Military gay wedding
Navy Chaplain Kay Reeb of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America officiates the civil union ceremony of Air Force Tech. Sgt. Erwynn Umali, right, and his partner Will Behrens. (AP file photo)

Freedom to serve, but no rights for gay couples in the military

BY Brandi Kruse  on November 19, 2012 @ 2:58 pm (Updated: 4:15 pm - 11/19/12 )

Early in the morning on Election Day, tens of thousands of military personnel received an email urging them to vote.

"You serve to help defend the right to vote for all of us, so please exercise it yourself," the email read. It was sent to members of an online resource called S1NET, a forum only accessible to those in the U.S. Army.

The email went on to outline their current policy regarding same-sex marriage.

"Although certain states may recognize same-sex unions, and some service members may take or have taken advantage of the state laws that allow these unions, at this time, SSM(s), SVO(s), and VO(s) may not make any changes to a sponsor record utilizing the documentation from one of these unions."

In short; gay marriage still means nothing in the military.

"It doesn't matter whether you live or die and happen to be gay in the military, you are still going to be sort of disenfranchised," said Retired Col. Grethe Cammermeyer. "Your family is disenfranchised. They can't get an ID card to go on a military base. They can't get healthcare."

Cammermeyer served 31 years in the military, "not without turmoil," she said.

She fought to keep her career after coming out as a lesbian, and then spent 24 years fighting for the ultimate repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) in 2011.

"To have young people come up to me and say, ‘Thank you colonel. Because of your efforts, I no longer have to choose between the military that I love and the partner that I love,' that is very humbling - to hear that it has made a difference."

Retired, she now lives with her longtime partner on Whidbey Island. The two plan to wed on Dec. 9; the first day same-sex couples can tie the knot under Washington state's marriage equality bill.

Still, the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, will prevent their union from being recognized by the military.

"It is like there is nothing that is there for you, except you can now live and die in the service of the country and do that as a recognized gay person," she said. "My partner of 24 years, soon-to-be spouse, has no protection from the federal government from my retirements if I should die before her."

Cammermeyer is hopeful that the repeal of DADT has encouraged gay and lesbian service members to speak out about unfair treatment under the law.

"What they can be is vocal to their commanders about what their significant other can't do because of the restrictions that are there," she said. "That way there is pressure from within the military, as well as outside, to get Congress to act."

DOMA defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman; therefore benefits cannot be extended to spouses of the same sex.

Brandi Kruse, KIRO Radio Reporter
Brandi Kruse is a reporter for KIRO Radio who is as spontaneous and adventurous in her free time as she is on the job. Brandi arrived at KIRO Radio in March 2011 and has already collected three regional Edward R. Murrow awards for her reporting.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Heartstopping
    Daredevils post breathtaking pictures atop Seattle landmarks

  • Snowy Passes
    Escape cold Seattle; go skiing at Crystal Mountain

  • Dirty Wars
    Director Jeremy Scahill says Obama hasn't been fighting a clean war
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (38)


  • Add A Comment

  • shark75 wrote...
    Mother nature disenfranchises gay people
    November 19, 2012 4:09 pm
    Besides, the military is not here for you and your gay marriage being recognized. It's duty is to protect America. My bet is you'll be wanting it to sponsor your gay weddings and then what's next? Gay honeymoons? Give them an inch, they demand a mile...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    Give them and inch....
    November 19, 2012 4:25 pm
    ....and they'll demand five more.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BCFU wrote...
    Whaa?
    November 20, 2012 5:00 pm
    It's apparent by your stunning display of ignorance for the military industrial complex that you sir, have no idea what you are talking about.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lamoly wrote...
    Where is your spouse?
    November 20, 2012 6:34 pm
    Are you getting benefits? Mine is in Afghanistan. And I am not. This isn't about gays wanting it all; it's about human beings living and surviving with dignity.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    WHAAA!
    November 19, 2012 4:31 pm
    Good grief! Gay relationships are not normal and yet they will go to any length to try to convince themselves and others that it is the same thing as a heterosexual couple/ marriage. Simply put- " It aint 'cause it aint"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lamoly wrote...
    Well, now.
    November 20, 2012 10:19 am
    That was incredibly articulate. I am glad you have solved the same-sex marriage debate with: "It aint 'cause it aint." My partner and I are humbled.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    DOMA is a good thing...
    November 19, 2012 4:38 pm
    ... I hope they keep it...

    Wish WA state would adopt it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dexterjibs wrote...
    oh boo-hoo
    November 19, 2012 4:40 pm
    sorry, it isn't natural for one dude to go bob n zee knobbin with some other dude so i think they need to petition God to make all the changes they want in order to make them competely happy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    The military
    November 19, 2012 5:33 pm
    has it's own set of rules and no judge anywhere is going to change that. If you don't like the way they do things then don't join. Yes...it's that easy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Equality
    November 19, 2012 5:41 pm
    As long as Right wing nut cases continue to ignore inequality, they'll continue to lose elections!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    Inequality?
    November 19, 2012 5:58 pm
    There is no inequality. ALL men may marry women. ALL women may marry men. That covers most human beings. Where is the inequality? If you choose to be or do something different, then expect a different reaction and result.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Op TK wrote...
    dsbab, I hope you never have to defend yourself in court
    November 19, 2012 6:54 pm
    Your statement proved the other side's case. "ALL men may marry women. ALL women may marry men. That is a true statement. Then you said, "That covers most human beings". Using the word "most" there acknowledges that there is a percentage that falls outside of your previous "all". You then asked, "Where is the inequality?" The simple answer is the inequality is put upon those who aren't part of your "most".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    TK
    November 19, 2012 10:46 pm
    Hermaphrodites are the exclusion in my "most" as they are both...by birth.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    You won the erection.
    November 19, 2012 6:58 pm
    Goodie for you and your immoral cause. We will continue to lose at the ballot box as long as people like you think of this as a civil rights issue instead of what it is. Immorality trying to justify itself behind a cloak of "equality."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BCFU wrote...
    Clarification please.
    November 20, 2012 5:07 pm
    I'm glad someone brought it up! I'm quite a bit curious myself how this isn't a civil rights issue, can you clarify it for me?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • longwayhome wrote...
    Prime example
    November 19, 2012 7:18 pm
    Of the decline of the conservative (republican) party. Homophobic, racist, religious right neanderthals. Won't work in the U.S.A. anymore.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    longway
    November 20, 2012 3:53 am
    Typical liberal resorting to name calling. How 4th grade of you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dexterjibs wrote...
    longwayhome
    November 19, 2012 7:44 pm
    I would rather lose election after election and be true to my core beliefs than to sell my sould to the Devil in order for the Republicnas to win an election or 2. You see, this isn't about the Republican Party, this is about conservatism and having a country that is sticking to the founding fathers intentions for this country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @dexterjibs
    November 19, 2012 8:16 pm
    The founding slave owners? Conservatism is like a species that is struggling to adapt.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dexterjibs wrote...
    longwayhome
    November 19, 2012 7:45 pm
    I would rather lose election after election and be true to my core beliefs than to sell my sould to the Devil in order for the Republicnas to win an election or 2. You see, this isn't about the Republican Party, this is about conservatism and having a country that is sticking to the founding fathers intentions for this country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Dan1 wrote...
    No place for gays in the military period
    November 19, 2012 8:07 pm
    Total disruption of unit/command cohesiveness and moral. Been there and have seen it. If you don't like the rules don't join. Don't shove the gay lifestyle down peoples throats and expect everyone to except it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Dan1
    November 19, 2012 8:13 pm
    We don't expect everyone to accept it. Bigots rarely change. We do expect the GOVERNMENT to act in a neutral manner and treat LGBT persons the same as non-LGBT person as per the 14th amendment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @L-ciG-B-T
    November 19, 2012 8:50 pm
    "Neutral" is a pipe dream. There'll come a day when the might of the federal government and the greed of trial attorneys will crucify some kindly old bed and breakfast owners because they didn't let Siegfried and Roy shack up in one of their bungalows. True "neutrality" would force Siegfried and Roy (and possibly a couple of snow tigers) to give business to innkeepers more sympathetic to their cause and allow the market to freely pick winners and losers, as opposed to having it jammed down our throat (pun intended).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    14th is a stretch
    November 19, 2012 10:53 pm
    10th is more applicable. COTUS is silent on marriage so it becomes a state issue. That in itself flies in the face of DOM act.--Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.~Webster.. Since you seem to think an opposing opinion is the definition of a Bigot, then you are very much one as your opinion is in the minority.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @DSBAB
    November 19, 2012 11:23 pm
    You got it backwards: DOMA flies in the face of marriage being a state issue. Although I disagree with the outcome of R74, I believe that state endorsement of relationships for societies benefit is not a constitutional issue, and therefore subject to the whim of the electorate. If the end of Section 1 of the 14th amendment (nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws) could somehow be applied in this case, it would negate the application of the 10th amendment to it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    cigarillo
    November 20, 2012 4:00 am
    We agree that marriage is not an enumerated power so it must be left to the state and the people respectively. Since that is the case, DOMA is another overreach by the fed gov. 14th applies equal protection to all,not special protection to a few. So back to 10th.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @dsbab
    November 19, 2012 11:57 pm
    10th amendment would be a stretch. 14th amendment deals with equal protection under the law. Maybe you're unfamiliar with California's prop 8 and why it was struck. Now you have homework eh? You can pretend my opinion is in the minority...but DADT has been struck, California's prop 8 has been struck and R74 in WA has passed, so I'm pretty sure you are on the losing side of history.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BCFU wrote...
    Confused.
    November 20, 2012 4:58 pm
    "Been there and have seen it. If you don't like the rules don't join" Dan, I know it will be hard to accept but there have always been gays in the military. My biggest concern is you don't go very far to elaborate on your experiences and so I find it hard to take your claim with any seriousness. I suppose you could also say that in contrast the "heterosexual lifestyle" is being forced upon those whom don't identify as such.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }