4 ms·

1) I don't understand the thought process behind this question. Having the title "chaplain" doesn't magically confer teleportation abilities. 2) This is the wr

1) I don't understand the thought process behind this question. Having the title "chaplain" doesn't magically confer teleportation abilities. 2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero. There is zero articulable additional benefit for a service member to be married. It is a worthwhile expense anyway.

simonh 8y ago
Bilocation actually, but I'm with you.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Why is it a worthwhile expense?
- mieseratte 8y ago
  It encourages folks to build families, which generally leads to folks having kids. Societies need workers, and militaries need future boots on the ground.
- torstenvl 8y ago
  For the same reason maternity leave and other family-oriented benefits are worthwhile in the private sector: organizational performance requires expertise; expertise requires experience be retained in the organization; experience remaining in the organization requires that people not leave when life happens. The issue isn't that an individual married Marine is worth more than an individual unmarried Marine. The issue is that a Marine Corps where good Marines stay when they start a family is better than a Marine Corps where good Marines leave.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
cascom 8y ago
2) perhaps someone with some actual experience can shed some more light, but I think it might have to do with potentially losing on base housing accommodations that may not always be provided for married couples?
- drblast 8y ago
  Yes, the increased pay is accounted for in the extra housing allowance. Those who live on base give up the housing allowance. If there are no accommodations on base you might have to rent in town, or you can choose to do so depending on rank. Typically there are waiting lists for base housing, but that depends on location.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
RangerScience 8y ago
> 2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero. What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference - but people still fight for marriage when they can only have civil unions. Even if you got rid of all the legal and pay advantages to marriage, people still find it valuable and enriching. It may be an ephemeral benefit, but it's still articulable.
- loeg 8y ago
  > what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference Yep, there are/where legal distinctions (sort of irrelevant now in the US with federalized same-sex marriage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States . The main problem is that unlike marriages, there is no requirement that states recognize civil unions granted in other states, because: > The federal government does not recognize these unions. Not a direct legal distinction, but: > Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal', critics say they segregate same-sex couples by forcing them to use a separate institution.
  - RangerScience 8y ago
    Did not know that it wasn't a federal thing! Thanks for teaching me. And yeah, my point is about the "separate but equal" sort of thing - it's not a legal distinction, but it's one people definitely care about.
- astura 8y ago
  The question was what's the benefit for a taxpayer footing the bill, not the individual benefiting.
watwut 8y ago
Afaik, there is some benefit in soldiers being married - soldiers with families suicide less. Apparently, it helps to have something you value at home to keep yourself together in difficult active duty situation.
rz2k 8y ago
People do make career choices based on whether they'll be able to have a family and support them. I can't imagine how the military would have the same talent pool to draw from if there weren't measures to make having a family more conceivable.

simonh 8y ago

Bilocation actually, but I'm with you.

fjsolwmv 8y ago

Why is it a worthwhile expense?

mieseratte 8y ago
It encourages folks to build families, which generally leads to folks having kids. Societies need workers, and militaries need future boots on the ground.
torstenvl 8y ago
For the same reason maternity leave and other family-oriented benefits are worthwhile in the private sector: organizational performance requires expertise; expertise requires experience be retained in the organization; experience remaining in the organization requires that people not leave when life happens. The issue isn't that an individual married Marine is worth more than an individual unmarried Marine. The issue is that a Marine Corps where good Marines stay when they start a family is better than a Marine Corps where good Marines leave.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

cascom 8y ago

2) perhaps someone with some actual experience can shed some more light, but I think it might have to do with potentially losing on base housing accommodations that may not always be provided for married couples?

drblast 8y ago
Yes, the increased pay is accounted for in the extra housing allowance. Those who live on base give up the housing allowance. If there are no accommodations on base you might have to rent in town, or you can choose to do so depending on rank. Typically there are waiting lists for base housing, but that depends on location.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

RangerScience 8y ago

> 2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero. What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference - but people still fight for marriage when they can only have civil unions. Even if you got rid of all the legal and pay advantages to marriage, people still find it valuable and enriching. It may be an ephemeral benefit, but it's still articulable.

loeg 8y ago
> what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference Yep, there are/where legal distinctions (sort of irrelevant now in the US with federalized same-sex marriage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States . The main problem is that unlike marriages, there is no requirement that states recognize civil unions granted in other states, because: > The federal government does not recognize these unions. Not a direct legal distinction, but: > Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal', critics say they segregate same-sex couples by forcing them to use a separate institution.
- RangerScience 8y ago
  Did not know that it wasn't a federal thing! Thanks for teaching me. And yeah, my point is about the "separate but equal" sort of thing - it's not a legal distinction, but it's one people definitely care about.
astura 8y ago
The question was what's the benefit for a taxpayer footing the bill, not the individual benefiting.

watwut 8y ago

Afaik, there is some benefit in soldiers being married - soldiers with families suicide less. Apparently, it helps to have something you value at home to keep yourself together in difficult active duty situation.

rz2k 8y ago

People do make career choices based on whether they'll be able to have a family and support them. I can't imagine how the military would have the same talent pool to draw from if there weren't measures to make having a family more conceivable.