Active Users:526 Time:10/06/2026 03:28:02 PM
You want to cite when that was changed? Isaac Send a noteboard - 15/03/2010 06:27:47 PM
I'm pretty sure the police would actually have been violating the law not to inform the military of the license.

Also, it's nice that she played by the rules of DADT, but she violated a couple others in the process. You are legally require din the military to inform them of a marriage, and you do have to get you commander's permission before marrying in the military, it's virtually never denied but you can not get married in the military without your commander's permission. So saying she followed the rules is wrong, and she could have received stiff penalty for that alone, hetero or lesbian.



Not one thing is true in that paragraph. You are not required to tell the military of a marriage. Your spouse will not get any benefits in case of accident/death and won't enjoy the benefits that military spouses receive, but you don't have to tell them.

And as someone who got married while in the military, I can tell you that you don't have to inform your commander or get permission to marry. You do it, you come back, and you fill out paperwork so that your spouse can receive benefits and you can receive a slightly larger paycheck.

What you need permission for is the Leave you need take for a proper honeymoon, but you don't have to tell them why you want you leave. Most branches require an intenerary, but that is more for safety/deployment concerns.


It has certainly been the law in the US and most western military for the longest time, go google vietnam era when the military was still using the rule to keep soldiers from marrying. If it's been overturned then it's still firm custom, the sheet issued to all the soldiers getting married at my first post even has it on their as a reminder. Anyway, even if it has changed - and I'd like to know when - it would still fall under something a commander could issue a directive over, it's traditional to talk with them and you other superiors about it, so they can ask you and maybe steer you away if your some 19 year old about to marry a girl you met last week. I'd also like you to cite for me when it became legal not inform the military you were married. I can show you without even citing regs that it is required. Certainly for security clearance which I'd be surprised if she didn't have - are you going to seriously tell me that marital status is irrelevant to security clearance even as we're discussing someone who was married to a fugitive and whose relationship is practically the hallmark for espionage via blackmail? Anyway, it's irrelevant, all soldiers fill out a DD 93, block 4 has marital status, you have to answer that truthfully or you committed a felony, I'm sure there are other forms too but there's no way in heck she didn't have to fill one of those out unless the marriage was very recent. The military didn't charge her with anything, she even got an honorable discharge, they could have literally beat her with the book if they wanted to. I think they acted very civilly about it.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military - 13/03/2010 10:43:06 PM 1111 Views
The military is entitled to know about all legal proceedings on its personnel, and the details - 13/03/2010 11:08:18 PM 591 Views
Re: The military is entitled to know about all legal proceedings on its personnel, and the details - 13/03/2010 11:37:30 PM 614 Views
well she did have a third option - 14/03/2010 12:05:06 AM 589 Views
Her marriage was an important detail - 14/03/2010 12:38:29 AM 581 Views
Re: Her marriage was an important detail - 14/03/2010 06:38:05 PM 596 Views
you're assuming the military are treated like actual citizens. - 14/03/2010 06:50:14 PM 560 Views
Basically. *NM* - 14/03/2010 06:54:14 PM 301 Views
really? I was really hoping someone would point out how wrong I was. *NM* - 14/03/2010 07:01:45 PM 317 Views
It's not as bad as it sounds *NM* - 14/03/2010 11:13:05 PM 286 Views
Agreed. It's restrictive at times, but usually fair. *NM* - 15/03/2010 12:30:13 AM 283 Views
Yep, definitely harsh, but also fair *NM* - 15/03/2010 12:54:34 AM 278 Views
Define fair - 15/03/2010 03:08:42 AM 559 Views
actually, I think it is as bad as it sounds. - 15/03/2010 02:14:21 AM 510 Views
Because if you treated soldiers like civilians, they wouldn't be very effective. *NM* - 15/03/2010 02:49:19 AM 283 Views
