Military chaplains forced to perform gay marriages?
Here's the link:
Administration Opposes Attempt to Bar Same-Sex Marriage on Military Property and Shield Military Chaplains
Gee, who couldn't see this one coming?
Wedding ceremonies performed by military chaplains are NOT necessary for a couples' union to be recognized by the armed services. I know this from having been married twice while in the USN, both times it was off base, all I had to do for the wife to be recognized as my dependent was produce a valid marriage license showing we were wed. End of story.
A gay couple could do the same, the chaplain's office has nothing to do with certifying military dependents.
Theres been such a full fledged charge to protect the rights of gays who want to marry or serve in the military. Why not throw a bone to those who object to gay marriage? Thats what protecting a military chaplain from being forced to wed a same-sex couple would be. It insures no one is acting against the wishes of God Almighty as is understood by their religion. Like it or not, tolerance should go both ways.
For about half of my career, one of my collateral duties was running seminars on service members' rights & responsibilities. Interesting job, you get to tell little Tommy that his enlistment contract does NOT specifically guarantee him diddle squat. If you don't believe me, go get a generic contract from any recruiter (they're probably also available somewhere online). When I got trained up for this position we spent a lot of time joking about how recruiters were similar to used car salesmen except for the high standards of integrity. If you're looking for a plum job with possibility of it becoming a career, don't join the military. FWIW, I'd do it all over again. But I digress.
My point is that nowhere in those contracts will you find anything forbidding racial or sexual prejudice. Even the stinking military knows they can't practice mind control. You CAN DEFINETLY be prohibited from the expression of non-PC views. But holding them is still legal in our armed forces, or was as of January 1993.
So IMO the Administration is setting up a scenario where they can not only forego reading someone's mind to determine thoughtcrime, they're getting ready to force any non-PC religous believers out of the military. End of story.
Just wait. In a few years when "Alonzo" places a crucifix in his locker you'll see someone with an agenda claim feeling intimidated and uncomfortable because "Alonzo" is Catholic and the beliefs of his Church are bigoted and constitute hate crime. It will be done just as easily as tossing "Rufus" out because he very vociferously promotes membership in the Sons of The Confederacy.
As I said, just wait. It'll happen and it won't matter who is in the Oval Office. We live in interesting times.
5 comments:
If this were true it would be deeply disturbing. However, you appear to have been misinformed.
OMB is recommending a Presidential veto to the House Defense Authorization BIll due to several issues including the Republican insertion of 1)prohibition of gay marriage on bases and 2) the alleged opt out. Note the Obama administration has yet to comment or veto.
Sec of Defense Panetta has already confirmed that states have control over marriages on military bases (Said Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: "State law controls in that situation. So you know, where state law provides for that, then obviously that kind of marriage can take place. And if the law prohibits that, then it cannot take place on a military base.") so the insertion into the Bill prohibiting such is unnecessary and a jurisdictional issue. With regards to Chaplains - the military already allows Chaplains to serve with respect to their conscience and several months ago it was confirmed that no Chaplains can be forced to act against their conscience (see http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/09/military-chaplains-wont-be-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages.php).
Oh, good grief. I saw this coming a year ago, before DADT was repealed, and it worried me then.
As I pointed out at the time, the NCMAF covenant and code of ethics tries to head off such conflicts:
“I will, if in a supervisory position, respect the practices and beliefs of each chaplain I supervise and exercise care not to require of them any service or practice that would be in violation of the faith practices of their particular religious body.”
Depending on how this is interpreted, it might go some way to protecting chaplains regardless of whether this passes. It seems in keeping with what's described in the article:
'Section 536 of H.R. 4310 states in part that no member of the armed forces may “direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain.”
I think that's reasonable given a sufficiently detailed explanation of what duties they will be required to fulfil beforehand.
This leads me to wonder, though:
'Further, no member of the armed forces may “discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of […] assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement” that is prohibited by the previous clause.
Specifically, I'm wondering about the assignments part. Would it really be appropriate to have, say, only Christian denomination chaplains supporting an operation that includes five Muslim Arabic translators? Or to have only chaplains who disapprove of gay marriage working with a group that includes a couple of soldiers married to same-sex partners? I think that would make things difficult on both sides. Perhaps there should be some latitude in selecting chaplains for assignments to avoid situations where soldiers don't have pastoral support because their chaplains are religiously incompatible with providing it?
The only other thing I'd say is that if chaplains do wish to perform same-sex commitment services, they should not be prevented to do so.
"In a few years when "Alonzo" places a crucifix in his locker you'll see someone with an agenda claim feeling intimidated and uncomfortable because "Alonzo" is Catholic and the beliefs of his Church are bigoted and constitute hate crime."
I really hope not. :(
Overall I agree that chaplains serve an important function in the military and should not be forced to act against their beliefs; and I hope that no matter what happens, enlistees will have enough respect and good sense to avoid creating conflicts of belief.
"Sec of Defense Panetta has already confirmed that states have control over marriages on military bases (Said Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: 'State law controls in that situation. So you know, where state law provides for that, then obviously that kind of marriage can take place. And if the law prohibits that, then it cannot take place on a military base.') so the insertion into the Bill prohibiting such is unnecessary and a jurisdictional issue. With regards to Chaplains - the military already allows Chaplains to serve with respect to their conscience and several months ago it was confirmed that no Chaplains can be forced to act against their conscience."
Hmm. That doesn't sound as bad as I feared. I'm still uncertain, though; there's part of the NCMAF covenant that states:
“I will seek to provide for pastoral care and ministry to persons of religious bodies other than my own within my area of responsibility with the same investment of myself as I give to members of my own religious body.”
That's a little concerning, because (bearing in mind it's over a year since I read it) although it tries to preclude such conflicts, it seems to stop just short of saying that they will inevitably side with chaplains in cases where there is a conflict of beliefs. Given the role they are expected to perform—i.e. providing pastoral support in accordance with the tenets of their particular faith group—this seems quite important.
Perhaps if they got rid of the bit banning gay marriages outright, but kept the part that affirms chaplains' rights to freedom of conscience?
Subvet—drawing from your own military experience, do you know what would happen in an incident where a chaplain was asked to go along with something they couldn't support in good conscience, and had to outright refuse?
From your recollection, it sounds like the military largely keeps out of people's personal beliefs so long as they're willing to serve, but chaplains work at that awkward intersection between holding true to their beliefs and doing as duty requires them, so I wonder if you have seen (or can guess) how this would play out.
"...do you know what would happen in an incident where a chaplain was asked to go along with something they couldn't support in good conscience, and had to outright refuse?"
Jordan, the ideal answer is that a chaplain wouldn't find himself in such a position. But just as any other area, the military has it's share of fools trying to assert their authority. Sometimes they succeed and thats where the horror stories come from.
IMO a lot of this is unnecessary. The whole topic of sexual preferences should be left out of public discourse. Who is sleeping with whom is really nobody else's business. I go a bit further into that in my next post. Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment