Posted on Jul 20, 2015
Marriage is a choice. How is the recognition of it with increased allowances not a blatant form of discrimination against singles?
10.3K
41
40
7
7
0
There is a great disparity in benefits, allowances, opportunities, and direct compensation between equal members of the same rank, grade, and time in service differentiated simply over whether they are married or not. This runs to the tune of thousands of dollars of difference over the course of a career.
How does this not directly reflect a disproportionate inequality that runs counter to military values of uniformity, fairness, that effects unit cohesion and the sanctity of the act of marriage itself? As an example, a sham marriage or false marriage, is more beneficial per service member for the sake of compensation alone. Especially since the revocation of DADT, as well as the removal of section 3 of DOMA, and now with the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing same sex marriages to be conducted throughout the country, anyone can get married for any reason. Yet those who simply don’t believe in marriage or chose not to get married (say it’s against their religious beliefs), they don’t rate equal compensation or opportunities - how is this all not an Equal Opportunity violation?
Per example, in the Marine Corp’s Equal Opportunity directive MCO 5354.1D, it states, 'Unlawful discriminatory practices within the Marine Corps are counterproductive and unacceptable. Discrimination undermines morale, reduces combat readiness, and prevents maximum utilization and development of the Marine Corps’ most vital asset, its “people”. The policy of the Marine Corps is to provide equality of treatment and the opportunity for all Marines to achieve their full potential based solely upon individual merit, fitness, and ability.’
How is this not a clear form of discrimination taking place?
How does this not directly reflect a disproportionate inequality that runs counter to military values of uniformity, fairness, that effects unit cohesion and the sanctity of the act of marriage itself? As an example, a sham marriage or false marriage, is more beneficial per service member for the sake of compensation alone. Especially since the revocation of DADT, as well as the removal of section 3 of DOMA, and now with the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing same sex marriages to be conducted throughout the country, anyone can get married for any reason. Yet those who simply don’t believe in marriage or chose not to get married (say it’s against their religious beliefs), they don’t rate equal compensation or opportunities - how is this all not an Equal Opportunity violation?
Per example, in the Marine Corp’s Equal Opportunity directive MCO 5354.1D, it states, 'Unlawful discriminatory practices within the Marine Corps are counterproductive and unacceptable. Discrimination undermines morale, reduces combat readiness, and prevents maximum utilization and development of the Marine Corps’ most vital asset, its “people”. The policy of the Marine Corps is to provide equality of treatment and the opportunity for all Marines to achieve their full potential based solely upon individual merit, fitness, and ability.’
How is this not a clear form of discrimination taking place?
BAH
Discrimination
Marriage
Benefits
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
2
2
0
1stLt (Join to see) I definitely understand where you are coming from. In the civilian sector, you get a set salary for your position, you don't get additional allowances just because you are married or have a family. Some civilian positions will provide healthcare for your family, but this is hardly comparable to the benefits military dependents get. There is unfavorable treatment directed towards single servicemembers in more than just this financial compensation. Most commands I have been at, single servicemembers would perform additional duties, because the other servicemembers 'should be spending time at home with their families'. There's also a negative stigma towards dating, such as a fiancée is not a spouse and is not entitled to attend command events that spouses may attend. I believe this is the cause of a lot of marriages in younger soldiers who get married before their relationship has reached the appropriate maturity level for this type of decision. Married soldiers also get more respect, from my perspective.
As much as I would appreciate these benefits if I got married, I believe that it should be equal across the board. If the servicemember is unable to support their family without these allowances, the spouse should get a job to make up the difference or they should look into a career that can support their families.
As much as I would appreciate these benefits if I got married, I believe that it should be equal across the board. If the servicemember is unable to support their family without these allowances, the spouse should get a job to make up the difference or they should look into a career that can support their families.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1stLt (Join to see), maybe it is easier to explain if you don't look at the money, and instead look first at what is provided if the member remains in government quarters.
Let's assume you have your single E-3, living in a dorm room, sharing a room or, at least, a bathroom with another service member. Since the E-3 is a member of the military, command can dictate that s/he live in these conditions. They did in fact sign the dotted line. Adequate quarters are provided, and for the sake of staying on track with your original question and intent, let's not debate adequate. The E-3 has a roof over their head and a place to sleep.
