Polonius wrote:
I appreciate a good rimshot, (of course, Republicans have no problem ignoring Insider Trading laws), but even that is a complex issue. Some interesting polling numbers:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/22/americans-immigration-pew-poll-congress-amnesty-citizenship/2448895/

TLDR: basically most Americans of both parties seem to think that both mass deportation and mass amnesty are stupid.

For the most part, Americans dont' understand that Judge Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a fantasy.

 Jihadin wrote:


Frankly I don't care. DADT and DOMA did not effect me or mission execution. Of course I did not care unless it becomes my issue. Example be flaunting the repeal of DADT and DOMA in uniform and/or out of uniform. As long as they are treated the same as male-female married couple. No favoritism, No specials, and No damn Pet project favoritism

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Frankly I don't care. DADT and DOMA did not effect me or mission execution. Of course I did not care unless it becomes my issue. Example be flaunting the repeal of DADT and DOMA in uniform and/or out of uniform. As long as they are treated the same as male-female married couple. No favoritism, No specials, and No damn Pet project favoritism

100% this.

Positive discrimination is as much the bane of equality as prejudice.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I appreciate a good rimshot, (of course, Republicans have no problem ignoring Insider Trading laws), but even that is a complex issue. Some interesting polling numbers:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/22/americans-immigration-pew-poll-congress-amnesty-citizenship/2448895/

TLDR: basically most Americans of both parties seem to think that both mass deportation and mass amnesty are stupid.

For the most part, Americans dont' understand that Judge Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a fantasy.

I wasn't trying to make a partisan point, apologies if it came off that way.
As a recent migrant I'd just like to see the laws on the books enforced. I can't say I'm a huge fan of people deciding that immigration law doesn't apply to them and then demanding special treatment after.

 Polonius wrote:
Well, when it comes to social rules, everybody is a hypocrite. Virtually nobody holds themself to the same standard they hold others, especially a vauge "other." Hypocrisy, of course, has two elements: the stated belief, and the opposite action. We generally see any disparite as hypocrisy, even if it's just really loud and extreme belief, and relatively modest opposite action (see Al Gore and his wasteful house, Rush and his drugs, etc.)

I think that with immigration law, pretty much nobody thinks that it's good law based on principles of national interest. Everybody knows that it's a crooked goat rodeo, so who cares? Add in the fact that even moderately cosmopolitan people probably know at least one person with a horrific immigration story, and the average american doesn't see Immigration law in a favorable light.

Anyway, the point is that Americans like their law enforcement, to the extent that it intereferes with their actions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Immigration law (or law of any stripe) is just a wee bit different to "social rules"

 Ahtman wrote:
Not really. They weren't carved in stone waiting for humans to arrive to give us wisdom from on high. They were made by us, and as such are informed by our 'social rules' and culture.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Not really. They weren't carved in stone waiting for humans to arrive to give us wisdom from on high. They were made by us, and as such are informed by our 'social rules' and culture.

World of difference between not following the law of the land, and using the wrong fork at supper

 Ahtman wrote:
Which is why we aren't discussing etiquette, but culture. If immigration law is not tied to the culture then most nations would be the same in regards to it, but they aren't because they are expressions of the cultures that made them.

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

There is no religious name in the state issued license. The word marriage is not religious.

 d-usa wrote:
You can have a giant argument about who hijacked what word and keep any progress from being made because of it. Or you can remove a single word and treat everybody equally. It's just an easy way to avoid the headache of multiple parties fighting over a stupid definition.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The problem with that is you are still denying people who don't follow a specific set of invisble friends, or who are in a relationship the invisible friend appreciation clubs don't approve of the ability to get married, while reserving "being married" for those who have invisible friends.

It's like saying "hey, you can totally drive a car... unfortunately because you like the colour blue rather than the colour green, we are not going to give you a driving licence but a "certificate of participating on the road", and unfortunately unlike the people who like green you can't get breakdown coverage because you technically don't have a driving licence."

 Seaward wrote:
No, it's the exact opposite of that, actually. Everyone gets breakdown coverage,

everyone gets a "certificate of participating on the road," but some people who drive blue cars also hold a private celebratory ceremony that has nothing to do with anything the state does or does not give.

