with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Stewart join, dissenting.
The Court’s opinion is curious in at least two salient respects. For all its purported reliance on Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572 (1979), the Court fails either to quote or cite the test for pre-emption which Hisquierdo established. In that case the Court began its analysis, after noting that States “lay on the guiding hand” in marriage law questions, by stating:
“On the rare occasion where state family law has come into conflict with the federal statute, this Court has limited review under the Supremacy Clause to a determination whether Congress has 'positively required by direct enactment’ that state law be pre-empted. Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68, 77 (1904).” Id., at 581.
The reason for the omission of this seemingly critical sentence from the Court’s opinion today is of course quite clear: the Court cannot, even to its satisfaction, plausibly maintain that Congress has “positively required by direct enactment” that California’s community property law be pre-empted by the *237provisions governing military retired pay. The most that the Court can advance are vague implications from tangentially related enactments or Congress’ failure to act. The test announced in Hisquierdo established that this was not enough and so the critical language from that case must be swept under the rug.
The other curious aspect of the Court’s opinion, related to the first, is the diverting analysis it provides of laws and legislative history having little if anything to do with the case at bar. The opinion, for example, analyzes at great length Congress’ actions concerning the attachability of federal pay to enforce alimony and child support awards, ante, at 228-230. However interesting this subject might be, this case concerns community property rights, which are quite distinct from rights to alimony or child support, and there has in fact been no effort by appellee to attach appellant’s retired pay. To take another example, we learn all about the provisions governing Foreign Service and Civil Service retirement pay, ante, at 230-232. Whatever may be said of these provisions, it cannot be said that they are “direct enactments” on the question whether military retired pay may be treated as community property. The conclusion is inescapable that the Court has no solid support for the conclusion it reaches — certainly no support of the sort required by Hisquierdo — and accordingly I dissent.
I
Both family law and property law have been recognized as matters of peculiarly local concern and therefore governed by state and not federal law. In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593-594 (1890); United States v. Yazell, 382 U. S. 341, 349, 353 (1966). Questions concerning the appropriate disposition of property upon the dissolution of marriage, therefore, such as the question in this case, are particularly within the control of the States, and the authority of the States should not be displaced except pursuant to the clearest direction from Con*238gress. Only in five previous cases has this Court found preemption of community property law. An examination of those cases clearly establishes that there is no precedent supporting admission of this case to the exclusive club.
The first such case was McCune v. Essig, 199 U. S. 382 (1905). McCune’s father, a homesteader, died before completing the necessary conditions to obtain title to the land. McCune claimed that under the community property laws of the State of Washington she was entitled to a half interest in her father’s land. Congress in the Homestead Act, however, had “positively required by direct enactment,” Hisquierdo, supra, at 581, that in the case of a homesteader’s death the widow would succeed to the homesteader’s interest in the land. Indeed, the Act set forth an explicit schedule of succession which-specifically provided for a homesteader’s daughter such as McCune. She succeeded to rights and fee under the statute only in the case of the death of both her father and mother. In the words of Justice McKenna:
“It requires an exercise of ingenuity to establish uncertainty in these provisions. . . . The words of the statute are clear, and express who in turn shall be its beneficiaries. The contention of appellant reverses the order of the statute and gives the children an interest paramount to that of the widow through the laws of the state.” 199 U. S., at 389.
There is, of course, nothing remotely approaching this situation in the case at bar. Congress has not enacted a schedule governing rights of ex-spouses to military retired pay and appellee’s claim does not go against any such schedule.1
*239The next case from this Court finding pre-emption of community property law did not arise until 45 years later. In Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655 (1950), the deceased serviceman's estranged wife claimed she was entitled to one-half of the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance policy, the premiums of which were paid out of the serviceman’s pay accrued while he was married, even though decedent had designated his parents as the beneficiaries. The Act in question specifically provided that the serviceman shall have “ 'the right to designate the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the insurance [within a designated class], ... and shall ... at all times have the right to change the beneficiary or beneficiaries.’ ” Id., at 658 (quoting 38 U. S. C. § 802 (g) (1946 ed.)). As the Court interpreted this, “Congress has spoken with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belonged to the named beneficiary and no other.” 338 U. S., at 658. That is not at all the case here. Congress has provided that the serviceman receive retired pay in 10 U. S. C. § 3929, to be sure, but that is simply the general provision permitting payment — it hardly evinces the “deliberate purpose of Congress” concerning the question before us, as was the case with the designation of a life insurance policy beneficiary in Wissner. 338 U. S., at 659.