Now, let's say that E-3 gets married. There is government housing available, so he moves into a house with his wife, and is afforded the ability to start a family of whatever size (BAH does not change when you add more dependents. It is either with/without. For the sake of this discussion, we will assume family and wife are interchangeable when discussing the allowance). His wife is now considered a "dependent" under military terms, and as such, he is required to provide adequate shelter. The military cannot just throw her out on the street and say tough luck. Would it be reasonable to expect that he continue to live with his old roommate in the dorms, and move his wife in with the two of them? Would it be reasonable to expect another service member to be in the room while the E-3 expands his family (use your imagination)? Would it impact the mission if said service member had a newborn who cried all night in the close quarters of the barracks? The reasonable solution here is to move the service member and his family to adequate quarters for raising and/or expanding their family. When you further consider the needs of a newborn or child, you can appreciate the need for a kitchen, private bathroom, play space, etc. If you still think it is reasonable for a member with a family to live in the same conditions as a single member, I suggest you visit the home of one of your Marines with a toddler.
Now, let's say that this particular base closes down a year later, and the government decides to make living quarters available to civilians. Would you expect that they charge the same amount for the dorm rooms, or would you reasonably expect that someone residing in a home should pay more? If you were the proprietor, what would you charge? Would it be more than the average $200 per month difference seen in current BAH rates?
Now, since government quarters may not be available, we can look objectively at BAH using the comparison of what is afforded to service members should they remain on base. Is it that the married couple is unfairly receiving $200 more a month? Or, is the government essentially just handing the money over to the service member to pay a third party for quarters equivalent to what they would receive if they had stayed on base? Here, you can see that it isn't discrimination. Rather, it is the monetary equivalent of what is reasonably provided to those who do not receive the BAH allowance.
Let's assume you have your single E-3, living in a dorm room, sharing a room or, at least, a bathroom with another service member. Since the E-3 is a member of the military, command can dictate that s/he live in these conditions. They did in fact sign the dotted line. Adequate quarters are provided, and for the sake of staying on track with your original question and intent, let's not debate adequate. The E-3 has a roof over their head and a place to sleep.
Now, let's say that E-3 gets married. There is government housing available, so he moves into a house with his wife, and is afforded the ability to start a family of whatever size (BAH does not change when you add more dependents. It is either with/without. For the sake of this discussion, we will assume family and wife are interchangeable when discussing the allowance). His wife is now considered a "dependent" under military terms, and as such, he is required to provide adequate shelter. The military cannot just throw her out on the street and say tough luck. Would it be reasonable to expect that he continue to live with his old roommate in the dorms, and move his wife in with the two of them? Would it be reasonable to expect another service member to be in the room while the E-3 expands his family (use your imagination)? Would it impact the mission if said service member had a newborn who cried all night in the close quarters of the barracks? The reasonable solution here is to move the service member and his family to adequate quarters for raising and/or expanding their family. When you further consider the needs of a newborn or child, you can appreciate the need for a kitchen, private bathroom, play space, etc. If you still think it is reasonable for a member with a family to live in the same conditions as a single member, I suggest you visit the home of one of your Marines with a toddler.
Now, let's say that this particular base closes down a year later, and the government decides to make living quarters available to civilians. Would you expect that they charge the same amount for the dorm rooms, or would you reasonably expect that someone residing in a home should pay more? If you were the proprietor, what would you charge? Would it be more than the average $200 per month difference seen in current BAH rates?
Now, since government quarters may not be available, we can look objectively at BAH using the comparison of what is afforded to service members should they remain on base. Is it that the married couple is unfairly receiving $200 more a month? Or, is the government essentially just handing the money over to the service member to pay a third party for quarters equivalent to what they would receive if they had stayed on base? Here, you can see that it isn't discrimination. Rather, it is the monetary equivalent of what is reasonably provided to those who do not receive the BAH allowance.
(2)
(0)
1stLt (Join to see)
I track where your logic is all coming from, I can't argue with many points such as the obvious that raising a family in the dorms is illogical. I have some questions; however, most in nature concerning a few alterations to this topic in general more at the base roots. (Money aside) I'll try to not take this too far outside the realms of the norm.
If command can dictate that single marines have to live in the barracks, why not married ones too without their spouses present?
Where does the entitlement come from that married service members need to live with their spouses, and be afforded the opportunity to start a family?
Why is it that single service members don't have the shared ability to live outside of the barracks if they so choose? Why can the command dictate them and not their married peers?
