Military Marriage and Parenthood

realJSOP

Back Story - There is a woman here in town who is in the Army Ready Reserves (she was regular Army and was discharged after honorable service), meaning she can be called up at any time for deployment. She was married to a guy that was recently killed in Afghanistan, and she has a young child (yes, a result of the marriage). The Army recently called her up for deployment, and she doesn't want to go because if she gets killed, her son will be made an orphan. My Views From this point forward, military personnel should be enjoined from marrying someone that is also in the military (that can in any way be recalled as a result of being either active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard). From this point forward, a married couple who are both in the military and have children cannot both be deployed to a combat area at the same time. This will radically lesson the chance of the child(ren) entering the foster care system. Primarily, I think that if someone joins the military, they should do so with the outlook that their duty comes first, and their love-life comes second, and they should not place themselves in a position that they would be reluctant to fulfill (or flat-out refuse to fulfill) the obligation that THEY signed up for. ---------- As I was typing this, the local news channel reported that the Army granted her request to not be deployed, and fully discharged her (she's no longer in the Reserves). In this case, I think the Army did the right thing, but the woman was wrong to marry another military member knowing that this could happen.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Ilion

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

My Views From this point forward, ...

Or, why not go back to not deliberatey putting women in harm's way?

Tom Deketelaere

Although I agree with most off what you said, I do think that it was the woman's right to refuse. Yes she should have thought of this scenario before signing up but if you live in fear off everything that might happen you don't live at all.

realJSOP

In my view, she didn't have the *right* to refuse, but she had a valid reason to request a waiver. I think the government should have re-activated her and made her serve the remainder of her reserve time at one of the Army bases here in San Antonio. At least they would have filled a billet that would otherwise be occupied by a combat-ready serviceman.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Lost User

And the man was wrong to marry her? It takes two John. Overall I agree with what you've said BTW.

Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

Tom Deketelaere

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

In my view, she didn't have the *right* to refuse, but she had a valid reason to request a waiver.

Perhaps better wording for what I was thinking.

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

I think the government should have re-activated her and made her serve the remainder of her reserve time at one of the Army bases here in San Antonio. At least they would have filled a billet that would otherwise be occupied by a combat-ready serviceman

Now this I can completely agree with, works for all party's involved.

Oakman

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

In my view, she didn't have the *right* to refuse, but she had a valid reason to request a waiver. I think the government should have re-activated her and made her serve the remainder of her reserve time at one of the Army bases here in San Antonio. At least they would have filled a billet that would otherwise be occupied by a combat-ready serviceman

It is my understanding that the Armed Forces, at least in modern times, has many times granted an exemption from combat when one member of a soldier's family has been killed. I think your solution of given her rear echelon duty makes great good sense. That was, as I remember it, the reason we had a reserve and national guard until Bush 41, with Cheney's help, decided to start cutting the size of our standing army. Recently it has not been uncommon for national guard troops -- originally intended to be a state's militia in times of emergency -- have been activated for a year's duty in a combat zone and then dumped back into the civilian world in hopes that his/her job was still waiting for them.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

realJSOP

I'm not claiming anybody was wrong, I'm saying the rules have to change to disallow marriage *between two service members* (including reservists who can still be called up and Nation Guard).

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Dan Neely

Tom Deketelaere wrote:

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I think the government should have re-activated her and made her serve the remainder of her reserve time at one of the Army bases here in San Antonio. At least they would have filled a billet that would otherwise be occupied by a combat-ready serviceman Now this I can completely agree with, works for all party's involved.

It's also open to abuse. The Navy used to give new mothers a tour of shore duty after birth but it was being heavily abused by sailors to avoid time at sea. Because of that, current policy gives only a very short maternity leave and then flies the sailor back to her ship for the remainder of the tour.