The Court in Wissner also noted that the statute provided that “[p]ayments to the named beneficiary 'shall be exempt *240from the claims of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.’” Ibid, (quoting 38 U. S. C. §816 (1946 ed.)). The wife’s claim was thus in “flat conflict” with the terms of the statute. 338 U. S., at 659. This forceful and unambiguous language protecting the rights of the designated beneficiary has no parallel so far as military retired pay is concerned.
It is important to recognize that the Court’s analysis, while purporting to rely on Wissner, actually is contrary to the analysis in that case. As will be explored in greater detail below, the Court focuses on two provisions in concluding that military retired pay cannot be treated as community property: the provision permitting a serviceman to designate who shall receive any arrearages in pay after his death, and the provision permitting a retired serviceman to fund an annuity for someone other than the ex-spouse out of retired pay. The Court’s theory is that since the serviceman can dispose of part of the retired pay without participation of the ex-spouse' either the arrearages or the premiums to fund the annuity— the retired pay cannot be treated as community property. This, however, is precisely the analysis the Wissner court declined to adopt in concluding that the proceeds of an insurance policy, purchased with military pay, could not be treated as community property. The Wissner court simply concluded that the wife could not pursue her community property claim to the proceeds, even though purchased with community property funds. This is comparable to ruling in this case that appellee cannot obtain half of any annuity funded out of retired pay pursuant to the statute, or half of the ar-rearages, when the serviceman has designated someone else to receive them. The Wissner court specifically left open the question whether the whole from which the premiums were taken — the military pay — could be treated as community property. Id., at 657, n. 2. That is, however, the analytic jump the Court takes today, in ruling that retired pay cannot *241be treated as community property simply because parts of it, or proceeds of parts of it — arrearages and the annuity— cannot be.2
The next two cases, Free v. Bland, 369 U. S. 663 (1962), and Yiatchos v. Yiatchos, 376 U. S. 306 (1964), involved the same provisions. Plaintiffs sought community property rights in United States Savings Bonds, even though duly issued Treasury Regulations provided that designated co-owners would, upon the death of the other co-owner, be “the sole and absolute owner” of the bonds. No such language is involved in this case.
The most recent case is, of course, Hisquierdo, in which the Court held that Congress in the Railroad Retirement Act preempted community property laws so that a railroad worker's pension could not be treated as community property. It bears noting that this case is not Hisquierdo revisited. In Hisquierdo there was a specific statutory provision which satisfied the requirement that Congress “ 'positively requir[e] by direct enactment’ that state law be pre-empted.” 439 U. S., at 581 (quoting Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68, 77 (1904)). Section 14 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, carrying forward the provisions of § 12 of the Act of 1937, provided:
“Notwithstanding any other law of the United States, or of any State, territory, or the District of Columbia, no annuity or supplemental annuity shall be assignable or be subject to any tax or to garnishment, attachment, or other legal process under any circumstances whatsoever, nor shall the payment thereof be anticipated.” 45 U. S. C. § 231m.
*242The Hisquierdo Court viewed this provision as playing “a most important role in the statutory scheme,” 439 U. S., at 583-584. The Court stressed the language “[notwithstanding any other law ... of any State,” id., at 584, and noted that § 14 “pre-empts all state law that stands in its way.” Ibid.
With all the emphasis placed on § 14 in Hisquierdo, one would have expected the counterpart in the military retired pay scheme to figure prominently in the Court’s opinion today. There is, however, nothing approaching § 14 in the military retired pay scheme. The closest analogue, 37 TJ. S. C. §701 (a), is buried in footnote 22 of the Court’s opinion. It simply provides:
“Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, a commissioned officer of the Army or the Air Force may transfer or assign his pay account, when due and payable.”
