Military chaplains ask Congress to intervene in response to Pentagon’s gay marriage proclamation

posted at 4:05 pm on October 6, 2011 by Tina Korbe

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty isn’t happy about the Pentagon’s recent proclamation to allow military chaplains to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies both on and off federal bases. Rev. Ron Crews, executive director of the group, says the policy change violates federal law, which defines marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. He is joined in that opinion by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who represents Roman Catholic priests in the military.

The two religious leaders are now calling on Congress to intervene to prevent any federal facility from being used in flagrant disregard of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In a press release, Crews said:

“By dishonestly sanctioning the use of federal facilities for ‘marriage counterfeits’ that federal law and the vast majority of Americans have rejected, the Pentagon has launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society – husband and wife.”

We call once again for Congress to affirm that the federal definition of marriage applies to the Department of Defense and that no federal facilities may be used to circumvent federal law.  In addition, we call on Congress to enact a ‘Right of Conscience’ clause in the Revised Title 10 code to ensure that no American,  and especially not our service members, be forced to deny their religious beliefs.”

Obama’s own Justice Department has decided not to defend DOMA, but perhaps Congress thinks more highly of the laws it has enacted than the administration does and will respond accordingly to the request of Crews and Broglio. That seems doubtful, though. In the meantime, a “Right of Conscience” clause seems like a very wise idea. While the Pentagon proclamation stipulates that no chaplain will be forced to perform same-sex unions and Crews and Broglio have already said none of the chaplains they represent will do so, it might not be such a stretch to foresee a time in which the Pentagon might require military chaplains to perform such ceremonies. Consider the legal trouble Catholic Charities has encountered for its refusal to accept gay couples as candidates for foster parents or adoption. Nothing lost by an added protection that does nothing to limit chaplains friendly to the idea of same-sex unions but that does everything to ensure freedom of religion for those who oppose them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No offense to the writers but where is Mr. Morrissey and why no mention of his radio show?

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM

The Pentagon has launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society.

And..
The mainstream media have launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society.
Academia have launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society.
Many state & local govts have launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society.
The President has launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society.

itsnotaboutme on October 6, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Just because DOJ chooses not to defend DOMA, it’s still on the books. Only a fool would break the law based on the whim of the Obama administration.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM

but wait….I thought they just wanted to serve…*cue sounds of patriotic songs*

was that just a stepping stone to this next front?….

ted c on October 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty isn’t happy about the Pentagon’s recent proclamation to allow military chaplains to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies both on and off federal bases.

Give it time.
“Allow” will become “mandate”.
No pun intended.

NeoKong on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

“Of course you don’t have to perform the ceremony, Chaplain Bob. We wouldn’t force you to do anything against your conscience or principles…”

“Oh, by the way, that assignment you were hoping for? That position has already been filled. Better luck next time…”

What? Of course not! How could you say such a thing? Its just that another person filled the requirements better, that’s all!”

“Oh, your annual performance review is coming up. Just a reminder…

“And the promotion review board is set for a few months from now. I know you aced the tests! I’m just giving you a heads up.”

catmman on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Before anyone gets the wrong idea here…

…the Pentagon’s recent proclamation to allow military chaplains to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies…

That’s “allow”…not “be forced to”. No chaplain or priest in the military will be forced to perform any gay marriages. If they were, I’d for sure be against it.

I also, again, don’t agree with going after Catholic adoption services like they did…religious freedom comes into question.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I also, again, don’t agree with going after Catholic adoption services like they did…religious freedom comes into question.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

The problem is this whole issue has called into question the church and state dilemma.

anuts on October 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

If you really believe that chaplains won’t in the end be forced to perform gay marriages, you have not been paying attention to the gay lobby and the lengths they will go to to force their agenda.

Eventually those that refuse will be pushed out the door for any little made-up reason that can be found. For an officer, the list is probably limitless.

Mord on October 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I totally said … long ago … that the repeal of DADT had nothing to with making a stronger military – and had everything to do with overturning the DOMA.

And … I was right.

