it for all it’s worth.
They’re nice people but,don’t deny them their
money from the system.
“but mostly they only served to let the spouses push their weight around as though they had rank too.
“
So true. I remember from my first duty station in Ft. Campbell many of the enlisted men’s wives stopped participating because our platoon sergeant’s wife thought her husband’s rank applied to her as well.
I remember the first time THS went overseas and the Wives club called me, it was awkward and I didn’t get called again. Just what will they do with a gay male spouse? It’s not like the old days where the wives needed a support group, now even when a spouse is deployed they can talk to their family almost everyday. Do they even send letters anymore? Just do away with the things.
Bah. It has everything to do with polygamy. Once you make the leap of allowing a “bride” to be a man, it’s hardly a stretch to saying that discrimination against polygamists is also unlawful, unconstitutional, and only those ghastly so-cons would argue otherwise. When marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, but is definable as any variety of cohabitation the current, trendy, pc zeitgeist demands, you are well along to sawing off the branch you are sitting on.
It has nothing to do with peoples’ service, but has to do with what they are serving; a viable society or one in collapse. Marriage is the bedrock institution of society and culture. It is pre-political, it existed long before a State was formed to push people around at the behest of elites. With the destruction of that institution, and it has taken some pretty bad hits over the last five decades, from trendy theories and mindless complacency,a frayed society will collapse. See what has happened to black people since welfare became the replacement for intact families. Homosexual “marriage” is one more shot of the left in their long feud with the nuclear family. When it’s destroyed, the branch we are all sitting on will be sawn through. You won’t like the results.
Oh nonsense. Marriage, the way you view it, has existed only in the past couple of centuries. Before then, it was what we now call “marriage of convenience” – political alliances. Even among the poor, it was rarely for “love”. Marriage for love is rare even now–except in the West. And I hope we can keep it up, but, well, we might need the help of those others who marry for love. I’ve been told God approves of love. Your mileage may vary.
If “traditional marriage” is your bedrock, I’ll take shifting sands.