LakeCumberlandBoaters.com

Lesbian veteran sues government for benefits

Washington (CNN) -- A U.S. Army veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is suing the federal government, claiming she and her wife are being denied military benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples. (duh)

A complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles says that the government's definition of marriage is unconstitutional and violates equal protection.

"We're only asking for the same benefits as other married couples, we simply want the same peace of mind," Tracey Cooper-Harris, the plaintiff, said at a press conference in Washington announcing the lawsuit.

Cooper-Harris, who served 12 years in the Army, says she wants the same military benefits that a heterosexual married couple would receive.

Cooper-Harris said she was diagnosed in 2010 with multiple sclerosis, a disease that attacks the central nervous system.

The suit claims that her disease is "service-connected" and she does get disability compensation for it. But Cooper-Harris says she wants to make sure that after she dies, her spouse, Maggie, whom she married in 2008, is taken care of financially.

She also wants Maggie to be buried next to her in a veterans cemetery. These requests were denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the suit says, because "spouse" is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or a husband."

the rest:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/us/lesbia ... ?hpt=us_c2

Who couldn't see this one coming as soon as they dropped the ban on Gays in the military.

I still feel Marriage is defined as a man and a woman BUT
I do think they should be able to have Civil Unions etc. and that those should pretty much be given the same benefits as a husband and wife.

(ok, don't shoot me)

E_HILLMAN wrote:I still feel Marriage is defined as a man and a woman BUT
I do think they should be able to have Civil Unions etc. and that those should pretty much be given the same benefits as a husband and wife.

(ok, don't shoot me)

I agree, but take it even further. Marriage is a till death do us part commitment. If you choose to get divorced, you shouldn't get to have a second marriage. A civil union, sure, but the people running around on their fourth and fifth "Marriage" are doing more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than the same sex couples wanting equal treatment.
If that doesn't ruffle enough feathers, I also think marriage should be defined as a couple who are committed to each other for life with a main focus of having a family. If you have no intention of starting a family, there is no point in getting married. Civil union for those folks too!

Close - but if you wish to have sex after that marriage it basically says to go ahead and remarry so you don't burn in hell. lol So there is that. I didn't post all 40 verses but you'll gge tth

1 Corinthians 7 (NIV)
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

...or if you want to see that in King James http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV


...and this pretty much seals the man and woman part
Gen. 2:18, 21-24

The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)

There is more to cover the "modern" day in Ephesians 5:21-32 but a lot of it is a repeat of the older books.

imaposer wrote: I also think marriage should be defined as a couple who are committed to each other for life with a main focus of having a family.

Same sex partners (whacos) can't conceive children, and adoption should not be an option!! (period)

Could you imagine 'yourself' growing up with 'samesex' parents amongst your friends! Ain't no way this should be forced on young children!!
Man...talk about a non-smoking ban!!