*shrug* I don't believe it has to be that way. - 15/03/2010 03:40:08 AM 510 Views
- 15/03/2010 10:28:32 PM 754 Views
Matter of perspective - 15/03/2010 03:13:21 AM 563 Views
*snort* there's "Rules" like any job has - 15/03/2010 03:34:51 AM 555 Views
Re: *snort* there's "Rules" like any job has - 15/03/2010 04:02:46 AM 577 Views
if someone is going to sign away their life and limb. - 15/03/2010 04:05:36 AM 655 Views
Re: if someone is going to sign away their life and limb. - 15/03/2010 04:48:03 AM 550 Views
very* - 15/03/2010 04:51:07 AM 631 Views
Re: very* - 15/03/2010 05:02:28 AM 536 Views
You can get out of the military anytime in the first six months or so without any consequences. *NM* - 15/03/2010 05:25:43 AM 360 Views
I'm less concerned about "Getting out" - 15/03/2010 12:31:49 PM 604 Views
Actually, in the contract when you first sign up... - 15/03/2010 05:55:48 PM 731 Views
as long as it's in the contract...and not glossed over. - 15/03/2010 06:00:38 PM 538 Views
The military is different - 14/03/2010 06:53:28 PM 682 Views
Re: The military is different - 15/03/2010 12:34:47 AM 539 Views
You obviously don't get it. There is no right to privacy as a member of the military. Period. - 15/03/2010 12:43:58 AM 523 Views
You two are arguing past each other - 15/03/2010 03:14:28 AM 511 Views
My point remains the same.... - 15/03/2010 06:27:32 AM 545 Views
No no no, I think you're missing a big point - 15/03/2010 02:50:33 AM 533 Views
Actually, I believe she also violated federal law too - 15/03/2010 03:38:26 AM 685 Views
Re: Actually, I believe she also violated federal law too - 15/03/2010 04:01:29 AM 564 Views
Jurisdiction - 15/03/2010 04:21:08 AM 601 Views
Aren't they already pursuing across state lines though? - 15/03/2010 04:46:34 AM 553 Views
and you are still missing my main point. - 15/03/2010 03:49:26 AM 559 Views
I don't care about DADT, and I never mentioned it - 15/03/2010 07:15:27 AM 567 Views
Wow...how completely wrong you are. - 15/03/2010 05:42:32 PM 511 Views
You want to cite when that was changed? - 15/03/2010 06:27:47 PM 566 Views
Marriage Question - 15/03/2010 07:26:34 PM 487 Views
Re: Marriage Question - 15/03/2010 07:54:24 PM 533 Views
I can't tell you when it was changed specifically... - 15/03/2010 09:09:46 PM 500 Views
Re: I can't tell you when it was changed specifically... - 15/03/2010 09:15:41 PM 526 Views
wait, why does this military have that right? - 15/03/2010 10:03:14 PM 508 Views
Why does or why should? *NM* - 15/03/2010 10:22:11 PM 288 Views
both, really. *NM* - 15/03/2010 10:28:36 PM 272 Views
Basically what snoop said *NM* - 15/03/2010 11:07:17 PM 258 Views
Can't cite you regs, don't know them and I have been out for a number of years now. - 16/03/2010 12:17:58 AM 479 Views
Re: Can't cite you regs, don't know them and I have been out for a number of years now. - 16/03/2010 12:33:33 AM 512 Views
Somebody brought up a valid point, though... - 16/03/2010 01:01:18 AM 617 Views
Re: Somebody brought up a valid point, though... - 16/03/2010 01:22:36 AM 665 Views
Does that mean you're backtracking on a number of your earlier statements? - 16/03/2010 01:35:49 AM 728 Views
Not really - 16/03/2010 02:07:36 AM 568 Views
Looks like you're missing one of my points too, then. - 16/03/2010 02:40:50 AM 859 Views
Re: Looks like you're missing one of my points too, then. - 16/03/2010 02:57:03 AM 552 Views
Actually she did NOT follow the rules - 14/03/2010 06:04:32 AM 598 Views
Bottom line: The law is stupid. - 15/03/2010 04:20:23 AM 538 Views
A spouse's criminal record can effect a soldier's clearance. - 15/03/2010 05:30:09 AM 651 Views
none? - 15/03/2010 12:36:36 PM 564 Views
Perhaps the bit where the police may have informed the military out of spite. - 15/03/2010 06:30:06 PM 599 Views
see and here's my thing - 15/03/2010 10:04:43 PM 688 Views
Re: see and here's my thing - 15/03/2010 10:45:10 PM 622 Views
i guess that's just me then I tend to tuck important documents into single locations - 15/03/2010 10:47:12 PM 596 Views
Until yesterday - 15/03/2010 11:34:09 PM 501 Views
Re: Until yesterday - 15/03/2010 11:42:37 PM 537 Views
Don't ask, don't tell is stupid and outdated in a modern country. - 15/03/2010 11:02:33 AM 550 Views
Exactly - 15/03/2010 09:04:44 PM 497 Views
Re: Exactly - 15/03/2010 10:11:14 PM 600 Views
Yeah, - 15/03/2010 10:43:10 PM 555 Views

Reply to Message