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Obama’s own Justice Department has decided not to defend DOMA, but perhaps Congress thinks more highly of the laws it has enacted than the administration does and will respond accordingly to the request of Crews and Broglio.

Considering the number of Senate Dems who want to attempt to save their skins in next year’s election, Congress may do something.

INC on October 6, 2011 at 4:25 PM

That’s “allow”…not “be forced to”. No chaplain or priest in the military will be forced to perform any gay marriages. If they were, I’d for sure be against it.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

The problem is – these chaplains are federal employees – and so they will have to obide by the “equal opportunity” laws.

And, right now the military is bending over (no pun intended) backward to accommodate gays and squash even a hint of gay bigotry in the ranks. And by golly – these chaplains aren’t playing well with that theme now are they?

There WILL be repercussions.

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I totally said … long ago … that the repeal of DADT had nothing to with making a stronger military – and had everything to do with overturning the DOMA.

And … I was right.

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The Gay agenda is evil to the core. Reminds me of the Borg actually :D.

MadDogF on October 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM

If you really believe that chaplains won’t in the end be forced to perform gay marriages, you have not been paying attention to the gay lobby and the lengths they will go to to force their agenda.

Eventually those that refuse will be pushed out the door for any little made-up reason that can be found. For an officer, the list is probably limitless.

Mord on October 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

With the way things are heading, in a few years the only chaplains left will be from the phony “Hope” and “Community” type churches, along with some UU and Episcopal ones.

Ward Cleaver on October 6, 2011 at 4:33 PM

So, the chaplains have been ALLOWED to break Federal law.
Sans penalty ??
WTH ??

pambi on October 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Obama is doing everything in his power to bring down this once great Republic.

rplat on October 6, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I am not allowed to protest against anything political or social on a military base. But for some reason it’s ok now to perform same sex marriages in the base chapel? That’s effed up.

milwife88 on October 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM

The military will NEVER “bend over” for anything. They are just forced to accept it. We have no way to protest or disagree with anything they decide to throw at us other than leaving service.

We have been and always will be the “social agenda’s testing ground”. Those who have been in the military know exactly what I’m talking about.

milwife88 on October 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The effects of the BHO administration will take years for this country to overcome…

d1carter on October 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Ace, I think, had the story of the gay Marine who made a porno video wearing parts of his uniform and telling the world he was a Marine and they let him go- since he wasn’t wearing the whole Marine uniform at one time everything was cool with the Code.

yep, that is where we are headed.

journeyintothewhirlwind on October 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Of course, that’s a risk you’re willing to take, then speak out against it once it happens, which, of course, it will.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I am sick of the gays and their degeneracy. I used to be of the mind that it was none of my business what they did as long as they left me alone and kept it to themselves. Not any more. I can’t stand them or their politics or their trying to gain acceptance by cramming their abhorrent behavior down our throats.

I am sure their are plenty of law abiding homosexuals out there, and I know that don’t know them all, but every single one that I do know is disgustingly overt in their use of sexual jargon (no matter who is around) and they pride themselves in talking of their drug use.

If the gays want more acceptance they should go back to keeping it to themselves. Before you trolls start calling me a homophobe, look up the meaning of the word. I am in no way afraid of homosexuals – I am sick and tired that I and my kids have to accept them flaunting their deviancy in public.

Sporty1946 on October 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Of course, that’s a risk you’re willing to take, then speak out against it once it happens, which, of course, it will.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I don’t believe it will…but, if it should, damn right I’d speak out against it. Really should come as no surprise…I regularly call out those on my own political side, GOP candidates, etc when deemed necessary. I’m no “yes” man.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Sporty1946 on October 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Poor thing.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I am sure their are plenty of law abiding homosexuals out there…

As I’m sure there are plenty of law-abiding straight people out there.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:19 PM

As I’m sure there are plenty of law-abiding straight people out there.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Don’t be an ass, you know I mean.

Sporty1946 on October 6, 2011 at 5:22 PM

God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!!!!

Pablo Honey on October 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Don’t be an ass, you know I mean.

