Liberals Score Huge Victory as Texas Reverses Course on Military Discrimination

rick-perry1Well, this is definitely something to be thankful for.  Maybe some of you have heard about the blatant discrimination several states have been participating in as it relates to the treatment of our brave men and women in our military.  Some states, in defiance of Pentagon orders, weren’t registering same-sex couples for marriage benefits on military bases operated by the state.  Instead, they were requiring them to travel to federally operated bases if they wished to obtain their benefits.

In a win for equal rights, it’s been announced that Texas, in an agreement with the Pentagon, will cease discriminating against members of the Texas National Guard who are involved in same-sex marriages.

Texas had claimed that since the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, it wasn’t required to register gay couples for the military benefits they were rightfully owed.

Their defense for this was that they weren’t preventing gay members of our military from receiving benefits, they were just requiring them to travel to federally operated bases to do so.

This “defense” was pathetic, as this often required members of our military to travel great distances to register for benefits they could have easily done only a few miles away.

Thankfully a deal has been reached, and this blatant attempt by Texas to discriminate against gay members of our military is now just a thing of the past.  Well, at least in this instance.  “Gay rights” and “Texas” are still two words that don’t go together.  But at least for members of the Texas National Guard, this agreement means they’ll no longer have to make the unnecessary trips to federal bases because state-run bases were refusing to register benefits for same-sex couples.

Stephen Peters, president of the gay rights group American Military Partner Association, said:

“All military spouses, regardless of orientation or gender, deserve to be treated with the same dignity, respect and support for their sacrifices in support of our nation, no matter what state they serve in.  We urge the remaining states who have not yet complied with the Department of Defense policy to do so quickly.”

The states of which he speaks are Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana.  I know, you’re shocked.

But at least this agreement is one step closer to gay members of our military reaching true equality among the ranks of the armed forces.  While there’s still plenty of work to be done since the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — as more time goes on, greater strides are being made.

It’s absolutely deplorable for anyone to judge someone who volunteers to risk their life to defend this country because they don’t agree with their sexual orientation.

And as despicable as the State of Texas still remains as it relates to gay rights, this agreement is at least a small step in the right direction for the LGBT community living in Texas to be given the equal rights they deserve.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    Why can’t the Feds just develop a website where they can apply online? (I’m joking, of course.)

    • strayaway

      Or send a letter. I wonder how far the closest federal base is compared with the closest state base. Is there a state base every 100 miles all over Texas? I doubt it. Mail or a website would be so much more convenient then sending soldiers all the way to Bethlehem to register or even half way there. The nearest federal facility for most people is the local post office but no, who would ever consider something that easy? And besides, how would that earn any political points with sexual identity groups?

      • Michael Rocker

        Texas has military bases all over the state. They even have a naval base that is not even by any open waters. Maybe a canoe but not ships. as i said in another post some of the NG facilities maybe on state owned land and state owned buildings but everything else is owned or paid for by the Dept of Defense from uniforms, payroll, vehicles, fuel electric, phones etc etc. I think you get the picture. Texas may as well be called Perryville.

      • strayaway

        I get the picture. This was about politics. Rather that these individuals should have to rive a long way than send a letter in or do an email. That way they get to suffer and we feel sorry for them. Sort of like closing down parks and keeping vets away from veteran memorials. None of this, of course, even came close to the evil of lying to people they could keep their health insurance policies.

        “The beatings will continue until morale improves”

      • Michael Rocker

        I would love to say i found it funny but during the closing of the government the republicans were at those memorial sites moving the barriers and making it look like it wasn’t their fault. Who closed them in the first place? A know nothing do nothing palin was also there. In the mean time nothing got done in congress and then the republicans decided to take a week off before going back to business.. This is the crap we vote for?
        As far as people keeping their health care why not ask the insurance companies that question. they had almost 3 years to make policies that complied with the law. It’s a matter of money. Money the insurances companies are afraid of losing having lower cost policies. Remember that Obama care is not that much different than Romneycare was in Massachusetts but he was the biggest complainer during his 2012 run.

      • strayaway

        Obama closed them in the first place as he did not want to compromise with two bills passed by the House. I agree that nothing gets done in Congress. A few years ago, the President said he would abide by the decisions of the Simpson Bowles Commission. He lied. He should do his part to fulfill his promise.

        Those policies were in place before anything was mandated. The President promised Americans could keep them. What harm would it have done to have kept his promises? So unpopular were the attacks on these policies that even the President is now trying to personally dictate revisions to the law. Instead, his administration and courts were busy adding new things that had to be covered. There is a huge constitutional difference if whether a state or the federal government runs the same policy as Romney pointed out (see 10th. Amendment). I didn’t vote for the guy but he was clear about that.

      • LLCisyouandme

        There is nothing in the ACA that says any non-complying policy needed to be canceled by the insurance companies, indeed, quite to the contrary. Health insurers took it upon themselves to cancel policies because they could make some extra money, connive to get legacy policy holders to voluntarily quit plans the ins. cos. couldn’t otherwise eliminate (for which they are now being sued btw,) and they knew they wouldn’t be blamed.

        How would the President have “kept his promise” this time, especially since now that he is trying to ameliorate the feckless actions of the insurance companies, you so readily and wrongly attribute that to ” the President is now trying to personally dictate revisions to the law”? Neither he nor the courts have “added new things to be covered.”

        Oh, and the Republicans said up front their intent was to shut down the government; they planned it and executed it. They offered poisoned pill options that were intended to subvert the law, and the entire Constitutional process under which it was written, voted on, signed, enacted, and adjudicated. That isn’t failure to compromise on his part, it’s somewhere between extortion and sedition, on the GOP’s part.

      • strayaway

        Nice try at defending one bunch of the President’s lies. I realize that he had to lie to lubricate the (un)ACA’s passage through Congress. But the fact is that he said Americans could keep their policies and doctors period. He did not have a disclaimer that he was going to add a bunch of new requirements to existing policies that would change their cost structure. What would have been the harm in just grandfathering in those policies to keep his promise? If the new (un)ACA policies were so much better, then it was only a matter of time before the holders of grandfathered polices would be jumping ship to get a better (un)ACA policy.

        It’s the same insurance companies who are selling the new (un)ACA policies anyway. I find it hard to believe that those same insurance companies have turned a new leaf and are operating closer to no profit and will be better corporate citizens.

        My remark about the President dictating had to do with his too late and unconstitutional attempt to remedy his lies. He declared that those insurance companies could keep the old polices going for another year. Only the Congress has the constitutional power to make laws. Presidents are supposed to execute them. Presidents have no power to rewrite laws as President Obama has done. That is an action more typical of a banana republic dictator. Congress should warn and then impeach if necessary.

        Obama was at least equally responsible for the shutdown. He lied about his support of the Simpson-Bowles Commission report. He would not compromise one bit. Again, he acted as a narcissistic dictator. My way or the the highway. My way or shut-down… so we had a shut down. I support the Simpson-Bowles Commission plan as a good compromise by the way.

      • LLCisyouandme

        Your “argument” isn’t even internally consistent. He didn’t add the grandfather provision, it was there, he extended it a year. The fact is that insurers didn’t immediately have to comply with not selling non-conforming policies. They chose to. The law as written also allows for administrative reliefs such as the very one cited. Since Congress makes laws, why don’t they just go through the process of making one that grandfathers these sham policies forever, rather than complaining that the President didn’t, while at the same time complaining that he did (but only for another year.)

        Holding the President “equally” responsible for the shutdown is like blaming the street-crime victim because he was carrying his wallet and walking down the street. Believing he should have “compromised” by merely sacrificing one of his signature achievements? That’s drinking the kool-aid.

      • strayaway

        I’m skeptical about the President(s) being given what amounts to a pocket enabling act built right into the (un)ACA to grandfather in policies that have been cancelled, and to extend them and the upcoming employer mandates for another year. So I will ask you to cite the language giving the President these broad powers to override such provisions. Surely your source for this information provided the wording. One reason I am skeptical is because if presidents have been given the power to postpone parts of this act, then what prevents a future Republican president from postponing the entire act indefinitely? I don’t think that Democrats would have provided such wording. Or did they just limit these powers to President Obama? That is why the wording backing up your claim is so important. At least you have offered me hope.

