The National Guard's Defiance on Civil Rights In August, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the Defense Department would begin offering full spousal and family benefits, including health care coverage, housing allowances and survivor benefits, to the same-sex spouses of military personnel. In doing so he swiftly aligned the military with the Supreme Court's ruling in June striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's denial of federal marriage benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples. National Guard units in four states - Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Oklahoma - have, however, refused to process applications by same-sex couples in a convenient and respectful manner. To register for benefits and obtain the identification card needed for programs and services at the Guard member's home base, spouses are being told they must travel to federal military installations sometimes located a long distance away. This unfair procedural obstacle could delay important military benefits - or even make them unattainable, depending on how far the states take their discriminatory policy. There is no valid basis for this treatment. The guard units say they are merely adhering to state constitutions that ban same-sex marriages and do not recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. But state bans cannot pre-empt a lawful Defense Department order based on a Supreme Court ruling. Under the Constitution's supremacy clause, federal law takes precedence. Further, it is hard to see how state law comes into the picture. The application forms are provided by the federal government and are processed by federal employees on federal computer systems. And while state governors ordinarily exercise control over their units, the National Guard is officially part of the United States Army and Air Force. Its members are subject to call by the president, and nearly all its funding is from the federal government. For all these reasons, states "cannot choose to ignore" Mr. Hagel's order, a point made in a Sept. 30 letter to the secretary from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, and the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith of Washington. They offered as an example the case of Judith Cedville, a veteran of the Iraq war, and her wife, Alicia Butler. They were told by their local National Guard office in Austin, Tex., that they needed to apply for benefits at the nearest federal base at Fort Hood, about 90 miles away. It was a humiliating message that points to a discriminatory culture. If the defiance of the four states is allowed to stand, other states with similar bans on same-sex marriage could follow suit. Mr. Hagel should promptly reaffirm that all married couples be treated equally.