This is an Okinawa example I deal with regularly here; married Marines who arrive on island get licenses and vehicles with their spouses within days of getting on island, they're brought to the courses by their NCOs and encouraged to do so. Although single junior Marines (in this example both sets of Marines mentioned, one married and one single are both E-3 LCpls) according to IIIMEF directives out here can receive them as well, they are always denied by the command unless given with an explicit and good reason for having one.
Fair?
If command can dictate that single marines have to live in the barracks, why not married ones too without their spouses present?
Where does the entitlement come from that married service members need to live with their spouses, and be afforded the opportunity to start a family?
Why is it that single service members don't have the shared ability to live outside of the barracks if they so choose? Why can the command dictate them and not their married peers?
This is an Okinawa example I deal with regularly here; married Marines who arrive on island get licenses and vehicles with their spouses within days of getting on island, they're brought to the courses by their NCOs and encouraged to do so. Although single junior Marines (in this example both sets of Marines mentioned, one married and one single are both E-3 LCpls) according to IIIMEF directives out here can receive them as well, they are always denied by the command unless given with an explicit and good reason for having one.
Fair?
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I see what you're saying. I'm definitely not an expert on military law/regulations by any means, but from my limited knowledge, I'll answer from my viewpoint.
Command can dictate that a family remain in government quarters if adequate housing is available. I'm not saying they always do, but the short answer is that they can. By design, BAH is afforded when the CC (or designated rep) determines that the needs of the member cannot be met in provided quarters. For the sake of your question, we will call both dorms and housing government quarters, and therefore both service members are subject to the same treatment.
In the case where spouses are not present, it becomes an issue if the member is receiving BAH/partial BAH to support the needs of the family, even if the family is not present. Since dependents are still listed in DEERS/finance, a member may still collect allowances to maintain a household regardless of the location of the family. They may likely be receiving BAH based on where the family remains. In this case, having them collect BAH and provide government quarters would result in a "double benefit."
Why are service members afforded the opportunity to have a family? I have to laugh, and don't take this the wrong way, but this screams Marine! :) honestly, we are an all volunteer force. Asking anyone to not have a family and commit 100% to the Corps (or other service) isn't reasonable. Consider how hard it is on families already facing unaccompanied tours and deployments. I'm sure you've seen divorce happen in Oki, and if you know anyone in Korea, it seems almost 50/50 if a marriage survives there. Also consider that there are prime childbearing ages for women and men. Would you want to chase a toddler around at the age of 50 after your service to your country, then finding your spouse, and finally having a family? Consider the women, who increase risk of abnormal pregnancies as age rises, who need to be present with their child for nursing, among other things. Would it not be less fair to ask a mother or father to miss every single event in the child's life just so they can live in the dorms? If you actually made this a regulation, I would really think you'd be losing a lot of your volunteers after an enlistment/assignment or two.
Technically, single members can choose to live off base. We called it ghosting when I was in. You don't receive BAH, but you can make that choice. The same as a married person assigned government housing can choose to pay out of pocket and live in another house on the economy. Again, I'm considering the majority of duty stations where there are no curfews or anything dictating when you must be in your quarters. But, I return to the fact that according to the regulations, command CAN actually dictate that a member be assigned government quarters. It doesn't mean it always happens, but the regulations themselves do apply the same.
With all of this, keep in mind that the priority of Command should be good order and discipline. Spouses and children are not subject to the UCMJ or other military regulations to the same degree as the service member. Command may make decisions based on what they can reasonably expect in these circumstances based on past trends and incidents. Marines (or other service members) must maintain mission ready status. It is a delicate balance when civilians are introduced to these environments, and what can legally be enforced across the board may also impact the decisions made by Command.
it seems as if discrimination isn't the issue here at all, at least at the level of your original question. I am making judgements based On your responses in this thread, but it seems that your issue lies with the decisions made at the level of your base commander as to who qualifies for what privileges. I would suggest talking to someone at or near that level, and learn why the decisions are made. Keep in mind that a CC must mitigate risks, and in Oki, also add the delicate balance of maintaining a relationship with the host nation. As a 1LT, you may greatly benefit from sitting with someone who has considered, or is closer to the level of making those decisions, and may find that it makes you a stronger leader and Marine in the end. You may find that before you arrived, policy allowed everyone to get a license, and the result was high rate of DUIs, accidents, parking issues with too many cars, etc. Most of the time, the decisions we see and disagree with from our level do have a logical explanation.
Command can dictate that a family remain in government quarters if adequate housing is available. I'm not saying they always do, but the short answer is that they can. By design, BAH is afforded when the CC (or designated rep) determines that the needs of the member cannot be met in provided quarters. For the sake of your question, we will call both dorms and housing government quarters, and therefore both service members are subject to the same treatment.
