Skip to comments.Marine Corps to spouse clubs: Allow same-sex members or you don't operate on base
Posted on 01/11/2013 8:17:54 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It apparently takes more than a few good men, according to the U.S. Marine Corps. It takes all kinds of people to support military families, including same-sex spouses of service members.
CNN published a story this week about a woman married to a female lieutenant colonel at Fort Bragg who believes she was rejected from an officers' spouse club because she's gay. Less than a day later, Maj. Gen. Vaughn Ary advised Marine Corps legal staff such clubs conducting business on its bases must admit same-same spouses. If they do not, the clubs will be barred from meeting on any Marine Corps installation.
Ary wrote that clubs cannot discriminate against any member because of "race, color, creed, sex, age, disability, or national origin. We would interpret a spouse's club's decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse's sex."
Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan, who provided a portion of the memo to CNN, said, "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."
Flanagan said the Marines Corps was clarifying its policy for its members and would not have control over activities concerning Fort Bragg which is an Army installation...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.blogs.cnn.com ...
Move the meetings off base and make a big deal about it to the local newspaper (anonymous of course ... could ruin a career).
I highly recommend a blanket party.
Uhm, no...not because of their sex, but because of their sexual orientation.
This is getting more and more disgustingly ridiculous. The club should move their meetings off site and refuse to *evolve*.
Whoda thunk that military wives wouldn’t want someone queering up their club?
As the slide down the sewer continues unabated.
Same sex couples will demand on base housing next.
I’m guessing they already get that.
Not that I have seen. At least for the A.F.
...”We would interpret a spouse’s club’s decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse’s sex.”
No. It be because they are NOT a spouse. Gay marriage is not legally recognized by the military and they are not ID carrying dependents.
Another two-star general sucking up in every way possible in his quest for a third star.
Yup. Real marines standing up for and defending their honorable wives. /s
But the ongoing discrimination against whites is allowed. There is a “pride” type observance for every other race. There’s also one for women but none for men. Equal means for everyone not just minorities.
My suggestion is to get rid of all observances based on race and have one month maybe called “cultural awareness” month.
OK I am mixed up.Does the woman who fells like she is a man goes to the man club and the man who feels like he is a woman goes to a woman’s club.
And thus we kill the “clubs” for everyone. My wife and I have no intention of going to a social “club” where we have to be surrounded by lesbians and gay couples - we reserve the right to associate with people who have similar values as we do.
Want the clubs to close? No problem - let the gays show up - and we’ll drop our membership and go somewhere else.
Can the club remain financially viable servicing what amounts to less than 3% of the population? Good luck with that.
I may smell a whiff of BS to this story.
Why the heck would the Marines give a damn what some army wife did or did not do?
They tried this sh&t in Sokor where my cousin is based, near the DMZ. They didn’t call it a ‘club”, they called it get-togethers or whatever pc crap they could think of.
That’s mentioned in the article...
If I have to read Clinton News Network, I’ll pass.
Big asteroid, up.
” . . . and it’s all over now, Baby Blue.”
“We would interpret a spouse’s club’s decision to exclude a same sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based on the spouse’s sex.”
Lord, lawyers are STUPID. That doesn’t pass the laugh test. Whatever happened to the Defense of Marriage Act, anyway? Did it disappear through actual legal procedure, or did Obama wave it away with a flick of his wrist?
No, not because of their orientation, either. Because they don’t recognize them as spouses, which no amount of play-acting will change.
Whatever happened to the Defense of Marriage Act, anyway? Did it disappear through actual legal procedure,...
...or did Obama wave it away with a flick of his wrist?
Yes. I believe the date was circa Jan. 2010. Holder was informed not to take any action regarding DOMA.
Exactly right. But they’ll err on the side of PC and assert that though it doesn’t qualify under the legal definition of “discrimination” it does anyway, because it must. So they choose “sex” because, um, gay people have sex with eachother? No, no, because they’re being discriminated against for not being women. Or not being men, if the wife is the one in the military.
Whatever else happens, death, taxes, and “sexual orientation” being officially added to the list will. No again, it must be more than that. Not merely orientation, but we must not discriminate against those who are “differently married.”
Eventually we won’t be able to discriminate at all. And what’s the opposite of discrimination. Fairness? Absolutely not. Tolerance? That’s what they’d have you think. I hate inappropriately sciency words, but the answer is: dysgeusia, or lack of taste.
“Holder was informed not to take any action regarding DOMA”
How does that translate into taking positive action to equalize the status of married and homosexually “married” couples in the military? Don’t answer. I know. Lawyers are lawyers, and the brass are bureaucrats and/or politicians.
I mean, it’s not as if you can rise through the ranks by storming redoubts anymore. Once you get to a certain level, I mean. Then it’s PC or die.
More and more each day.
The opposite of discrimination would be indiscriminate and undiscerning, both very apt descriptions of the modern liberal.
‘She said that the spouse club at Bragg has not reached out to her.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.