        One of the Republican compromises, in a follow up offer, was to delay the implementation of the (un)ACA. Now the President has done that himself. So why did he cause so much misery to so many Americans by not allowing Republicans to do something he did himself a month later?

        Along the same lines, House Republicans and 39 Democrats voted to delay closing those health insurance policies and Sen. Landreiu (D) sponsored a similar Senate bill. This would have made changing the (un)ACA constitutional. However, again, the President threatened a veto to legislate the changes he just legislated; a power reserved for Congress.

      • LLCisyouandme

        I’m not your library. If the President was creating law you think the Republicans would remain quiet? They actually proposed that he do exactly what he did, they just wanted it to be open ended, and include new customers, which would defeat the purpose and effect of the law. That is what the bills you reference proposed and why they would be unacceptable.

      • strayaway

        I’m not going to waste my time looking for factoids that you invented. Put up or shut up. What’s the wording in the (un)ACA that you claim allows the President to unilaterally make major changes in the law?

        The House bill did nave some rough edges probably not acceptable to Democrats. That’s why the Senate should have passed Sen. Landrieus’ version and then have the two Congressional bodies rectify the two versions. That’s how Constitutional government is supposed to work. You seem to prefer executive fiat or some other sort of imaginary enabling act to override Congress.

      • LLCisyouandme

        I wouldn’t have figured you’d be prone to anything like due diligence. I’ve repeatedly addressed where you are quite wrong and you just go on to another topic. You can’t even rephrase what I said without altering it. Live in your Faux hole, be happy.

      • strayaway

        Here is your claim, “(Obama) didn’t add the grandfather provision, it was there,” Presumably, you also have the wording of a provision that allowed Obama to waive his wand and delay to employer mandate too. I so hope you are right. Then maybe Republicans can some day delay the whole mess indefinitely.

        I am concluding that you lied and are unable to back up your claim that Obama was granted all these magical legislative powers you claim.

      • LLCisyouandme

        Calling what I said a “claim” is remarkably disingenuous. No one this side of reason disputes the provision exists.

        I went and found, rather readily, the exact wording.

        There is no wand, there is no magic, there is no (un). The extension isn’t even a legislative action. It’s administrative. You must hate these decisions being made, without you.

        I do not understand why trying to find out the truth is a “waste of your time,” while spouting endlessly on assumptions you have no basis for is somehow a useful endeavor.

        I do not understand why you would want a sham insurance plan, and you probably don’t. You just want insurance companies to continue to sell them to others. 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills, and 78% of those had medical insurance, probably most often the policies the ACA is trying to eliminate. One highly publicized case was about a woman who was losing her coverage and complaining, telling how it had a “$50 deductible” when the actuality was that the insurance company would pay no more than $50, and the balance was on the her. The short case is that cost of medical care for the uninsured/poorly insured ultimately comes out of everyone else’s pockets. Look at a hospital bill, it’s right there. Everyone hates when people use ER’s like PCP’s, except the hospitals, who look at it as a license to steal. It’s administrative. You must hate these even more expensive decisions being made, without you.

        I’m done with this thread.

      • strayaway

        Here is your claim, “(Obama) didn’t add the grandfather provision, it was there,” Presumably, you also have the wording of a provision that allowed Obama to waive his wand and delay to employer mandate too. I so hope you are right. Then maybe Republicans can some day delay the whole mess indefinitely.

        I am concluding that you lied and are unable to back up your claim that Obama was granted all these magical legislative powers you claim.

        “No one this side of reason disputes the provision exists.” -LLC

        So then it should be easy to prove. I can’t find any such thing and have never heard of such a thing so I would appreciate a link to an article quoting the language that allows this or other presidents to make major changes in the law without an act of Congress. So far no proof.

        What other “administrative powers do you imagine presidents have? Can they overrule congressional trucking laws, attack other nations when the Country is not threatened, ignore the War Powers Act, and selectively choose and make changes in immigration law. When did Congress ever pass an enabling act giving presidents all this congressional power?

    • Oldfart

      On the other hand, why can’t Texas just follow instructions from the Pentagon? Maybe a couple applying for benefits has to be there in person to validate identity? I have no idea but Texas should follow orders.