Sporty1946 on October 6, 2011 at 5:22 PM

I mean what you mean.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:26 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Just the thought of allowing it sends the crazies into a persecution complex.

While the Pentagon proclamation stipulates that no chaplain will be forced to perform same-sex unions…

Of course, this means the world is ending. Apocalypse next Tuesday?

mythicknight on October 6, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Ah, Jetboy is here. Jetboy, perhaps you don’t recall asking me to prove something to you last time in a gay marriage thread. I did so, but perhaps you didn’t make it back to read it. So I will reply here again. You asked me to prove that you took the side of the gays and excused and promoted gay violence against straights, or words to that effect. Specifically in response to the old lady holding a cross and being mobbed incident.

So I did. Does the phrase “Cross of taunt” ring a bell? Here is my post responding to you.

No less than Allahpundit himself recognized you blaming the victims of gay violence for the violence. Here is his post in a thread, directly responding to you:

See Gregor’s post at 6:33. You’re explicitly blaming the victim of violence for the injuries inflicted on him. If there’s a gay pride down main street in some Islamic enclave and rocks start getting thrown, you’re presumably on the side of the rock-throwers. That’s unconscionable.

If you can’t restrain yourself from rioting when confronted with a viewpoint you don’t like, you’re not fit for civil society. Simple as that.

Allahpundit on November 17, 2008 at 6:39 PM

I just wanted you to know that you asked me to prove that you supported gay violence at one point, and so I have. The rest of my proof is in the first link I gave you, and subsequent posts.

Vanceone on October 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM

I don’t believe it will…but, if it should, damn right I’d speak out against it. Really should come as no surprise…I regularly call out those on my own political side, GOP candidates, etc when deemed necessary. I’m no “yes” man.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Sorry – but honestly – YOU DON’T speak out against it when you see it.

Example … the gay soldier who got “boo’ed” at the last Republican debate.

You defended that soldier for calling up – in an official Army Physical Training Uniform … identifying himself as a soldier – and asking a political question to a group of partisan candidates.

Now, I was a US Navy Command Master Chief with 24 years of service – and I am here to tell you that if a STRAIGHT SOLDIER had called up under the same circumstances and asked a question 180 degrees out from that – that soldier would have been standing in front of a Captain’s Mast the very next day.

This is a double standard – and it’s GROSS and WRONG and it hurts the military. If it’s alright for a gay soldier to call up a political debate and ask a question so clearly ANTI-DADT … then it should be equally alright for a straight soldier to call up and ask a PRO-DADT question.

However – you and I both know – it’s not okay.

Gays are getting SPECIAL TREATMENT – meanwhile, straight servicemembers are having their privacy rights violated on a daily basis by being forced to cohabitate with people who are open about the fact that they are sexually attracted to them. We never forced women to cohabitate with men – we respected their privacy. But now – with Gays – no one has any right to privacy anymore? Please.

And before you call me “homophobic” please remember that I’m actually neutral on the gay marriage issue. Don’t care about it a wit. Gays can marry swingsets for all I care – I won’t acknowledge it’s a marriage (ever – and that’s my right – and no one can force me to do otherwise). I will always consider it silly – but they can do whatever they want because it doesn’t impact me at all.

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Of course, this means the world is ending. Apocalypse next Tuesday?

mythicknight on October 6, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Not before “Left Behind” occurs.

listens2glenn on October 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

You know, the “fundamental unit” of economics used to be the slave. Sometimes things change. Get over it.

ernesto on October 6, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Vanceone on October 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM

*sigh* I guess I have to explain this old story…again…

First, AP wasn’t calling me out on gay violence. Only on who was a victim if you will. I have never, ever advocated violence…by gays or anyone else. You have proved nothing.

Next, in regards to “cross lady”…and AGAIN…she didn’t suffer so much as a scratch in that incident. The only thong that happened was her cardboard cross allegedly was knocked out of her hand…a thing I have repeatedly said was wrong!

My entire point was that lady went into that crowd for the sole purpose of “rubbing it in” re: the prop 8 vote. She used a sacred symbol (I’m Catholic, remember) as an instrument of taunt. And again…she wasn’t so much as scratched. That’s violence?

