Which is that neither South Dakota, the federal government, the military nor Alaska accept the validity of Iowa gay marriages. As far as any of the instances involved in this case is concerned, she is *not* married. If neither the SD police nor the military acknowledge her marriage as real, suddenly their reporting on it becomes a lot less obvious or innocent.
I mean, suppose she HAD officially reported this to the military, filled in that form and all that. What would the military have done with that information? Would they even have a way of officially filing that information, considering that it's a marriage they don't acknowledge as valid? Even if you ignore DADT, it seems to me it was impossible for her to officially report to the military something the military cannot officially acknowledge (obviously informally informing her commanding officer is something else).
I mean, suppose she HAD officially reported this to the military, filled in that form and all that. What would the military have done with that information? Would they even have a way of officially filing that information, considering that it's a marriage they don't acknowledge as valid? Even if you ignore DADT, it seems to me it was impossible for her to officially report to the military something the military cannot officially acknowledge (obviously informally informing her commanding officer is something else).
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
590 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
612 Views
Her marriage was an important detail
- 14/03/2010 12:38:29 AM
580 Views
Re: Her marriage was an important detail
- 14/03/2010 06:38:05 PM
594 Views
you're assuming the military are treated like actual citizens.
- 14/03/2010 06:50:14 PM
559 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
actually, I think it is as bad as it sounds.
- 15/03/2010 02:14:21 AM
508 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
508 Views
- 15/03/2010 10:28:32 PM
752 Views
- 15/03/2010 10:28:32 PM
752 Views
Matter of perspective
- 15/03/2010 03:13:21 AM
561 Views
*snort* there's "Rules" like any job has
- 15/03/2010 03:34:51 AM
553 Views
Re: *snort* there's "Rules" like any job has
- 15/03/2010 04:02:46 AM
575 Views
if someone is going to sign away their life and limb.
- 15/03/2010 04:05:36 AM
654 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
603 Views
The military is different
- 14/03/2010 06:53:28 PM
681 Views
Re: The military is different
- 15/03/2010 12:34:47 AM
538 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
521 Views
You obviously don't get it. The police ARE bound to treat everyone fairly and ethically regardless.
- 15/03/2010 03:54:27 AM
568 Views
No no no, I think you're missing a big point
- 15/03/2010 02:50:33 AM
532 Views
Actually, I believe she also violated federal law too
- 15/03/2010 03:38:26 AM
683 Views
You're forbidden from marrying your own gender in the first place. She knew that.
- 14/03/2010 06:05:37 AM
534 Views
Wow...how completely wrong you are.
- 15/03/2010 05:42:32 PM
509 Views
You want to cite when that was changed?
- 15/03/2010 06:27:47 PM
564 Views
I can't tell you when it was changed specifically...
- 15/03/2010 09:09:46 PM
498 Views
Re: I can't tell you when it was changed specifically...
- 15/03/2010 09:15:41 PM
524 Views
wait, why does this military have that right?
- 15/03/2010 10:03:14 PM
506 Views
Why does or why should? *NM*
- 15/03/2010 10:22:11 PM
288 Views
Not sure of the US's reasoning, though I would assume it is as in other countries,
- 15/03/2010 10:31:38 PM
498 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
477 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
511 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
663 Views
Does that mean you're backtracking on a number of your earlier statements? 
- 16/03/2010 01:35:49 AM
726 Views
- 16/03/2010 01:35:49 AM
726 Views
Not really
- 16/03/2010 02:07:36 AM
568 Views
A spouse's criminal record can effect a soldier's clearance.
- 15/03/2010 05:30:09 AM
650 Views
none?
- 15/03/2010 12:36:36 PM
563 Views
Perhaps the bit where the police may have informed the military out of spite.
- 15/03/2010 06:30:06 PM
597 Views
see and here's my thing
- 15/03/2010 10:04:43 PM
686 Views
Re: see and here's my thing
- 15/03/2010 10:45:10 PM
621 Views
i guess that's just me then I tend to tuck important documents into single locations
- 15/03/2010 10:47:12 PM
594 Views
I tend to tuck important documents into single locations
- 15/03/2010 10:47:12 PM
594 Views
Re: i guess that's just me then I tend to tuck important documents into single locations
- 15/03/2010 11:05:59 PM
635 Views
I tend to tuck important documents into single locations
- 15/03/2010 11:05:59 PM
635 Views
Don't ask, don't tell is stupid and outdated in a modern country.
- 15/03/2010 11:02:33 AM
548 Views
Aww. Is the homo crowd upset that their marital status is being treated EXACTLY like everyone else?
- 15/03/2010 10:25:42 PM
549 Views