Just curious...

**Mutley**

Cate, I do not believe that the 'stipends' are a part of their pay.  I believe that the higher rates are tied to BAH, while pay-grade is dependent on time served.  BAH is based on duty location, pay grade and dependency status.  Military members do not get more for children.  It is either with or without dependents.   

Narwhal

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:601007b8-f303-4af5-ae71-92d49ed1220e">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : It's not significantly more, except when they're deployed.  Normally, it's a slight stipend in their check, probably around $100/month from what I've been told, and it depends on their rank (higher ranks get more money, but not much).  But when they're deployed, it's called Separation Pay, and it's supposed to help make up for the fact that you're away from loved ones, and to cover expenses like phone calls (in the old days, when there wasn't Skype) and sending packages. They also get a small stipend for having children.  Again, not much.  But you better believe some 18 year olds see it as incentive to get pregnant as soon as they rush to the altar. <strong>I don't see it as discriminatory because it's not just for wives of men in the military - it works for husbands of the women who serve. </strong> It is definitely more difficult to find work as you're being moved around every 2 years, so many spouses opt not to work or do something mobile, like an ebay store or selling crafts on Etsy.
Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>She doesn't mean sex discrimination, she was talking about it being discriminatory to those who aren't married. Legally, employers aren't supposed to treat employees differently due to their marital status.

</div>

calindi

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:7627eade-e891-47f9-bca8-a6143e75d262">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : She doesn't mean sex discrimination, she was talking about it being discriminatory to those who aren't married. Legally, employers aren't supposed to treat employees differently due to their marital status.
Posted by Narwhal[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, now I see!  I sort of scratched my head before, but now I realize it was just a silly Friday afternoon oversight on my part.

I dunno, I guess you have a point.  I never thought of it that way, I guess because it's not like a major bonus, it's intended to help cover additional expenses on what is otherwise barely enough for one person to live off of comfortably.  With dependents (spouse and/or children), that money gets stretched thin super quick, so every little bit helps.

Even with whatever extra the military will give my boyfriend when we're married, I'll still likely be the main breadwinner in our family.  He's okay with that.


ETA: Mutley, I'll take your word for it as you've lived through it for several years.  I'm still learning as I go.  That makes sense that the increase is tied to BAH.

Narwhal

I definitely think that as its added to the housing benefits, it's acceptable... I mean you definitely need more space when you have more than one person living under one roof.

leia1979

Thanks for the clarification Mutley.

And thanks Narwhal for explaining what I meant!

mana8503

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:250d3702-8083-4489-b34f-95f31f95be77">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : Or a very short road to divorce court.
Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]

I've heard the saying "cheaper to keep her" from more then a few military men including my BF, who was previously married for 7 years.  It maybe a "short road" to decide on a divorce, but esp if kids are involved - it can and most likely gets messy FAST!  That's why BF's best friend is trying to decide if it's worth getting a divorce.  Please no flames, its not my opinion - just an observation from guy friends that enlisted and my bf's set of friends...

I really think it depends on the situation.  I would just keep moving the wedding date around if my bf ended up getting deployed.  We've talked about it, and I brought up JOP today after reading the discussion and the posts on Military brides.  His first marriage was a JOP, no wedding and on a whim after getting home from AIT.  He regrets it every since.  He said it's very common practice, whether it's frowned upon or not.  But in our case, I work for the Army as a civilian so I have health benefits, and a way to support myself should he get deployed.  He's non-deployable until he ETS's next year but then he's going into the guards.  So it's possible he could get deployed so we've already discused asking the vendor/venue about the military clause, etc.   I don't want "2 weddings", just personal preference, but he's put it out there more than once.

I agree with all that said, don't lie about it.  Do they lie because they don't think people will come?  Won't bring gifts?  If my friends said, hey due to XYZ we are JOPing until ABC happens then a wedding, I'd still be happy for them, still go and still have fun.  Why does it matter?  People go around the system all the time.

**Mutley**

Also, several companies do have 'separation pay' in many ways.  When my husband travels for business, his expenses are covered.

Married members do get docked for food when they are deployed, whereas single members are not because they are already on a food plan of sorts.  I am blanking on the terms for this though.  It's been awhile. 

Many companies pay for the insurance of their employees' spouses/children.  Does this mean that single employees should receive those benefits in a monetary form?

Any way you shake it, getting married for benefits or to receive benefits earlier is wrong.  Military, civilian, whatever.  I will judge you. 

leia1979

Mutley, I see your point, but I don't know if it's quite the same.

Yes, my expenses are covered when I travel for business, but marital status makes no difference. Also, my employer will extend healthcare benefits to a spouse or children, but only if I pay a lot more. Maybe some employers extend benefits to dependents for free, but it's been awhile since I worked somewhere where the employee alone was free!

I do agree that marriage for benefits is not a good reason.

Elle1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:0be8af31-4ba9-4fbd-840d-8241efc5cdba">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]Also, several companies do have 'separation pay' in many ways.  When my husband travels for business, his expenses are covered. Married members do get docked for food when they are deployed, whereas single members are not because they are already on a food plan of sorts.  I am blanking on the terms for this though.  It's been awhile.  Many companies pay for the insurance of their employees' spouses/children.  Does this mean that single employees should receive those benefits in a monetary form? Any way you shake it<strong>, getting married for benefits or to receive benefits earlier is wrong.  Military, civilian, whatever</strong>.  I will judge you. 
Posted by **Mutley**[/QUOTE]

Judge away, but I disagree.  I think getting married specifically for benefits is wrong, but getting married a little earlier than originally planned is not necessarily.

The fact is that, in the US at least, the government doesn't recognize long-term partnerships or cohabitations the same way that it does marriages, and being married entitles you to a lot taht you can't get otherwise.

I would probably feel differently if I lived somewhere where I didn't have to fight for affordable healthcare every day. 

calindi

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:c3868bb5-5572-4570-9e8f-dbc973accc2d">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : Judge away, but I disagree.  I think getting married specifically for benefits is wrong, but getting married a little earlier than originally planned is not necessarily. The fact is that, in the US at least, the government doesn't recognize long-term partnerships or cohabitations the same way that it does marriages, and being married entitles you to a lot taht you can't get otherwise. I would probably feel differently if I lived somewhere where I didn't have to fight for affordable healthcare every day. 
Posted by Elle1036[/QUOTE]

I won't judge you for having that opinion, but I'd judge you if you did it.

The difference to me is that, as I said before, if you aren't telling people you are married, but are accepting benefits that are intended for married couples, then that's deceptive.  If you aren't going to present yourselves as a married couple, you shouldn't accept benefits for married couples that is paid for by tax dollars.

If for whatever reason they wanted to JOP, keep it secret, but DIDN'T tell the military either, then whatever.  It's weird and serves no real purpose, but whatever.  At least you're not taking money which is intended for married couples while you're acting publically like you're not actually married.

heyimbren

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:c3868bb5-5572-4570-9e8f-dbc973accc2d">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : Judge away, but I disagree.  I think getting married specifically for benefits is wrong, but getting married a little earlier than originally planned is not necessarily. The fact is that, in the US at least, the government doesn't recognize long-term partnerships or cohabitations the same way that it does marriages, and being married entitles you to a lot taht you can't get otherwise. I would probably feel differently <strong>if I lived somewhere where I didn't have to fight for affordable healthcare every day. 
</strong>Posted by Elle1036[/QUOTE]

Did someone mention Canada? :)

Actually, this whole benefits debate is making me wonder how something like that would play out in a Canadian scenario. I don't know anything about military benefits here or anywhere though.

Elle1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:3e3ea70d-2023-4d6d-ba80-764b9270ccd2">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : I won't judge you for having that opinion, but I'd judge you if you did it. The difference to me is that, as I said before, if you aren't telling people you are married, but are accepting benefits that are intended for married couples, then that's deceptive.  If you aren't going to present yourselves as a married couple, you shouldn't accept benefits for married couples that is paid for by tax dollars. If for whatever reason they wanted to JOP, keep it secret, but DIDN'T tell the military either, then whatever.  It's weird and serves no real purpose, but whatever.  At least you're not taking money which is intended for married couples while you're acting publically like you're not actually married.
Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]

I definitely won't be doing it.  It doesn't apply to me anyway, as neither BF nor I are military. 

I really just meant that I understand the impetus to get married a little early for the benefits, and that I don't think a quick courthouse wedding disqualifies you from being able to have the celebration you may have dreamed of...

Elle1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:e4306328-f6b0-4f92-8126-8a8c367d2c5d">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... : Did someone mention Canada? :) Actually, this whole benefits debate is making me wonder how something like that would play out in a Canadian scenario. I don't know anything about military benefits here or anywhere though.
Posted by heyimbren[/QUOTE]

Haha Bren!  You don't know how close I was to mentioning you and Paige by name in that post.

**Mutley**

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:dce938cb-bc59-4411-8c72-d626584cb7f9">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Just curious... :I really just meant that I understand the impetus to get married a little early for the benefits, and that I don't think a quick courthouse wedding disqualifies you from being able to have the celebration you may have dreamed of...
Posted by Elle1036[/QUOTE]


I will repeat what I said earlier:

<em>I think that having a whole big celebration after having a JOP makes light of the JOP ceremony.  I think that marriage is a BIG EFFING DEAL.  I think that the ceremony where you GET married is a BIG EFFING DEAL.  I think that if you want to celebrate your marriage with your family that is one thing but it should not be another 'wedding' with a white dress, a wedding party or a giant reception. </em>

I do not understand why you could not just have your 'dream' celebration earlier.  I think it goes back to my feeling that too many people get caught up in the pretty-princess-day of it all and away from the marriage aspect.  Then again, I may not understand because I did not have a 'dream' wedding day.  I wanted to marry my husband and that was it.  Yes, we made it beautiful, but I didn't need any of that.  We had our family, friends and God there.  That was enough.  And it was something we could have pulled together with very short notice if we had needed to do so.     

