The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs should extend full federal benefits to retired military personnel with same-sex spouses. Continued refusal to do so is irrational.
Last July, U.S. Supreme Court judges altered portions of the Defense of Marriage Act that prevented gay couples from receiving federal benefits available to people in opposite-sex marriages. Consequently, the Department of Defense on Aug. 14 expanded such rights to all uniformed service members, regardless of sex of significant others.
America’s social tide is turning in favor of greater equality for the gay population. By remaining intractable against this modern wave of civil rights, the VA appears intolerant. For men and women who served their country, this is an unwarranted, reprehensible insult.
If department officials extend full benefits to veterans in same-sex marriages, the move, besides being logical, will deservedly acknowledge the efforts and sacrifices of all who spent time in our nation’s service.
And it’s more than a matter of principle. Gay partners denied their federal rights can face difficult monetary and health care hurdles. Paying for benefits which should be federally provided is an extra level of stress not experienced by heterosexual couples. Americans, especially veterans, should not have to choose between payment and pain because employers discriminate against certain sexualities.
If VA officials are gutlessly passing on accountability to President Obama or the Department of Defense, then either of those offices should order immediate change.
Otherwise, an egregious injustice persists against a particular subset of veterans. As aptly argued 18-year Navy veteran Carmen Cardona, ongoing bias is offensive on several levels: “… the principle, the freedom … We are veterans. We deserve it whether we are gay or heterosexual.”
— The Record Journal of Meriden (Conn.)
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less