The contrast with the provision in Hisquierdo is stark. Section 14 forbids assignment; § 701 (a) permits it. Section 14 contains a “flat prohibition against attachment and anticipation,” 439 U. S., at 582; all that can be gleaned from § 701 (a) is a negative implication prohibiting voluntary assignments prior to the time pay is due and payable. Such a limit is of course a far cry from the Hisquierdo provision requiring that the retired pay may not be -subject to “legal process under any circumstances whatsoever” and that it shall not “be anticipated.” It is no wonder § 701 (a) is buried in a footnote in the Court’s opinion.3
*243In addition to § 14 the Hisquierdo Court also relied on the fact that the Railroad Retirement Act provided a separate spousal entitlement, “embod[ying] a community concept to an extent.” 439 U. S., at 584. Under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U. S. C. § 231d (c), a spouse is entitled to a separate benefit, which terminates upon divorce. § 231d (c)(3). Congress explicitly considered extending the spousal benefit to a divorced spouse but declined to do so. 439 U. S., at 585. The Hisquierdo Court found support in this not to permit California to expand the community property concept beyond its limited use by Congress in the Act. No similar separate spousal entitlement, terminable on divorce, exists in the statutes governing military retired pay. The “this far and no further” implication in Hisquierdo, therefore, cannot be made here.
II
The foregoing demonstrates that today’s decision is not simply a logical extension of prior precedent. That does not, to be sure, mean that it is necessarily wrong — there has to be a first time for everything. But examination of the analysis in the Court’s opinion convinces me that it is both unprecedented and wrong.
In its analysis the Court contrasts the statute involved in Hisquierdo, noting that there spouses received an annuity which terminated upon divorce. Here there is no such provision. As the Court states its conclusion: “Thus, unlike the Railroad Retirement Act, the military retirement system does not embody even a limited ‘community property concept.’ ” Ante, at 224. This analysis, however, is the exact opposite *244of the analysis employed in Hisquierdo. As we have seen, there the Court’s point was that Congress had provided some community property rights and made a conscious decision to provide no more:
“Congress carefully targeted the benefits created by the Railroad Retirement Act. It even embodied a community concept to an extent. . . . Congress purposefully abandoned that theory, however, in allocating benefits upon absolute divorce. . . . The choice was deliberate.” 439 Ü. S., at 584-585.
Now we are told that pre-emption of community property law is suggested in this case because there is no community property concept at all in the statutory scheme. Under His-quierdo, this absence would have been thought to suggest that there was no pre-emption, since the argument could not be made, as it was in Hisquierdo, that Congress had addressed the question and drawn the line. See In re Milhan, 27 Cal. 3d 765, 775-776, 613 P. 2d 812, 817 (1980), cert, pending sub nom. Milhan v. Milhan, No. 80-578. I am not certain whether the analysis was wrong in Hisquierdo or in this case, but it is clear that both cannot be correct. One is led to inquire where this moving target will next appear.
The Court also relies on “several features of the statutory scheme” as evidence that Congress intended military retired pay to be the “personal entitlement” of the serviceman. The Court first focuses on 10 U. S. C. § 2771, which permits a serviceman to select the beneficiary of unpaid arrearages. As we have seen, supra, at 240-241, the Court’s reliance on Wissner in this context establishes, at most, only that unpaid arrearages cannot be treated as community property, not that retired pay in general cannot be. A provision permitting a serviceman to tell the Government where to mail his last paycheck after his death hardly supports the inference of a congressional intent to pre-empt state law governing disposition of military retired pay in general.
*245The Court next relies on the statutory provisions permitting a retired serviceman to fund an annuity for his potential widow and/or dependent children out of retired pay. Even granting the Court its premise that the annuity is not subject to community property treatment, the conclusion that military retired pay is not subject to community property treatment simply does not follow. If California’s community property law conflicts with permitting a retired serviceman to fund an annuity out of retired pay, then by all means override California’s law — to the extent of the conflict. Even if Congress did intentionally intrude on community property law to the extent of permitting a serviceman to fund an annuity, that hardly supports an intent to intrude on all community property law. Nothing in the Court’s analysis shows any reason why appellee should not be entitled to one-half of appellant’s retired pay less amounts he uses to fund an annuity, should he decide to do so.