In the case where spouses are not present, it becomes an issue if the member is receiving BAH/partial BAH to support the needs of the family, even if the family is not present. Since dependents are still listed in DEERS/finance, a member may still collect allowances to maintain a household regardless of the location of the family. They may likely be receiving BAH based on where the family remains. In this case, having them collect BAH and provide government quarters would result in a "double benefit."
Why are service members afforded the opportunity to have a family? I have to laugh, and don't take this the wrong way, but this screams Marine! :) honestly, we are an all volunteer force. Asking anyone to not have a family and commit 100% to the Corps (or other service) isn't reasonable. Consider how hard it is on families already facing unaccompanied tours and deployments. I'm sure you've seen divorce happen in Oki, and if you know anyone in Korea, it seems almost 50/50 if a marriage survives there. Also consider that there are prime childbearing ages for women and men. Would you want to chase a toddler around at the age of 50 after your service to your country, then finding your spouse, and finally having a family? Consider the women, who increase risk of abnormal pregnancies as age rises, who need to be present with their child for nursing, among other things. Would it not be less fair to ask a mother or father to miss every single event in the child's life just so they can live in the dorms? If you actually made this a regulation, I would really think you'd be losing a lot of your volunteers after an enlistment/assignment or two.
Technically, single members can choose to live off base. We called it ghosting when I was in. You don't receive BAH, but you can make that choice. The same as a married person assigned government housing can choose to pay out of pocket and live in another house on the economy. Again, I'm considering the majority of duty stations where there are no curfews or anything dictating when you must be in your quarters. But, I return to the fact that according to the regulations, command CAN actually dictate that a member be assigned government quarters. It doesn't mean it always happens, but the regulations themselves do apply the same.
With all of this, keep in mind that the priority of Command should be good order and discipline. Spouses and children are not subject to the UCMJ or other military regulations to the same degree as the service member. Command may make decisions based on what they can reasonably expect in these circumstances based on past trends and incidents. Marines (or other service members) must maintain mission ready status. It is a delicate balance when civilians are introduced to these environments, and what can legally be enforced across the board may also impact the decisions made by Command.
it seems as if discrimination isn't the issue here at all, at least at the level of your original question. I am making judgements based On your responses in this thread, but it seems that your issue lies with the decisions made at the level of your base commander as to who qualifies for what privileges. I would suggest talking to someone at or near that level, and learn why the decisions are made. Keep in mind that a CC must mitigate risks, and in Oki, also add the delicate balance of maintaining a relationship with the host nation. As a 1LT, you may greatly benefit from sitting with someone who has considered, or is closer to the level of making those decisions, and may find that it makes you a stronger leader and Marine in the end. You may find that before you arrived, policy allowed everyone to get a license, and the result was high rate of DUIs, accidents, parking issues with too many cars, etc. Most of the time, the decisions we see and disagree with from our level do have a logical explanation.
(1)
(0)
1stLt (Join to see)
TSgt (Join to see) - Question, I understand all the points above and concur the logic behind them is sound from the explanations provided, but another allowance I don't see fulfilling the same purpose and you might have an explanation I'm not presently thinking of at the moment, but how is Family Separation Allowance justified? $250/month while deployed away from family for over 30 days. Nothing is changing other than the fact that the service member will be absent from the home.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
LT,
Family separation is an allotment designed to offset the costs of removing the military member from the family in which they are normally a contributing member. This can be a spouse, a spouse and children, or just children if the member is divorced or widowed. Essentially, the allowance works out to about $8 per day. Sure, February is a bit more profitable, but not by much.
I'm not going to examine every situation, because I'm sure that some people don't need the money as much as others. But I'll tell you the biggest expense I've had simply because my husband is in Afghanistan right now. Normally, I coordinate with my husband in order to schedule personal appointments, like visiting the dentist or my healthcare provider. Many offices do not allow children for liability reasons. I cannot watch my child while I'm sitting in an MRI machine. So what do I do? I pay $15 an hour for a babysitter. No joke, that's the going rate here for someone who is qualified to watch children. If I need to cut my grass, I have two options. Pay a babysitter to watch my son while I can't hear/see him for 2+ hours, or pay someone to do the yard work. Unfortunately, my husband no longer comes home from work on Friday and cuts the grass for me. :)
Keep in mind, much like BAH, family sep is a blanket allowance. If I had 3 kids and needed a babysitter, that could easily be $25+ an hour. If I worked and normally left before my husband and had him home to get them to school, I may pay someone daily to fill in. Or if I work nights and weekends to deconflict from his normal schedule... You see where this is going.