      • Jim Bean

        Its a state’s rights issue (Tenth Amendment) that trumps Federal ‘orders’ because Texas doesn’t currently recognize same-sex marriage.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey fuckface,,happy thanksgiving. I need to ask this TURKEY question 2 you———– don U believe that AMERICA is all about EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL americans????

      • Michael Rocker

        The fact is that the state owns the property and the building but everything inside the property ae; cars trucks Hum-v’s and tanks belong to the Federal Government. The uniforms the weapons and on and on and on including the phone and electric bills are paid by Uncle Sam not Rick Perry.

      • Steve Hughes

        REally? don’t look like it right now.

      • Oldfart

        No, “state’s rights” do NOT trump federal laws or military orders. The problem with living in Texas is that you are brought up on lies about the Constitution.

      • Rich

        “The local interest of a State ought in every case to give way to the interests of the Union. For when a sacrifice of one or the other is necessary,
        the former becomes only an apparent, partial interest, and should yield, on the principle that the smaller good ought never to oppose the greater good.”
        Alexander Hamilton; speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788

        “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be
        reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
        Thomas Jefferson, First; Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

        Conservatives remind me of Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, and
        Elmer Fudd. They bring the guns, the stupidity, and of course, the failure.

      • Jim Bean

        By that standard, the 16 states recognizing same sex unions should be yielding to the 33 who don’t because the former 16 are the ‘partial interest’ and the other 33 represent the ‘greater good.’

      • soxfan4evah

        National Guard falls under the State, not the Pentagon until they are called up for mobilization overseas. So why would they follow the Pentagon?

      • Steve Hughes

        You right dimwit. Maybe the 30-40 % who don’t fit into your mold of right and wrong should just say F**k it the next time TexAss needs their services.

      • soxfan4evah

        If you ever recited the oath of enlistment in the guard you would know the governor not POTUS is CIC. So again simple question, why would you follow the Pentagon? Guess I know I can always find my daily recommended allowance of hateful ignorance here at FP. Can you answer simply? As for Texas, we don’t need hateful people like you in our great state.

      • Steve Hughes

        Answer? Sure……I’ll Answer. Maybe the ‘great’ state of Texas should do what the Pentagon says because what the Pentagon says is Right, is Lawful and needs to be done. Just because you have a TEApublican governor who thinks it’s cute to play games with peoples lives doesn’t make it a good thing to do. Did you ever think about how many gay people of all kinds have spent their lives making the ‘great’ state of Texas Great? Or is that too hard for you? You get your daily dose of ignorance plus some CON-servative Bullshit just living down there with Perry in charge. Why don’t you in your TeaTard ‘wisdom’ go and ask the gay people of the National Gaurd of Texas how much they like being discriminated ( basically Shit On) by a whackjob governor who is doing so to make Brownie Points with the GOP Crazies?

      • soxfan4evah

        The Pentagon does not make policy for National Guard is my point. Perhaps if we had a liberal governor who could spew stupid bullshit like you do we could have an unemployment rate to match the rest of America instead of leading the way in job growth. But at least your feelings wouldn’t be hurt.

      • Steve Hughes

        Yer ain’t a hurtin’ mah feelins Teaxas. Your point is noted, especially for it’s Ignorance and its Stupidity. In True TEApublican fashion, you didn’t even touch on the important things that were said. Your argument boils down to this….The AssHole TeaTard governor of Texas CAN by means of appealing to states power, STICK IT TO MEMBERS OF THE STATES NATIONAL GAURD, out of hatred, out of fear, out of his own stinking incompetence. WoW! Big Win for Texas…..You have shown that you are the same bunch of cowardly Bigots you have always been. Did you find the State group representing the National Rights of anyone who isn’t straight, did you find somebody else’s Balls to call or go visit them and try spewing your BullShit to them? Face to face?? Man to man? Didn’t think so. By the way I am straight but I also realise that these gay people are a part of this country and deserve to be treated so. But in Texas bigots like you still treat those (Who aren’t staight)who serve with gaurd with Contempt. Here’s a hopin you meet some face to face…….

      • Michael Rocker

        Kick his ass Steve.. I can take the video and make it viral on You Tube. LOL Look at his name He is from up north if he is a Sox fan. I put my money on you.

      • soxfan4evah

        Steve probably wouldn’t last 20 seconds. Less time than the average Iraqi or Afghan who joins the Taliban. Nor would you and your video prowess. As for putting your money where your mouth is, being a liberal you should be looking to put someone else’s money where your mouth is.

      • Steve Hughes

        Maybe…..I’m 62 now. However, My son would enjoy having a piece of you if it came to that. He grew up with me in Philly. He went 10-0 in the ring, the last fight fight he destoyed a Golden Glove Champion. Oh, and he worked himself up to 17 one armed chinups.

      • Michael Rocker

        A beantowner in Texas mmmmm. First off slug butt let me give you some facts here. Texas cooks the books with their unemployment numbers. First off they don’t count those who have run out of their benefits and have had to go on public assistance. Second is that Texas is a “right to work” for less state. You have a right to work and the employer has the right to pay you at minimum wage even for a highly skilled job.. Which means that someone with a family of 4 would most likely have to apply for food stamps because $290 a week before taxes just won’t cut it. However those are mainly the only jobs available or created are low paying jobs.

      • soxfan4evah

        So a New York deuchebag is going to set me straight on Texas? Oil company and technology jobs are hardly minimum wage but don’t let facts get in your way. As for cooking the books on unemployment, that would be the Obama administration. Biggest reason for increase in unemployment numbers in Texas, people moving in from other states looking for the right to work.

      • Michael Rocker

        Oh you hurt me so bad. Oil company jobs and high tech jobs? Sure they have em but not everyone is working there. Rick Perry is telling people that if they move to Taxes they can find work. Sure if you want to make some fries and flip burgers for minimum wage.

      • soxfan4evah

        Funny how 2 loudmouthed progressives know more about Texas than those who live there. Maybe if you turned off MSNBC, pulled your heads out of your asses and looked at reality your attitude toward others would improve.

      • LLCisyouandme

        So “being there” somehow gives your opinions credence? Sounds like a “I can see Russia from here” moment. There are so many jobs in Texas because sometimes one guy has three of them, all at flipping burgers.

      • Michael Rocker

        Maybe if you turned off faux news, pulled your head out of your ass and looked at reality your attitude toward others would improve.

      • Oldfart

        Hmmm. I wonder why it is called the “National” Guard?

      • rossbro

        I believe the Nat Guard is paid by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

      • soxfan4evah

        Actually no, unless they are activated for a national emergency or overseas deployment. During training they are but the state has to reimburse.

  • Ted Holland

    Why cant Texas just step into the 21st century and accept that we are here, we deserve the same rights and benefits? Dont worry…we wont have Governor Asswipe Perry much longer…..Sen. Wendy Davis is waiting in the wings…..

    • Michael Rocker

      Texas has been on the decline ever since former governor Anne Richards left office.It’s been looking like that for the last 4 years in Virginia with RINO Tea Baggers running the state. Thank goodness there is a new Dem Gov and Lt Gov and soon to a Dem AG. Virginia where it’s illegal for one to give or get a BJ

      • billbo_66

        A BJ isn’t illegal….but if The Cooch were elected it would be enforced on gay couples. Why are teadrinkers so concerned about the bedroom and the OB-GYN Office?

      • Michael Rocker

        Virginia’s Sodomy Law

        Virginia outlaws consensual sexual behavior between adults with 18.2-361, “Crimes against nature”. This prohibits the making or consenting to such sexual contact a Class 6 felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment not less than one year nor more than five years, or a confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.

        Virginia also bans voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons with code section 18.2-344 – Fornication. This is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor which imposes a fine of not more than $250 upon a successful conviction.

        Lewd and lascivious cohabitation is also prohibited in Virginia and is punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor upon a first successful conviction which carries a fine of not more than $500. Subsequent convictions are punishable as Class 1 misdemeanors which have a sentence of not more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. All parties cohabiting are subject to prosecution.

        Of particular note is Virginia’s traditional model for sexual crimes in which the wife is considered property and is considered to always consent to the husband’s sexual advances unless serious injury took place during the event. Virginia’s rape law, 18.2-61 states that “no person shall be found guilty under this subsection unless, at the time of the alleged offense, (i) the spouses were living separate and apart, or (ii) the defendant caused serious physical injury to the spouse by the use of force or violence.” Identical language exists for Virginia’s Forcible sodomy law, 18.2-67.1.

