A solution for a problem that doesn't exist

[zsdersw]

http://www.military.com/news/article/bill-tries-to-prevent-gay-marriages-on-bases.html

A congressional lawmaker opposed to homosexuals serving openly in the military is taking another stab at preventing gay couples from marrying on military bases and ensuring chaplains who oppose homosexuality do not suffer for their views.

Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp is sponsoring a bill that stipulates the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cannot be used to force chaplains to do anything against their beliefs, he said in an announcement Friday, including marrying gay partners.

"It will also protect the freedom of those in the military to express vocally the tenets of their faiths. And it will make certain that our military facilities are not used in contravention to the federal Defense of Marriage Act," he said. "Military installations exist to carry out the national defense of our nation, not to facilitate a narrow social agenda."

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which fought against the ban on gays serving openly for years, slammed Huelskamp's bill as "another round of resistance tactics that have already been rejected by Congress and the American people."

"There is no need for the so-called 'protections' in this bill or the proposed regulations," Sarvis said. "No chaplain is being required or pressured to marry anyone, straight or gay, today. Period."

Sarvis called the ban on using military facilities and chaplains at ceremonies for gay and lesbian servicemembers "nothing more than plain, old-fashion discrimination."

The Pentagon previously said that military chaplains may perform same-sex weddings in base chapels, though no chaplain is required to perform the ceremony if it violates his or her religious beliefs.

A bill similar to Huelskamp's was filed last year in the House but was yanked before final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in December. That legislation, filed by Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin, had the backing of more than 80 members.

In remarks on the House floor last year, Huelskamp expressed concern that repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have consequences for military chaplains. He claimed that pre-repeal training that servicemembers were going through included a warning that "failure to embrace alternative lifestyles could result in penalties" for servicemembers.

"What will happen to chaplains who decline to officiate in same-sex ceremonies?" he asked, then suggested they'd be harmed professionally for not doing so.

The Pentagon, however, has said on numerous occasions that lifting the ban on gays serving openly does not require chaplains to engage in any activity prohibited by their religious beliefs.

Yet another socially conservative Republican looking stupid, I see. What part of the Pentagon's comments on this matter doesn't he understand?

 

[cybrsage]

I think he is worried that a Chaplain will be forced to marry gays if that same chaplain marries straights. They will claim he is discriminating.

The military is usually very good about their rules, but if Congress steps, in, all bets are off.

That would be my best guess as to his reasoning. I could be completely wrong about it, though.

 

[zsdersw]

I think he is worried that a Chaplain will be forced to marry gays if that same chaplain marries straights. They will claim he is discriminating.

The military is usually very good about their rules, but if Congress steps, in, all bets are off.

That would be my best guess as to his reasoning. I could be completely wrong about it, though.

The mystery isn't what his worry is, the mystery is why he is still worried about something the Pentagon says will not occur.

 

[cybrsage]

The mystery isn't what his worry is, the mystery is why he is still worried about something the Pentagon says will not occur.

I would say it is because the Pentagon really has no control over what Congress / the President is going to force them to do. The entire DADT, etc., was not of their making, they were happy with the old rules.

I trust the military to be fair with its rules, I distrust Congress and the Presidency.

 

[zsdersw]

I would say it is because the Pentagon really has no control over what Congress / the President is going to force them to do. The entire DADT, etc., was not of their making, they were happy with the old rules.

I trust the military to be fair with its rules, I distrust Congress and the Presidency.

What he fears occurring is something that won't happen without Congress/POTUS action; action that he'd be in a position to help thwart. Why does action need to be taken on a situation in the Pentagon's enforcement of its rules that hasn't happened?

 

[dainthomas]

What he fears occurring is something that won't happen without Congress/POTUS action; action that he'd be in a position to help thwart. Why does action need to be taken on a situation in the Pentagon's enforcement of its rules that hasn't happened?

Because November is only ten months away!

 

[Thump553]

Please don't call those people "social conservatives" a label which has an appealing cachet to it. Call them what they are, Moral Authoritarians-those that wish to impose their sense of morality upon all of us. Be they the Taliban or Christian Conservatives, the difference is really a matter of degree.

I find it supremely ironic that Moral Authoritarians are frequently the same people who espouse small government views (or even Ron Paul type libertarians) without even blushing about the ridiculous hypocrisies their platforms are founded upon.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

When will homosexuals and their supporters stop persecuting all these poor homophobes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...moved_n_1241693.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics

 

[senseamp]

Good to see GOP is on top of the big problems facing this country.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say it is because the Pentagon really has no control over what Congress / the President is going to force them to do. The entire DADT, etc., was not of their making, they were happy with the old rules.

I trust the military to be fair with its rules, I distrust Congress and the Presidency.