Also keep in mind, family sep isn't just for deployments. If you have SMs in Okinawa right now unaccompanied, maintaining a house off base because the dorms are reserved for single member, required to purchase another car and insurance to get to and from work, while also maintaining a house and car for the family at home, $250 per month probably doesn't seem like so much money.
You can argue it, surely, but it still is not discrimination. It is an allowance designed to alleviate some of the stress and hardship caused by the involuntary separation of dependents in a voluntary service. Rather than being "rewarded" with money for having a family as you have suggested, these members are actually being "punished" by having to leave them behind; missing the milestones, missing the hugs and kisses goodnight, so we give them family sep. We are an all volunteer force, and they volunteer because they want to serve. If you want to keep the good people in and hope that a man or woman who understands family values ends up as your boss one day, you need to take care of your people and give them a reason to keep volunteering. I guarantee that the majority of SMs who missed the birth and first months to a year of their child's life would gladly hand over that money just to be in that delivery room.
Just for the sake of argument here, keep in mind that at least at one point, AF members received hardship pay while deployed to Qatar because the bathrooms weren't in the same building as their living quarters. All members, single/married/officer/enlisted. If that is justified, then I think $250 as compensation for being away from family is pretty cheap! :)
Family separation is an allotment designed to offset the costs of removing the military member from the family in which they are normally a contributing member. This can be a spouse, a spouse and children, or just children if the member is divorced or widowed. Essentially, the allowance works out to about $8 per day. Sure, February is a bit more profitable, but not by much.
I'm not going to examine every situation, because I'm sure that some people don't need the money as much as others. But I'll tell you the biggest expense I've had simply because my husband is in Afghanistan right now. Normally, I coordinate with my husband in order to schedule personal appointments, like visiting the dentist or my healthcare provider. Many offices do not allow children for liability reasons. I cannot watch my child while I'm sitting in an MRI machine. So what do I do? I pay $15 an hour for a babysitter. No joke, that's the going rate here for someone who is qualified to watch children. If I need to cut my grass, I have two options. Pay a babysitter to watch my son while I can't hear/see him for 2+ hours, or pay someone to do the yard work. Unfortunately, my husband no longer comes home from work on Friday and cuts the grass for me. :)
Keep in mind, much like BAH, family sep is a blanket allowance. If I had 3 kids and needed a babysitter, that could easily be $25+ an hour. If I worked and normally left before my husband and had him home to get them to school, I may pay someone daily to fill in. Or if I work nights and weekends to deconflict from his normal schedule... You see where this is going.
Also keep in mind, family sep isn't just for deployments. If you have SMs in Okinawa right now unaccompanied, maintaining a house off base because the dorms are reserved for single member, required to purchase another car and insurance to get to and from work, while also maintaining a house and car for the family at home, $250 per month probably doesn't seem like so much money.
You can argue it, surely, but it still is not discrimination. It is an allowance designed to alleviate some of the stress and hardship caused by the involuntary separation of dependents in a voluntary service. Rather than being "rewarded" with money for having a family as you have suggested, these members are actually being "punished" by having to leave them behind; missing the milestones, missing the hugs and kisses goodnight, so we give them family sep. We are an all volunteer force, and they volunteer because they want to serve. If you want to keep the good people in and hope that a man or woman who understands family values ends up as your boss one day, you need to take care of your people and give them a reason to keep volunteering. I guarantee that the majority of SMs who missed the birth and first months to a year of their child's life would gladly hand over that money just to be in that delivery room.
Just for the sake of argument here, keep in mind that at least at one point, AF members received hardship pay while deployed to Qatar because the bathrooms weren't in the same building as their living quarters. All members, single/married/officer/enlisted. If that is justified, then I think $250 as compensation for being away from family is pretty cheap! :)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
For the record, after receiving a couple directed comments, this overall topic and the questions asked with it are completely impersonal and not reflective of my own viewpoint on the matter in the least. It is an objective sample where I am trying to gauge and entertain an general dialogue that will assist with some issues not directly related, however concerned. Being a supposed 'professional' military forum, the intent here is to receive open and honest feedback. Not insults and defensive slurs, or unnecessary trolling, I can go elsewhere if I care to find that. Respectfully, thank you.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google