DADT is an important first step, but policies like DOMA mean that not all who serve their country get the same benefits.

The repeal of DADT went into effect on September 20, but that is far from the last step toward full equality for the men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces. Yes, DADT has resulted in a legally safer environment for gay soldiers who come out, but that is, sadly, the extent of its impact.

There is no clause in the repeal bill that mentions legal action or legal protection to address and prevent acts of sexual orientation discrimination and prejudice. This means that gay men and women are not only at risk of public abuse, but that they are also at risk of discrimination that would hurt them financially. There are still laws in effect like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prevent civil union partners and spouses of same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits of marriage (many of them financial) that heterosexual couples enjoy.

DOMA defines marriage for federal benefit purposes as a union between a man and woman:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

While DOMA doesn't explicitly outlaw gay marriage, it does discourage its existence by protecting states from having to recognize it. This adds hurdles for any gay couple, the biggest of which is getting state marriage benefits in a state that does not recognize its validity. Some of the benefits of marriage include joint IRS tax returns and spousal benefits and coverage from Social Security and Medicare. In states that do not recognize gay marriage, these lawfully married couples miss out on this assistance and must pay more out of pocket to cover such expenses on an individual basis. Marriage is supposed to help help family finances by mitigating certain essential life costs, not give a boost to one couple over another.

On Oct. 23, the FDR Library presents a free forum on FDR’s foreign policy advisers. Click here to find out how you can join the conversation!

But it hits our men and women in service in even more ways. DOMA means that even in states where gay marriage is legal, if one partner in a couple is in the military, the other same-sex civilian dependent does not receive the same benefits that a civilian dependent in a heterosexual couple would receive. These unequal benefits include not being considered an emergency contact. A spouse would be able to find out about his or her partner's death or accident, but not allowed to hear the details like immediate family would.

Same-sex military families also cannot receive the same housing allowances as families headed by heterosexual parents and they are not guaranteed that they will stay together if they are told to transfer bases. In order to actually stay together, the spouse must pay for his or her own move, whereas a heterosexual couple would receive some aid in that worst-case scenario.

If homosexual couples are not guaranteed the benefits that they deserve as members of the military, why should they risk their lives and the financial stability of their family back home? The answer is that they should not have to.

When Obama signed the repeal of DADT last December, he told the story of a WWII private who "knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today." Sexual orientation has again and again proven to be neither a work obstacle nor a performance-affecting measure, and it is a step in the right direction for the United States Armed Forces to recognize this as well.

Equality is not something gained by a single action, and thus it requires more than just one repeal to attain full equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples in the military. The next step is to repeal DOMA in order to give homosexual military families the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. The justification of this repeal can be based on the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which states that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Today we live in a world where miscegenation laws are illegal, but the freedom to marry is still restrictive. That is an unacceptable, illogical, and economic fallacy.

Jeffrey Raines is a sophomore majoring in political science at American University where he is the Vice President of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network chapter and the DC-International Region's New Chapter Coordinator.

While some have started preparing for rising sea levels, it will take a global effort to pay for adaptation.

City policymakers constitute the frontline in cities' battles to secure funding from their parent states. But as the world experiences the largest urbanization trend in human history -- the UN projects that by 2050, 70 percent of the global population will live in cities -- issues of public health, energy independence, food production, security, and poverty alleviation will increasingly have to be dealt with at the city level. This growing burden on city policymakers is only exacerbated by the urgency of the effects of global climate change. Cities will also be on the frontlines of dealing with climate change, an expensive undertaking that will require resources beyond local budgets. The global community will need to chip in to their battles against rising tides.

Commercial city centers have historically been located along bodies of water. Trade, transport, food systems, and public health are all sustained by a city's water supply and access to ports. There is no doubt that rising sea levels will have a disproportionate impact on these cities, virtually all of which lack adequate infrastructure to account for the kind of catastrophic flooding that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects (assuming minimal policy intermediation).

In that event, potable water reserves could potentially be flooded and contaminated, essentially cutting off the city's supply of safe drinking water. Moreover, sea level rise in a city that employs a combined sewer overflow model will be all the more catastrophic to water quality. Surrounding bodies of water will be instantly and severely contaminated, as wastewater treatment plants fail to keep their "heads above water," so to speak.

These familiar doomsday scenarios, while terrifying, can be prevented. "Climate change adaptation" is a phrase thrown around a great deal in development and smart growth circles. According to the IPCC, adaptation amounts to an "adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities". Cities around the world are working to adapt to the coming rise, acting quickly to secure their low-lying coastal settlements, protect their drinking water from the threat of encroaching saltwater, and rework their wastewater management systems to allow greater and speedier treatment capacity. From New York City to Ho Chi Minh City, from Miami to Durban, cities recognize the urgency and immediacy of the threat that rising sea levels pose and are in a mad rush to secure funds to prepare.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Still, as the cities of the world start to hit the ground running, their parent states struggle to reach consensus in climate talks. Recent UN Climate Change Conventions in Copenhagen and Cancun have given way to very little added momentum among member states, even as the stakes continue to grow. With the U.S. far from reaching domestic consensus on whether to formally commit to combating and adapting to climate change, prospects for these talks remain grim.

But there is hope. In June of next year, nations of the world will gather in Rio de Janeiro as a part of the so-called "Rio+20"   UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Included among the agreed-upon themes of the convention is a commitment to building an "institutional framework for sustainable development" on a global scale.

For any UNCSD institutional framework to successfully engage in climate change adaptation at a global scale, it must employ the financial and diplomatic resources of the UN to support and share the progress already being made by cities. The existing UN Adaptation Fund is targeted specifically at developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Adaptation Fund employs a traditional grantor-grantee flow of funds, without regard to the utility of best practice sharing and open dialogue between city policymakers and planners, who will shoulder most of the burden of the adaptation crisis.

At the same time, the diplomatic architecture of the UNCSD, with its hefty funding contributions and wide array of state representation, positions it very well to establish mechanisms to support urban climate change adaptation programs around the world.

A centralized host of "urban diplomacy," this adaptation facility would inject funds into mentor city partnerships, coordinate city-to-city direct aid, and help to attract private foreign direct investment in adaptation programs. By sparking and maintaining an ongoing dialogue between cities and facilitating investment in adaptation projects, the UNCSD can have a profound impact on the number of cities in both the developing and developed world that are well prepared for the effects of climate change.

Adapting to the coming tide is a herculean feat, and cities will require access to the full resources of their parent states in executing these projects. One can only hope that states will put their money where their people are.

David Weinberger is the Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment at the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and a senior at Hunter College of the City University of New York.

We could redirect fervor and resources to prevent deaths through the health care system.

September 11th marked a political coming-of-age for many young Americans. Where we could once afford to be blissful in our policy ignorance, the realities of terrorism required a far more adult understanding of the issues. It's in the aftermath that I first began to notice the zeal for a particular brand of post-terror policy. It seemed as though every American, and their corresponding representatives in Washington, D.C., would do whatever it took, spend whatever was needed, to prevent the next attack. The commonsense perception dictated eliminating the threat before it could grow into a crisis. I like to imagine applying that standard to the problems I see in health care.

But consider first the extent to which preventing terror dominated the first resulting policy changes. A network of rules and regulations that encroach on civil liberties seek to prevent explosives and weapons from making it onto airplanes. A nation was controversially invaded to prevent its leader from using weapons of mass destruction. A broader war was declared to level Al Qaeda in another country to avenge the attacks and prevent future terror plots. An undisclosed, but certainly astronomical, amount of money was afforded to a top secret government agency to carry out unknown tasks to prevent potential terror threats.

Let's check in on these change: Individuals have found ways to bring weapons and explosives anyway. It is still unclear what threats, precisely, were prevented by invading and then occupying Iraq. Al Qaeda is largely decimated, but the conditions prevailing in Afghanistan can foster a new generation of radicalized anti-American sentiment. And we continue to chase terror plots to this day.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Now consider a similar zeal for preventative policy, this time applied to health care. A network of rules and regulations could seek to eliminate a growing epidemic of obesity already affecting a third of Americans. We could go into Africa instead of Afghanistan, this time with $3 billion a year in targeted aid (what the Pentagon spends in two days) to end malaria and save those at risk. A disclosed and comparably lesser sum of money could task the federal government with reorienting our health care system around preventative medicine to stop the 900,000 American deaths each year from preventable causes.

A decade later, the results of these initiatives would be a little different. Ending obesity could save $147 billion each year in its associated costs. Our invasion of good will in Africa could save more than a million lives a year, the results of which would be met with a markedly higher level of international admiration, respect, and cooperation. Of course, some will still regrettably fall victim to preventable health problems. But we would know for certain where our dollars are going -- to our health.

There are many legacies and takeaways from 9/11. What I've learned is the power and reach of passionately driven policy. I've also learned that It should not take an attack, or any catastrophe, to ignite zealous action where it is needed.

Rajiv Narayan is a Senior Health Policy Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and a student at the University of California, Davis.

The U.S. aid to rebels in Libya was necessary, but it can't necessarily be replicated across the Arab region.

Col. Muammar Gaddafi ruled over Libya with an iron fist for 42 years. During that time he went from an international pariah and state terrorist to Western darling and finally to an overthrown tyrant targeted by the international community. His rise and fall help illustrate the complexities of our global system and how the changing power dynamics of that system affect U.S. national security. Ultimately, it was the right call for the U.S. and the international community to end the humanitarian crisis in Libya by supporting opposition forces. But the strategy specific to this situation doesn't necessarily signal a new era in U.S. foreign policy.