OK, that’s the last I’m discussing this crud. I still stand by everything I said here.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:44 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Again, you’d be more than happy to reach that point.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Gays are getting SPECIAL TREATMENT – meanwhile, straight servicemembers are having their privacy rights violated on a daily basis by being forced to cohabitate with people who are open about the fact that they are sexually attracted to them. We never forced women to cohabitate with men – we respected their privacy. But now – with Gays – no one has any right to privacy anymore? Please.

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Almost no-one brings this up. Gays throw a hissy fit when I do. The logical next step is forcing cohabitation of the genders because we all know “separate is not equal”, right?.

There will be sexual assaults of young recruits by gay officers etc. due to repealing DADT as well.

scotash on October 6, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Again, you’d be more than happy to reach that point.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 5:46 PM

yeah, OK. You’re a seer.

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I’m not calling you homophobic. I agree with you that if a soldier can speak out for DADT, another soldier can speak out against DADT. I for one want to hear what opponents have to say, so I can effectively argue my point.

Special treatment is what DADT was all about. If you’re straight, feel free to talk about your sexual exploits with women all over. If you’re gay, keep it to yourself. If you’re straight, feel free to let everyone know. If you’re gay, keep it to yourself, or you’ll be kicked out.

With DADT repealed, it puts everyone back on an even playing field. Your perception of special treatment is the predicted unfairness (I haven’t seen it happen yet where a straight soldier was punished for opposing DADT) of other things.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM

milwife88 on October 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The military has willingly bent over to accommodate every form of liberal nonsense imaginable. It’s a “pure application of socialism,” remember?

A little under 60 days left.

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM

There will be sexual assaults of young recruits by gay officers etc. due to repealing DADT as well.

scotash on October 6, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Oh, brother.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:57 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM

No need to get snide, bro. I believe it will happen, you believe it won’t. Eat another hat if you’re wrong, I’ll eat my words if I’m not right.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM

No need to get snide, bro. I believe it will happen, you believe it won’t. Eat another hat if you’re wrong, I’ll eat my words if I’m not right.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM

You’re the one being snide…claiming I’d really enjoy it getting to that point. That’s beyond believing or not it will happen.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:14 PM

With DADT repealed, it puts everyone back on an even playing field. Your perception of special treatment is the predicted unfairness (I haven’t seen it happen yet where a straight soldier was punished for opposing DADT) of other things.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Care to tell us how these two cases compare then. Can you honestly say that guy didn’t get special treatment?

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=26786

warren on October 6, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Obama is doing everything in his power to bring down this once great Republic.

rplat on October 6, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Because he’s a Muslim, born and bred.

I’m sure glad they didn’t allow gays to openly serve in the military during my career. I would have immediately quit. Gays can do whatever the hell they want, just stop trying to force it down my throat. There are consequences…

stacman on October 6, 2011 at 6:18 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Nope. I honestly believe that about you. Of course, I don’t know you and would be more than happy to be wrong. Also, you said you were done talking about this crap, but, clearly, you aren’t.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I wonder if a straight military member can claim consciencious objector status because they feel eyes undressing them during battle (and it will come).

That case will set an interesting precedent…

stacman on October 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Nope. I honestly believe that about you. Of course, I don’t know you and would be more than happy to be wrong. Also, you said you were done talking about this crap, but, clearly, you aren’t.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Cripes, I’m not talking about the “cross lady” incident any more…you’re a pip. Believe what you want. You’re wrong, that’s all. Because you’re right…you don’t know me.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:25 PM

I wonder if a straight military member can claim consciencious objector status because they feel eyes undressing them during battle (and it will come).

That case will set an interesting precedent…

stacman on October 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Yeah, that’s the only thing we gays think of, even in battle when lives are on the line…getting into some straight dude’s pants.

*facepalm* I really wonder about some of you.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Mord on October 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

This ….. ^^^

This has nothing to do with the “rights” of gay people, and everything to do with neutering the US military.

infidel4life on October 6, 2011 at 6:27 PM

JetBoy: You did support gay aggression and blaming the victim back in the aftermath of prop 8. I quoted you numerous times saying how we need to consider the gays feelings and suchlike… that violence on the part of gays was “understandable.” You might not advocate violence, but you condone it.