Goldlie11

I find vow renewals to be kind of silly, especially when they are done shortly after you are married.  I also find it offensive when people talk about having their "real" wedding.  Plenty of people have "real" weddings and marriages after visiting a JOP.  One of my favorite weddings ever took place at NYC's city hall.  

Having said all that.  I would have no problem attending a delayed reception of a military couple.  I would love to celebrate their marriage.  I don't think that vows should be redone if you're legally married and already took your vows.  It seems fake to me.  And if I were ever lied to about it, I would be pissed.  

hetshup

I personally do not subscribe to the whole, the day you get LEGALLY married must be your wedding day. I think that a wedding holds two places in life

1) The word marriage is really a religious term. You can be part of a civil union without being married, and you can be married without legal union

2) Weddings are for families. Our parents would kill us if they were not there to witness our marriage. Our wedding was about us, yes, but it was more about the joining of two families and celebrating that.

I think if you are ready to be married, really married- not just wanting extra money, then it's fine. I have no idea why you would lie about it, but I believe that your family should be able to celebrate. 

Also, while deployed military members get both separation pay (which is paid if you are away from family for more than 6 weeks) and hazard pay (marital status does not matter). Most of the time they keep BAH, unless they are unmarried or the family is living on base. I know all this because I deal with the military all day long. 

PaigeMcC

*ears perk at Canada*

What Hetshup said, too.

Goldlie11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_just-curious-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:72c1caca-30ac-4716-baf1-f54f9f5748c5Post:8632ddcd-fb96-4124-8372-e1aa11f257ba">Re: Just curious...</a>:
[QUOTE]I personally do not subscribe to the whole, the day you get LEGALLY married must be your wedding day. I think that a wedding holds two places in life 1<strong>) The word marriage is really a religious term.</strong> You can be part of a civil union without being married, and you can be married without legal union 2) Weddings are for families. Our parents would kill us if they were not there to witness our marriage. Our wedding was about us, yes, but it was more about the joining of two families and celebrating that. I think if you are ready to be married, really married- not just wanting extra money, then it's fine. I have no idea why you would lie about it, but I believe that your family should be able to celebrate.  Also, while deployed military members get both separation pay (which is paid if you are away from family for more than 6 weeks) and hazard pay (marital status does not matter). Most of the time they keep BAH, unless they are unmarried or the family is living on base. I know all this because I deal with the military all day long. 
Posted by hetshup[/QUOTE]
<p style="line-height:24px;font:normal normal normal 14px/normal Helvetica;margin:0px;"><span>Really?  I've never heard that before.  Here's what webster has to say about marriage: </span><span style="letter-spacing:0px;"><strong> </strong>(1) <strong>:</strong> the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.</span></p> <p style="line-height:24px;font:normal normal normal 14px/normal Helvetica;min-height:17px;margin:0px;"> </p> <p style="line-height:24px;font:normal normal normal 14px/normal Helvetica;margin:0px;"><span style="letter-spacing:0px;">Fi and I are getting married in a civil ceremony.  We’ll be legally married and committed to each other.  </span></p><p style="line-height:24px;font:normal normal normal 14px/normal Helvetica;margin:0px;"><span style="letter-spacing:0px;">
</span></p><p style="line-height:24px;font:normal normal normal 14px/normal Helvetica;margin:0px;">I also disagree about weddings being about families.  Plenty of people have had weddings with just the bride and groom. </p><div><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="6" class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><span style="font-size:22px;line-height:58px;" class="Apple-style-span"><font size="3" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:13px;line-height:34px;" class="Apple-style-span">
</span></font></span></font></div><div><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="6" class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><span style="font-size:22px;line-height:58px;" class="Apple-style-span"><font size="3" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:13px;line-height:34px;" class="Apple-style-span">Still, to each his own.  If people want to renew their vows, just be upfront about it.  I know it sounds shitty, but I'm not traveling across the country to watch someone renew their vows.  I would go for a marriage though.  </span></font></span></font></div>

coastiegrl25

FI, has BAH now, and yes it will increase when we get married.  In the CG, even as an un-ranked person (non-rate, or private in other branches:) you can still get BAH as long as you are stationed on a land based unit.   The only way to get BAH at this rank on any sea going unit is to be married.  That being said, I think it is a good thing that we do this.  Because it prevents a lot of younger or just plain not-ready-to-get-married from getting married too soon.  Also, we don't have to really worry about deployments.  Anyone who goes overseas, knows it any plenty of time and usually volunteers for it.

That all being said, I believe the JOP'ing with a vow renewal later is ok as long as it's out in the open.  But really, who needs to do that in the CG?  There should be no reason for that whatsoever.