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that you have no worries that the military would attempt to force chaplains to act against their will, you are worried that Congress will force it. So... the answer is to pass a bill to say they can't be forced to officiate marriages. The very bill that would obviously be overturned if future congressional action was taken to force military chaplains to officiate weddings.

This bill is utterly useless if that is his concern. This is pretty obviously pandering to homophobic elements of the US during an election year.

 

[piasabird]

Typically military chaplains perform religious ceremonies. Civil ceremonies can be performed at the local courthouse by a judge or justice of the peace. Most people I met in the Military were married off of the base. It does not really matter at all. A military chaplain works for the military first. A lot of their duties and services are designed for a wider selection than just one particular faith.

 

[cybrsage]

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that you have no worries that the military would attempt to force chaplains to act against their will, you are worried that Congress will force it. So... the answer is to pass a bill to say they can't be forced to officiate marriages. The very bill that would obviously be overturned if future congressional action was taken to force military chaplains to officiate weddings.

This bill is utterly useless if that is his concern. This is pretty obviously pandering to homophobic elements of the US during an election year.

It is harder to overturn a bill than it is to pass it the first time.

 

[Ninjahedge]

All the pentagon says is that they are not gong to prevent any Gay marriages, or force the priest to have them.

It is a choice of religion, and they are free to express it however they want (within context, of course).

If you cannot get married at a religious institution, you still have City Hall.


This is a pointless bill intended to get people to look at something that will distract them from the real things in life. the things that matter.

Like the Giants at the Superbowl....

 

[fskimospy]

It is harder to overturn a bill than it is to pass it the first time.

Sometimes it is easier, it all depends on what you are overturning, when, and why. That's a totally unsupportable statement.

Not only is the representative not quoted anywhere as doing it for the reason you mentioned, if he were he's being incredibly stupid. This is simply election pandering.

 

[Fern]

The mystery isn't what his worry is, the mystery is why he is still worried about something the Pentagon says will not occur.

What he fears occurring is something that won't happen without Congress/POTUS action; action that he'd be in a position to help thwart. Why does action need to be taken on a situation in the Pentagon's enforcement of its rules that hasn't happened?

Just taking a guess here, but could it be to prevent the courts from getting involved. I'm thinking just because the Pentagon says they won't force chaplains doesn't mean someone can't sue in court. I say a "guess" because I'm not sure if there's any prohibitions against suing a military chaplain in civil court.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

When pandering to the Repub base, facts don't matter.

Any questions?

 

[Rainsford]

Not only does it seem like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but even if the problem existed, I'm not sure the legislature should address it at all.

I could be wrong about this, but military chaplains aren't there to serve their own spiritual points of view so much as they are to serve the spiritual needs of the military as a whole. They're not the same as private citizen clergy in the same way that a soldier, airman, sailor or marine isn't the same as their civilian counterparts.

Gay marriage isn't legal at the federal level, but if it was, should military chaplains really be exempt from any orders or directives supporting lawful activity just because some lawmaker doesn't like that activity? Keep in mind that this bill isn't suggesting the (theoretical) law be changed, only that military chaplains be exempt from a (theoretical) Pentagon policy for personal beliefs. That doesn't sound like a good idea for the military to me...

 

[lopri]

I find it supremely ironic that Moral Authoritarians are frequently the same people who espouse small government views (or even Ron Paul type libertarians) without even blushing about the ridiculous hypocrisies their platforms are founded upon.

Can't be truer. (Although I am sure you have your explanation/understanding as to why that is so, let's leave that discussion up in a more serious decorum)

 

[cybrsage]

Sometimes it is easier, it all depends on what you are overturning, when, and why. That's a totally unsupportable statement.

Nope, simply look at how many laws are repealed vs how many are written. You will find that the new laws vastly outnumber the repealed ones.

You may trust the government to never do anything stupid, but I do not.

 

[cybrsage]

Not only does it seem like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but even if the problem existed, I'm not sure the legislature should address it at all.

I could be wrong about this, but military chaplains aren't there to serve their own spiritual points of view so much as they are to serve the spiritual needs of the military as a whole. They're not the same as private citizen clergy in the same way that a soldier, airman, sailor or marine isn't the same as their civilian counterparts.

Gay marriage isn't legal at the federal level, but if it was, should military chaplains really be exempt from any orders or directives supporting lawful activity just because some lawmaker doesn't like that activity? Keep in mind that this bill isn't suggesting the (theoretical) law be changed, only that military chaplains be exempt from a (theoretical) Pentagon policy for personal beliefs. That doesn't sound like a good idea for the military to me...

It would be government forcing a minister to violate their religion. The first amendment says the government do that.