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

John Carson

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

From this point forward, military personnel should be enjoined from marrying someone that is also in the military (that can in any way be recalled as a result of being either active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard). From this point forward, a married couple who are both in the military and have children cannot both be deployed to a combat area at the same time. This will radically lesson the chance of the child(ren) entering the foster care system. Primarily, I think that if someone joins the military, they should do so with the outlook that their duty comes first, and their love-life comes second, and they should not place themselves in a position that they would be reluctant to fulfill (or flat-out refuse to fulfill) the obligation that THEY signed up for. ---------- As I was typing this, the local news channel reported that the Army granted her request to not be deployed, and fully discharged her (she's no longer in the Reserves). In this case, I think the Army did the right thing, but the woman was wrong to marry another military member knowing that this could happen.

Interesting dilemma. The issue here seems to be one of having children rather than getting married. If you ban marriage, that doesn't stop two members of the military from having a child together. Suppose a rule were introduced to ban members of the military from having a child together. If they do have a child together, what do you do? Dishonourably discharge both of them I guess. Anything less doesn't get you out of the potential-orphan problem and discharging just one member of the couple seems difficult --- which one? Assuming that a breach of the rule does lead to dishonourable discharge for both parents, what is the effect of such a rule on the military? 1) A (probably very) small number of people may refuse to join in the first place because of the presence of the rule. 2) Some military members will refrain from having children together and thus avoid the problem described in the article. 3) Some military members will still have children together and then, if and when discovered, both be discharged from the military. 1) and 3) serve to reduce the number of available soldiers. 2) serves to increase the number of available soldiers. Note that, in terms of numbers, 3) is worse than simply releasing one of the couple from the military. How about this rule? If you have a child with another member

Tom Deketelaere

dan neely wrote:

being heavily abused

How? Women getting pregnant on purpose and all the time?

Lost User

Oakman wrote:

have been activated for a year's duty in a combat zone and then dumped back into the civilian world in hopes that his/her job was still waiting for them.

You have no statutes or regulations that safeguards employment of reservists called up for duty?

realJSOP

Punitive awards are not my primary concern, though breaking a law in the military could result in a dishonorable discharge. My suggestion is meant to mitigate the problem at the outset. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it would be a good start.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

You have no statutes or regulations that safeguards employment of reservists called up for duty?

Yep and they worked fine to protect a reservist or guardsman serving his required six months of active duty when he first enlisted, or his 30 days of retraining every summer. But ask yourself what would happen to your job, if three times in the last seven years, you'd gone away for thirteen months. Your position technically might be held open for you, but would you have the promotions you would have gotten? Raises? Or even worse - suppose you were an independent consultant responsible for finding your clients and keeping up a relationship with them?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

realJSOP

Yes, but they're limited to the 2-week annual reserves camp-out. The employer can't fire you for having to serve in the guard, but if you're called up from the reserves, or serve more than a two-week tour of duty in the Guard, the employer is not obligated to hold your job for you.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Dan Neely

yeah. I assume it was getting pregnant before leaving.

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

Lost User

In UK This is applicable[^] but I understand your 2nd paragraph.

blackjack2150

Such a measure should not be acceptable in a democratic society, no matter what consequences might be. After all, you're not divided in castes like India's people... BTW, is there any law in US that forbids marriages between 2 people that want to get married? (excepting under aged, same sex, relatives, etc)

Dan Neely

That's not true for federal callups. State callups are subject to state law, but if Uncle Sugar wants you, your job's safe unless you've spent over 5 years deployed. http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/summer2002/summer20023.html[^]

Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall

Chris Austin

What an incredibly bad situation she has placed herself in.

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

Primarily, I think that if someone joins the military, they should do so with the outlook that their duty comes first, and their love-life comes second, and they should not place themselves in a position that they would be reluctant to fulfill (or flat-out refuse to fulfill) the obligation that THEY signed up for.

I come from a point of view of really disliking the idea of telling people how they should live. But, in this case I can't help but agree with you. To be honest this seems like common sense to me. Then again ...

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long