It's the good solution.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Is everyone getting the same rights now? tax, inheritance, medical choice for partners, etc? I have to say some of the news reports I have seen were slightly confused on the issue

... except that marraige isn't a religious state of existance so withholding the ability of people to be married and instead giving them a certificate of participation is fething insulting when you then only allow people to be married if they have a religious service.

 Seaward wrote:
You're missing the point.

Take government out of marriage, everybody - EVERYBODY - gets civil union benefits, which should be the same as marriage is now. The government stops using marriage-related terms, and simply uses 'civil partner' or whatever. Then, whoever wants to get 'married' in the current sense can do whatever the hell they want - church wedding, wedding in a public bath house, whatever.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Is everyone getting the same rights now? tax, inheritance, medical choice for partners, etc? I have to say some of the news reports I have seen were slightly confused on the issue

Not yet, but that's where it's headed, and where we ought to head by simply taking 'marriage' out of the hands of the government.

... except that marraige isn't a religious state of existance so withholding the ability of people to be married and instead giving them a certificate of participation is fething insulting when you then only allow people to be married if they have a religious service.

You're missing the point.

Take government out of marriage, everybody - EVERYBODY - gets civil union benefits, which should be the same as marriage is now. The government stops using marriage-related terms, and simply uses 'civil partner' or whatever. Then, whoever wants to get 'married' in the current sense can do whatever the hell they want - church wedding, wedding in a public bath house, whatever.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
But why shouldn't everyone - EVERYONE - get married, since that is what it is, regardless of their religion, lack of religion, or sexual preference. The Church stops trying to push for the government to use marriage alternative terms and simply accepts that it doesn't own "marriage" or whatever. Then whoever wants to get married will be married, and people who want to do other things like have a church wedding, sacrifice a goat to satan or whatever can do whatever the hell they want.

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the term matter so much to you? If no one is recognized by the government as married, would anybody be fighting over marriage equality? I doubt it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the term matter so much to you? If no one is recognized by the government as married, would anybody be fighting over marriage equality? I doubt it.

The term matters because surprisingly words matter, regardless of the tax breaks you might get, or the other rights that might be associated with something. Why did African Americans fight so hard to stop certain ways of being referred to? It's not like what people call you changes your rights if you are recognised equally under the law after all...

And I really don't get why you are pushing for the government to say everyone is in a "civil union" or some such rubbish to essentially stop anyone who isn't religious from being marr... oh, wait, I see now

 Frazzled wrote:
IN other words it has nothing to do with the actual issue for you then...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
IN other words it has nothing to do with the actual issue for you then...

I'm sorry?

I'm replying to the points raised, not specifically to the legislation that may or my not be contained within DOMA.

 d-usa wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

There is no religious name in the state issued license. The word marriage is not religious.

You can have a giant argument about who hijacked what word and keep any progress from being made because of it. Or you can remove a single word and treat everybody equally. It's just an easy way to avoid the headache of multiple parties fighting over a stupid definition.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The term matters because surprisingly words matter, regardless of the tax breaks you might get, or the other rights that might be associated with something. Why did African Americans fight so hard to stop certain ways of being referred to? It's not like what people call you changes your rights if you are recognised equally under the law after all...

And I really don't get why you are pushing for the government to say everyone is in a "civil union" or some such rubbish to essentially stop anyone who isn't religious from being marr... oh, wait, I see now

 Seaward wrote:
We can save a metric fethton of money on lawsuits and institutional change, though, if we simply abolish marriage as a function of the state. The notion that you somehow become 'less married' if the state stops calling it that officially is a bizarre one, though.

I always thought it was about commitment to one another and the process of building a life together, but apparently, no, it really is all about whether or not your local DMV uses one specific word.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.

There is no religious name in the state issued license. The word marriage is not religious.

You can have a giant argument about who hijacked what word and keep any progress from being made because of it. Or you can remove a single word and treat everybody equally. It's just an easy way to avoid the headache of multiple parties fighting over a stupid definition.