That’s all I was saying. You condone and excuse violence by gays, as proven by your own words.

And you are a “reasonable gay,” if you will. Why shouldn’t we fear the more militant ones?

Vanceone on October 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Nothing lost by an added protection that does nothing to limit chaplains friendly to the idea of same-sex unions but that does everything to ensure freedom of religion for those who oppose them.

Unfortunately Tina, we have an administration that simply ignores laws when it’s convenient to do so.

Dollars to donuts, the Pentagon announcement was made simply to placate some gay who raised the issue, instead of telling them that DOMA is still on the books.

GarandFan on October 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:25 PM

And you are wrong about yourself, too. You’re not done talking about this crap, despite what you said earlier.

Christien on October 6, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Yeah, that’s the only thing we gays think of, even in battle when lives are on the line…getting into some straight dude’s pants.

*facepalm* I really wonder about some of you.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM

What about the shower room? If I were in service (as a hetero) Why can gays shower with me but I can’t shower with women?

I think it’s great Gays want to serve openly, but really, we gotta have some sort of segregation between Hetero’s and homo’s to keep the discord (that is currently rising, see Fort Jackson in the upcoming weeks if it makes the news) at a minimum.

And come on, an All Gay Brigade known as the Spartans? You know you’d love to see that.

MadDogF on October 6, 2011 at 6:35 PM

You know, the “fundamental unit” of economics used to be the slave. Sometimes things change. Get over it.

ernesto on October 6, 2011 at 5:43 PM

“I like turtles.”

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM

And come on, an All Gay Brigade known as the Spartans? You know you’d love to see that.

MadDogF on October 6, 2011 at 6:35 PM

The Spartans were one of the best fighting forces the world has ever known…so yeah, the name fits more than one way.

As for the showers and all…soldiers do what they’re told to do. If they have a problem showering with a gay soldier, too bad. No gay soldier is going to attempt to rape anyone in the shower…nor give someone the “eye” with a grin. Cripes.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Some of you are asking ‘what next’? Here you go: After Demise Of DADT, Liberal Activists Looking To End Military Ban On Transsexuals

slickwillie2001 on October 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Tina,

Your argument has 2 parts. The first is that DOMA requires that chaplains not be required to perform the ceremony. The second is based on the concept of freedom of conscience.

Question: If DOMA were to be repealed does the “freedom of conscience” argument fall apart? Or are you saying that with or without DOMA chaplains may still refuse?

As for Crews incoherent rant, what “federal definition of marriage” is he talking about?

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Conveniently ignored.

blink on October 6, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Not ignored…I simply missed it. Sheesh. Some people really see some others as they want to, not how they actually are.

The military chaplains may be federal employees, but a gay marriage (or any marriage) does not fall under their required duty. They’re there mostly to perform mass or service, and for counseling.

My argument against it is as always…no religion or representative of a religious body should be required by the state to perform gay marriage if they don’t want to. It violates the first amendment to the constitution.

The argument is, and always has been, equal protection under the SECULAR STATE. There may be some fanatics who want religion to capitulate, but they’re the minority.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM

As for the showers and all…soldiers do what they’re told to do. If they have a problem showering with a gay soldier, too bad. No gay soldier is going to attempt to rape anyone in the shower…nor give someone the “eye” with a grin. Cripes.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Already happened. I believe you’ve been on a thread where I related this.

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Exactly! I get mad at those who try to make out that our servicemen are anything but the professional and mature folks that they are. Bringing up shower-phobia and other immature trash is an insult to them.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Already happened. I believe you’ve been on a thread where I related this.

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM

How many times has it happened, Hawk? Once? 5 times? a few dozen a month? Has a straight soldier ever made a woman in uniform uncomfortable? Probably…but I don’t hold all straight soldiers to that. And rightly so.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Exactly! I get mad at those who try to make out that our servicemen are anything but the professional and mature folks that they are. Bringing up shower-phobia and other immature trash is an insult to them.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Every other Western nation that allows gays to serve openly has not had a problem with it. No mass leaving, no plethora of lawsuits, no ill effect on readiness or level of excellence.