The Court resists the recognition of any rights to retired pay in the ex-spouse because of a policy judgment that it would be “anomalous” to place the ex-spouse in a better position than a widow receiving benefits under an annuity. Ante, at 227. The Court, however, is comparing apples and oranges in two respects. The ex-spouse’s rights are to retired pay, and cease when the serviceman dies. The widow’s rights are to an annuity which begins when the serviceman dies. The fact that Congress “deliberately has chosen to favor the widower or widow over the ex-spouse” so far as the annuity is concerned, ante, at 228, simply has no relevance to the rights of the ex-spouse to the retired pay itself. Second, the ex-spouse has contributed to the earning of the retired pay to the same degree as the serviceman, according to state law. The widow may have done nothing at all to “earn” her annuity, as would be the ease, for example, if appellant remarried and funded an annuity for his widow out of retired pay. In view of this, I see nothing “anomalous” in providing the ex-spouse with rights in retired pay. In any event, such pol*246icy questions are for Congress to decide, not the Court, and the Court fails in its efforts to show Congress has found California's system anomalous.
The third argument advanced by the Court is the weakest of all: the Court argues that an ex-spouse in a community property State cannot obtain half of the military retired pay, by attachment or otherwise, because she can obtain alimony and child support by attachment. This is pre-emption by negative implication — not the “positive requirement” and “direct enactment” which Hisquierdo indicated were required. And since appellee does not seek to attach anything, even the negative implication is not directly relevant.
The Court also stresses the recognition of community property rights in varying degrees in the Foreign Service and Civil Service laws. Again, this hardly meets the Hisquierdo test. Both the Foreign Service and Civil Service laws are quite different from the military retired pay laws. The former contain strong anti-attachment provisions like § 14 of the Railroad Retirement Act considered in Hisquierdo, see 5 U. S. C. § 8346; 22 U. S. C. § 1104, so Congress could well have thought explicit legislation was necessary in these areas.
III
The very most that the Court establishes, therefore, is that the provisions governing arrearages and annuities pre-empt California's community property law. There is no support for the leap from this narrow pre-emption to the conclusion that the community property laws are pre-empted so far as military retired pay in general is concerned. Such a jump is wholly inconsistent with this Court's previous pronouncements concerning a State's power to determine laws concerning marriage and property in the absence of Congress' “direct enactment” to the contrary, and I therefore dissent.
The Court maintains that the present case is like McCune: “[s]o here, the right appellee asserts 'reverses the order of the statute’ by giving the ex-spouse an interest paramount to that of the surviving spouse and children of the service member Ante, at 233. With all respect, I do not understand the statute to establish any ordered list of those with interests in retired pay. The Court’s argument is apparently that rec*239ognizing the ex-spouse’s interest in retired pay would burden the serviceman’s decision to fund an annuity for his current spouse out of retired pay. This is of course a far cry from the situation in McCune, where the statute accorded the surviving widow and daughter specific places and the daughter sought to switch the order by invoking community property law. Even if the Court is correct that there is a conflict between California’s community property law and the decision of the serviceman to fund an annuity out of retired pay, the answer is not to pre-empt community property treatment across the board, but only to the extent of the conflict, i. e., permit community property treatment of retired pay less any amounts which are used to fund an annuity. See infra, at 245.
The error in the Court’s logic is perhaps most apparent when it is recognized that the arrearages provision applies to regular military pay as well as retired pay. The Court’s logic would compel the conclusion that regular pay is thus not subject to community property treatment, an untenable position which the Court itself shies away from without explanation, ante, at 224-225, n. 17.
The Court states that “[r]etired pay cannot be attached to satisfy a property settlement incident to the dissolution of a marriage,” ante, at 228. The sources for this are not statutory but rather a common-law doctrine, Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20 (1845), and a House Report explaining a decision not to enact a bill, see ante, at 228-230. The Court cannot of course justify either source as Congress “positively requiring] by direct *243enactment” that state law be pre-empted. See Hisquierdo, 439 U. S., at 581. Thus even accepting the rule, it does not, as § 14 of the Railroad Retirement Act did in Hisquierdo, evince the strong congressional intent that military retired pay “actually reach the beneficiary.” And congressional intent is all the prohibition on attachment is relevant to, since appellee seeks neither anticipation of pay nor attachment from the Government.