My wife and I were married at the town registrar's office in Bristol, and woe betide the Christian that tells me they own that word and we are 'in a civil partnership' and my wife should instead be referred to as my 'civil partner' because we didn't marry in one of their churches.

That's religious theocracy. They don't own the word, neither does any other religion. And there were marriages long before there were Christians.

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES




From:


Elaine Kaplan
Acting Director




Subject:

Guidance on the Extension of Benefits to Married Gay and Lesbian Federal Employees, Annuitants, and Their Families




As you already know, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will now be able to extend benefits to Federal employees and annuitants who have legally married a spouse of the same sex.

There are numerous benefits that are affected by the Supreme Court’s decision, and it is impossible to answer today every question that you may have. Nevertheless, I want to assure you that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is committed to working with the Department of Justice to ensure swift and seamless implementation of the Court’s ruling.

OPM will be issuing additional information covering a broader range of issues, but at this time, OPM can offer the following guidance regarding specific employee benefits that may be of particular interest:

Health Insurance (FEHB): All legally married same-sex spouses will now be eligible family members under a Self and Family enrollment. In addition, the children of same-sex marriages will be treated just as those of opposite-sex marriages and will be eligible family members according to the same eligibility guidelines. This includes coverage for children of same-sex spouses as stepchildren. Employees and annuitants will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 until August 26, 2013, to make immediate changes to their FEHB enrollment. Enrollees will continue to be eligible to make changes to their coverage options during Open Season later this year. For those employees and annuitants who already have a Self and Family insurance plan, coverage for their same-sex spouse will begin immediately upon their notifying their FEHB carrier that there is a newly eligible family member. For those employees and annuitants electing Self and Family for the first time, benefits will be effective on the first day of the first pay period after the enrollment request is received. While online enrollment systems are updated, it may be necessary for employees and annuitants to update their elections using the paper (rather than electronic) version of the SF2809 form.

Life Insurance (FEGLI): All legally married same-sex spouses and children of legal same-sex marriages are now eligible family members under the FEGLI Program, which means that employees may add coverage for a same-sex spouse and any newly eligible children under Option C. Employees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 until August 26, 2013, to make changes to their FEGLI enrollment.

Dental and Vision Insurance (FEDVIP): As with FEHB, all legally married same-sex spouses will now be eligible family members under a Self and Family enrollment or a Self Plus One enrollment. Current FEDVIP enrollees may now call BENEFEDS (877-888-FEDS (3337)) directly to make the necessary enrollment changes. Employees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 until August 26, 2013, to make changes to their FEDVIP enrollment. Current enrollees will also be able to make changes to their coverage options during Open Season later this year, and individuals wishing to enroll in FEDVIP for the first time may also do so at that time.

Long-Term Care Insurance (FLTCIP): All legally married same-sex spouses can now apply for long-term care insurance under FLTCIP. Same-sex spouses of employees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013, to apply for FLTCIP coverage with abbreviated underwriting.

Retirement: All retirees who are in legal same-sex marriages will have two years from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision (i.e., June 26, 2015) to inform OPM that they have a legal marriage that now qualifies for recognition and elect any changes to their retirement benefits based on their recognized marital status. In the coming days, OPM will be developing guidance to help retirees determine whether they wish to change their pension benefits in a way that will provide benefits for their surviving spouse. Retirees will need to determine whether this option makes sense for them, as making this election will likely result in a deduction to the monthly annuity that the retiree currently receives. Going forward, the same-sex spouses of retiring employees will be eligible for survivor annuities.

Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA): All employees who are in legal same-sex marriages will now be able to submit claims for medical expenses for their same-sex spouse and any newly qualifying (step)children to their flexible spending program.

Additional guidance regarding these and other benefits will be coming soon. In the meantime, questions regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision on Federal employee and annuitant benefits should be directed to OPM through your agency Chief Human Capital Officer.

We appreciate your cooperation in our effort to implement the Supreme Court’s decision, and provide greater equality to Federal employees and annuitants regardless of their sexual orientation.

cc: Chief Human Capital Officers