And since the US military is the world’s finest, there should be no doubt they can handle it if all the others can. You’re right…these men and women are professionals…gay or straight.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

But in fairness, there were a lot of “professional and mature” soldiers and officers who advised that the repeal was not a sound idea without accomodating those who preferred to not billet with persons of their sexual orientation.

Why aren’t their concerns addressed?

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Has a straight soldier ever made a woman in uniform uncomfortable?

Yes. And no one would ever accuse her of bigotry because of it.

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Because creating a gay ghetto in the military is absurd?

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:21 PM

blink on October 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Certainly when deployed to many areas of the world, such as Afghanistan, that is the case. They deal with it like soldiers. When circumstances permit, sure, separate accommodations for the sexes are made.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:22 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

You know the “professional” US military has an astronomical rate of sexual assault, right?

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM

You know the “professional” US military has an astronomical rate of sexual assault, right?

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Source? And is this more gay or straight sexual assault?

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Gays can marry swingsets for all I care – I won’t acknowledge it’s a marriage (ever – and that’s my right

Until, of course, a Federal Law is passed that FORCES you to acknowledge the union as a “marriage”.

– and no one can force me to do otherwise).

See the first point.

I will always consider it silly – but they can do whatever they want because it doesn’t impact me at all.

You may well consider it silly, but I guarantee it WILL impact you. The problem with referring to a “union” between two sodomites as a marriage, is not just that it is a lie. A marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman. By using the term “marriage” to describe a homosexual relationship, the problem becomes a situation in which words no longer have meaning. Wasn’t it the Red Queen who stated, “Words mean exactly what I mean them to.”?

HondaV65 on October 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

oldleprechaun on October 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Well, in my unit we have had one major one for each deployment to Afghanistan. A gay battalion commander was relieved of command of TF Corsair during OEF 7 out of Kandahar, RC South. He was utilizing a NIPR computer for the purpose of downloading gay and child p0rnography.

During OEF 10/11, a 1LT was given a GOMAR for 1) Making advances towards a Warrant Officer while they were both utilizing the shower facilities in South Park and 2) was charged with the sexual harrassment of a young married SPC and sent home not even half way through our deployment. I have no idea what happened to him when the Rear D (no pun intented) proferred his charges to 82ND Division to be adjudicated while we were still deployed.

You said …

No gay soldier is going to attempt to rape anyone in the shower…nor give someone the “eye” with a grin. Cripes.

JetBoy on October 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM

It can, has and does still happen. You argue in absolutes that are incorrect.

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM

As with the case of my friend hawkdrive, these are our Best and Brightest. They are not Lab Rats to be used to make a political point in a Social Engineering Experiment or to try to force society to accept as normal a behavior practiced by a total of 5% of Americans.

I stand with the Reverend and Archbishop.

kingsjester on October 6, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Because creating a gay ghetto in the military is absurd?

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:21 PM

MJ, I hope we can continue discussions in the spirit of honest and civil exchange. Respectfully, all soldiers should and would be afforded like housing even if they were billeted separately. Males and females have even been billeted differently by floor in the same barracks.

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Source? And is this more gay or straight sexual assault?


In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844570

It doesn’t matter if its gay or straight. The point is, “professionalism” doesn’t prevent sexual misconduct.

No gay soldier is going to attempt to rape anyone in the shower…nor give someone the “eye” with a grin. Cripes.

You’re wrong. It happens on a regular basis.

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I’m not on long tonight for duties tomorrow. But I for the life of me do not understand what the problem is now with the desire to billet separately. For me, it is not to slight or insult another warrior. It’s to allow the dignity of all soldiers to be addressed.

Even if I thought that there wasn’t a single female soldier in the military would would be interested in me or I them, I would not have allowed the situation where we would have to share common living area billets or latrine facilities.

I really don’t understand.