      • Vicki Dalton

        O.M.G.!

      • Michael Rocker

        It’s true.

      • billbo_66

        Well the law was tossed by the state court, thank god. However the Cooch was trying to get it reinstated. He would have tried to enforce it on gay couples. BUT>>>>He will never get the chance… Thank goodness. Cooch, WackoJacko and Öbershein LOL. What a F’d up ticket.

      • billbo_66

        I tried to explain this to the hillbillies up here. However these people are quite closed to reason. They wont believe anything, even if you show them the bills. I tried with the ‘personhood bill’ they still didn’t understand. Scary to think that the Old Dominion is still so far behind.

      • Michael Rocker

        It’s like trying to beat a dead horse. It’s dead and not going anywhere. I have gone to some sites that are pro GOP and posted facts and they debunked it and had to stop to calling me names and when I went to their level and called one of them a GOP Teatard the bombs went flying. No one said jack when I was called a Libtard. To them that’s ok. LOL

  • Walter E Geaux

    when people realize that they always fall on their own sword, maybe the wars will stop and all of this disabled vet stuff be unnecessary, my prayer for you~

    • don

      Sure you are gay. And everyone should pay

  • Willie Webb

    Sounds like another STATE RIGHT has just been stripped away. If your for this I would be inclined to think you are also supporting the Feds when it comes to forcing abortion and birth control onto religious establishments weather they agree with it or not. Lord help us as most of the comments here
    show a strong leaning to ceding our States Rights and our religious rights to the Fed Govt. Lots of you commented that Texas should just follow the instructions….Sadden to hear this…Are you going to just follow the instructions until ALL your liberties are gone. You will have a certain name then you know……SLAVE.

    • Why5ks

      It isn’t a state’s right issue. They pay for those troops with Federal money. Those troops are entitled to the benefits as Federal employees. This is not telling Texas they have to sanction same sex marriage.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        willie wee willie webb is a bigot who hates gays

    • regressive rightwing trash

      hey fuckface,,,,happy thanksgiving!!! let me ask U this TURKEY question:::: do U—as an American—believe America should have EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL americans??? lemme know

      • von Wer

        No. Only Straight White People: God’s “Chosen ones”.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        southern psalm-singing white trash Baptist’s “GOD”

    • bobby99

      Federal law is supreme over state law, and especially in a federal unit or agency. Read the Constitution and it is in the first few articles. Stop the nonsense with State’s rights where the supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Prez=Commander, Fed=US, not local pettiness. National Guard answers to POTUS. -bobby99

      • soxfan4evah

        If you were to enlist in the guard, you pledge to the state and recognize the governor as CIC not the President.

    • Steve Hughes

      States rights? The right to make slaves? Religious rights? The right to declare your Bigoted views as the only one that is acceptable? Forcing abortion and birth control? Are you an Idiot? These things are needed and Wanted but for the TeaTards running TexAss right now they would have them. States can be Bigger Assholes than the FEDs in case you haven’t noticed.

      • soxfan4evah

        If only they would let you ramrod your beliefs down everyones throat, then they would be acceptable, right? No one is talking about making slaves, although all this progressive policy is making people slaves to the Federal Government, either through dependence or taxation.

      • Steve Hughes

        This is getting to be fun now! No Nimrod, the Only One ‘Ramroding their Beliefs’ down anyones throat…..IS YOU> Texas government is representing a SMALL group of hyper-ventilating Quasi-Christians who worship GOP Jeezus ( not to be confused with the True Son of GOD) and who read the GOP Bible (the Sarah Pukey Palin Edition) that read “Blessed are the Wealthy, for theirs is the Privilege of screwing over the poor.” A simple vote would prove this to be the case. You see, In Texas there are also Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Presbyterians, Jews, Mormons, the 7th Day Adventists, Hindus, and more who DON’T WANT THEIR STATE TO SCREW OVER A MINORITY, for Texas-sized TeaParty Shits and Grins, by a governor who thinks sucking up is the Best Policy to keep getting re-elected. If the governor was a muslim and decided to make SHARIA the law of the land I’ll bet you would be whinning up a storm. Since you and Perry believe thst the one in power gets to dictate his own narrow point of view on Everybody, then why not a Muslim? Or a Jew? SEE…….your BIGOTRY is showing. Better pull your pants up quick! Looks like I’m not the only to see the Emperor has no clothes…..

    • EqualRightsForEveryone

      These aren’t rights provided by the state of Texas. And what’s the difference to Texas where someone applies for these benefits anyway? Now, if the voters in Texas voted for this, that’s one thing. But when it’s the state, Rick Perry being the head of the Texas National Guard, that is something completely different and WRONG.

      And, yes, I do think that ALL religious groups, churches, states, or businesses owned by religious people, should have to provide abortion and birth control benefits to everyone. The leaders of those organizations don’t have to get an abortion themselves, but they should not deny someone the right just because they don’t agree with it. What if they disagreed with open heart surgery? What then? Should they have the right to disallow medical benefits covering this?

      Liberties are not rights. Enforcing the rights of the people is not the same as denying liberties. Beliefs are just a way of thinking. Everyone should be held to a higher standard and I think that standard should be to treat everyone equal no matter how different others are from you. You sound like you are the slave who has lost the ability to think for himself. Step back from the dogma.

  • jeff

    TEXAS BELIEVES LIKE THE REPUBLICANS DO…JUST THANK THE BASTARDS FOR THEIR SERVICE AND TAKE THE REST AWAY…yeah, thanks a lot…(I am a vet and I find it hypocritical for someone to thank me for my service to my country and take my benefits away from me at the same time)

  • LLCisyouandme

    While I understand every website’s need to attract viewers, this was neither a liberal victory nor a huge victory. In some ways it wasn’t even a move forward. Texas started from the obstructionist position of making the enrollment process more difficult for the federal government and for Texas National Guard members. They then got to “negotiate” with the Pentagon and settle on “allowing” federal employees to use federally payed for facilities to enroll other almost exclusively federally funded employees in a federal program. While in the short term this is what was best for the National Guard members, and most expedient for the Pentagon, it still wasted time, money, attention, while simultaneously rewarding (and thereby psychologically endorsing) anti-government behaviors. The Pentagon had to mollycoddle Texas before they’d even do the rudiments of the *legal* thing, and it’s *still* less efficient. I see behaviors here no different than petty extortions, babes simultaneously suckling at the gov’t teat and biting on it. What’s a mother to do?

  • Tim Presnell

    just ask yourself this question… If texas were under attack from a foreign entity, and they were in your back yard would you care that the soldier standing between them and you were gay?? Or would you want him to do his job and protect you and yours?.. Give them what they have earned by signing up to protect your bigoted “christian” views.. when the time comes I hope they look at you and tell you sorry, let your “christian” views protect your sorry ass .

  • billbo_66

    Im a vet of the US Army. I was in from 86-94. I seen several good, wonderful boys sent home, why? Because they loved the wrong person. This is a shame. One of my friends, Ben was gay, we all knew about it and none of us cared. We all covered for him when questioned by the officers. My opinion then is what it is today. Equal rights for equal taxes. You pay for these rights then by god you get them.

    • Michael Rocker

      I was in the Navy and we had an E-5 who was gay and everyone in the command including the CO and XO knew it. Some how word got out to the squadron level and they were getting ready to discharge at a Captain mast for being gay. It was out of my CO’s hands. So he went out in to town one night and scored some coke and of course the way the UCMJ goes that if you are with him and see it you have to report it or if you don’t you can also be brought up on charges. He was tried by our CO and was found guilty of drug possession. He was given a reduction in rate 1/2 months pay and given 2 weeks restriction to the base and a general discharge. This was all a planned set up. This way he would get a general discharge as opposed to and ABCD or dishonorable discharge. Back then it was easier for one to get a job if you got out for drugs then it was if the DD 214 stated homosexuality.

  • Joe Marek

    So, what’s the latest from Oklahoma?

  • rossbro

    All military sites in Texas should be moved somewhere else. Then we’ll see if they want the Federal Government in Texas anymore.

    • Michael Rocker

      What you may not know is that Texas is one of those Red states that receives more in federal taxes then they give back. It’s the same way in most RED states which means the states that are paying their fare share suffer.