A little background:

In the early 2000s, Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear and chemical weapons programs in exchange for international acceptance from Western powers and access to lucrative oil, development, and trade contracts. For several years he was embraced by Western foreign policymakers; as president of the African Union, he showed them that global "bad guys" could "turn good." And then, with the birth of the Arab Spring, his house of cards fell.

Libya ignited in February 2011 as Gaddafi ordered the violent suppression of pro-democracy protests across the country. The battle between government soldiers and protesters quickly escalated into a humanitarian crisis as an armed revolt broke out. Thousands died as under-equipped rebels battled Gaddafi's forces. The international community recognized that genocide in Libya was imminent. In March, the United Nations sanctioned de-facto intervention in the conflict by passing resolution 1973, establishing a no-fly/no-drive zone within the country. The Arab League strongly supported this measure, and several Middle Eastern states have been aggressive in their support for the revolutionary government, the Transitional National Council (TNC). This provided legal cover for NATO to strike at Gaddafi's military assets, disabling the regime's ability to wage war against the Libyan people and empowering the TNC to build a new, democratic Libyan state.

Making a case for Just War:

Arguments that U.S. intervention in Libya was warranted because the conflict became a humanitarian crisis are well founded, but do not represent a coherent trend in U.S. foreign policymaking. If supporting democracy and human rights abroad is a national security goal for the U.S. (and the international community), then every global humanitarian crisis represents a "Right to Protect" (R2P) and requires international intervention. However, current U.S. and NATO military commitments make R2P an unrealistic strategy for policymakers. As critics of the war have noted, the US is currently bogged down in a five-front foreign war, and any expansion of military engagement should not be taken lightly.  The current revolt in Syria also illustrates the divide between ideology and reality. Many rogue governments (such as Syria's Baath regime) are too well protected to be legitimate targets for decapitation by foreign intervention.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Selective engagement is also not a coherent U.S. strategy and intervention in Libya does not signal a change in any long-term U.S. policy toward genocide. Selective engagement is a tactical effort to promote global stability and is not a sound policy for advancing our national security interests. In other words, we didn't support the rebels just because the people of Libya were suffering. We supported the rebels in Libya because removing Gaddafi was good for global order. The Arab Spring is much too far along for the United States to sit on the fence and continue supporting regional dictators. The consequences of the Arab Spring are still unpredictable, but whatever unfolds, it is in the United States' interest to be on the side of change. Supporting the Arab Spring is the only position the U.S. can take if we want the results to strengthen global stability.

Global instability is a threat to U.S. national security because many nation-states we brand as "rogue nations" and "failed states" are run by unstable, undemocratic regimes that control access to deadly weapons of mass destruction, a relic from the Cold War. In the 21st century, the U.S. and its allies continue a costly hunt to secure these weapons, but emerging threats (such as cyber attacks, transnational criminal organizations, and non-state terrorism) make these operations difficult to execute. Libya is therefore a security concern for the U.S. because the regime has stockpiles of deadly weapons: shoulder-held rocket launchers and stores of poison gas. While it is not a security goal to occupy Libya (or pay for the occupation of Libya), it is a security goal for the United States (and the international community) to ensure that the deadly weapons in Libya are secured.

If intervention in Libya represented an opportunity for the U.S. to support regime change (which would support human rights and promote democracy), then involvement in the war should have been framed in that context and the president should have sought approval from Congress immediately after deploying U.S. forces to the region. This would have allowed them to use more kinetic force against Gaddafi's military command and communications infrastructure. It is unfortunate that what took NATO six months of action could have taken the U.S. several weeks. But this is the price we will pay for a more balanced foreign policy. The upside to this approach is that our government saves a lot of money and American families will save many sons and daughters.

But if targeting Gaddafi was our goal, and I believe that it was after he failed to reconcile with the TNC, it was smart, although we should have been more honest about it. In every global conflict there are still "good guys" and "bad guys." The people of Libya were being oppressed by a tyrant and they protested fearlessly for freedom. The United States possesses vast military superiority over the global system and has the ability to save millions of people across the world from suffering. We were right to intervene for humanitarian reasons and to assist with overthrowing the Gaddafi regime.

Ultimately, President Obama took the right approach to the war in Libya. He decisively engaged U.S. forces in a just and limited war at very low cost in lives and spending, and he kept his campaign promise to respect international law and work more closely with our allies to secure democracy and human rights abroad. Unfortunately, you don't always get rewarded for doing the right thing.

Reese Neader is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Policy Director.