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

The top priority is that mission comes first. After that, it is a CO’s job to try to make his troops as comfortable in their environment as is reasonably possible.

Regarding your remarks about discipline, in my unit at LAAFS I witnessed a court martial. We had a Lt who had stolen about $100k of AV equipment. No doubt there are bad apples. IMHO they are a very small minority.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:48 PM

If you have six minutes, you will see what has been in the works for years here and it applies to this issue. True or not, take the time to look. bho and team are in this big time? Time will tell if this is right or not, me thinks it is true.

http://www.therightscoop.com/open-thread-grinding-america-down/
L

letget on October 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 7:48 PM

MJ, my point about the LTC and 1LT is in no way to infer that similar occurances would be rampant. It was only intended to dispel the point that it never happens. There are obviously good and bad soldiers and good soldiers are sometimes bad and vice-versa. I get that.

My point is that there doesn’t even have to be bad apples in order to try to provide that environment where all soldiers are afforded living conditions that are in line with their morals. I’m not sure I’ve read comments from you about your service before. Thank you for it. But then you know that even in those times where there are shared facilities, time shifts are established by gender for showers and latrines. And even in tents, very temporary conditions for the most part, soldiers may sleep in the same area, but every possible step in taken to accommodate dressing and undressing. So again, I don’t understand the resistance.

Anyway, again, early night.

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I think that such arrangements should be left up to the discretion of the CO. That said, I would not want the CO to stigmatize gay soldiers by treating them differently or segregating them.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 8:08 PM

I would not want the CO to stigmatize gay soldiers by treating them differently or segregating them.

It’s not a matter of treating them as if they’re different. It’s a matter of recognizing that they ARE different.

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 8:14 PM

blink on October 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Our societal norms are to have separate male and female facilities. Have you ever been a member of gym or health club? Did they have male and female locker rooms and showers? Did they have separate gay and lesbian and straight men and straight women facilities?

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 8:14 PM

hawkdriver on October 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Thanks, my service career never brought anywhere near combat or outside of CA. I was a USAF LT from 1984-1988 working on the development and acquisition of GPS, before anyone knew how to spell it.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 8:21 PM

blink on October 6, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I am saying that a CO who imposes societal norms is on his command is providing a reasonably practical accommodation. Under combat conditions what is reasonably practicable is different. So women typically are required to time share the same facilities that men use. Our society does not typically treat homosexual folks with segregated facilities and that a CO who follows these norms has satisfied his obligation.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM

blink on October 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM

The standard WAS applied during racial segregation. From the days of the Buffalo Soldiers to the Tuskegee Airmen and beyond. Are you kidding me?

I couldn’t say what life is like on your star ship.

MJBrutus on October 6, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Oh, heck, let’s start the witch hunts and get all those damn gays and lesbians out of the military ………….. we all know that they are just should not be allowed to serve and possibly die for the country that they love.

Would someone please let me know when a Chaplin is forced to married a gay couple on or off a military base. I will then be upset.

SC.Charlie on October 6, 2011 at 8:56 PM

While the Pentagon proclamation stipulates that no chaplain will be forced to perform same-sex unions and Crews and Broglio have already said none of the chaplains they represent will do so, it might not be such a stretch to foresee a time in which the Pentagon might require military chaplains to perform such ceremonies.

It would probably require exactly one lawsuit to reach that point.

tom on October 6, 2011 at 9:30 PM

You know, the “fundamental unit” of economics used to be the slave. Sometimes things change. Get over it.

ernesto on October 6, 2011 at 5:43 PM

You know, if you’re just going to make up crap, at least make up something plausible. That’s just embarrassing.

tom on October 6, 2011 at 9:43 PM

SC.Charlie on October 6, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Cogent and well-reasoned as always.

vermin on October 6, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Would someone please let me know when a Chaplin is forced to married a gay couple on or off a military base. I will then be upset.

SC.Charlie on October 6, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Sorry, but I don’t believe you’ll be upset for a moment. You’ll just move the goalposts again.

I can hear it now.

‘After all, the chaplain wasn’t actually threatened with a court-martial. All he had to do was resign his commission.’

tom on October 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2