US military ban on gays and lesbians ends

Fred Sherman said:
"Boys are red, girls are blue. NO MAKING PURPLE!"
Click to expand...
Heh.

How about Orange. ?
Click to expand...
Uh... no ... Orange is gay.
Uh .... Wait a minute, I think we found a winner !
:whistle:

I know a few languages where the colour purple means gay. That is why I picked it.
And there was always the Rev. Jerry Falwell thing - Tinky Winky = gay teletubby.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Why should we care? Don't you think there is a cause for some relief that homosexual soldiers who are sacrificing their lives no longer have to encode letters to their loved ones for fear of being discharged?

Plus, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" perpetuates this whole apathetic silence which deters actual social change. You want homosexuals to stop parading their sexual identities, well, then go vote for their equality.
 
In my opinion, people can be as gay or straight, reserved or flamboyant as they like. That's their own freedom of expression in action. I would probably be unlikely to have a reaction in most cases either way. But, if someone wants to have a parade to celebrate anything (being gay, being Irish, whatever holiday), strikes me that if it makes them happy and they aren't harming anyone else, it is a good thing. I may not march with them (or I might) and I might not pay any attention at all. But, that's fine, only in my mind does the world revolve around me.
 
As far as the military ban, my experience was that by and large, no one in the military units I served in seemed to care about the sexual orientation of Soldiers. I had a lesbian Soldier in my unit who was one of the hardest working and technically competent members. Never seemed to bother anyone that she was lesbian; the Soldiers just liked the fact that she made getting the job done easier. Unfortunately, the policy was in place to discharge those who shared publicly (or were outed publicly) that they were homosexual and a great many servicemembers were discharged because of this. I always wondered about the judgment of the commanders who were not strictly construing the regulations in favor of the servicemember. I know that there were commands where essentially "witch hunts" went on. You would think that these commands and the leaders had better things to do (like train for their mission or deploy) than conduct these investigations. Fortunately, the policy is now gone.
 
jadmperry said:
As far as the military ban, my experience was that by and large, no one in the military units I served in seemed to care about the sexual orientation of Soldiers.
Click to expand...
Nor when I served in the Australian Army, or on the many deployments whilst enlisted.

It was rare to find a gay male, though they did exist and there are no secrets in the Australian Army with status. A good proportion of the females though are gay in the Australian military, some go that way due to be treated like crap from military males... yet then they also find the same results swapping teams from military females.

There are always those who are trying to prove something, but from my experience, most just accepted who they were and if you didn't accept it as well, then its your choice to befriend them or not. I never had any issues with gay, straight or otherwise soldiers under my command due to sexuality issues. Drinking, drunk driving, fighting... yes... sexuality... no.
 
Yes, I have come across some annoying gays within clubs earlier in life, those who won't take no for an answer. Yet the majority I know off, or have worked with, they are just as respectful as the majority of hetro-sexuals I know when it comes to dating, relationships, etc.

Ask a female, as no doubt many get sick of dirty perverts or horny guys hitting on them. No different from someone gay hitting on you, being the same sex... you just say no, not interested. Most guys I speak with who are gay, they say they know if a guy is gay or not usually. They get it wrong sometimes, but they are usually good with interwition.

The area I found the most issue with gay relationships, is females, based on military experience. The amount of females who would hit on straight females, harass them even, trying to get them over to the dark side... that was the biggest issue from my experience with those who are gay. Its not the guys in that culture, it the girls. Opposite with hetro-sexuals... guys are hounding the girls normally.
 
US: military chaplains may perform same-sex unions

At some point, common sense has to prevail. Just as the ban itself was wrong, this is equally wrong. Military installations are deferral land, and the military oath is an oath of support of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is federal law. This decision is allowing military members to violate federal law.

The civilian leadership should respect the military and its members. If they want to allow this, then repeal the law. Do not place members in a position where they have to decide what is right or wrong for themselves where others may not come to the same conclusion. They've greyed the area enough so that there can be legitimate disagreement. While that might lead to healthy debate in the civilian sector, it leads to a breakdown in military discipline and is detrimental to the mission.

I believe that the government that governs the least, governs best. I also believe that the federal government has only those powers explicitly granted to it, that all other powers are retained by the states or the people.

I'm not interested in legislating the makeup of marriage. I'm Catholic, so I do believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But I recognize that as my faith belief and not universally binding. This is one of those powers that should be retained by the people, protected by freedom of religion. Any two people should be free to marry within the tenants of their faith. If it allows same sex marriage, so be it.

Repeal this law and simply let people live out their faith traditions, neither promoting nor restricting. Don't tell chaplains what they should or should not do. Let them perform the duties of their office within their individual traditions.

Why do we have to make this so complicated?
 
I don't get the problem with this...."The Pentagon says a military chaplain may officiate at any private ceremony, but isn't required if it would conflict with his or her religious or personal beliefs." All this would do is allow it if the chaplain wants to do it. What's the problem with that? So far, if a state allows marriage among same sex couples, this has not been found to be a violation of DOMA. Are you saying repeal DOMA? If so, then I agree. Stupid federal government intrusion into matters reserved to the states.
 
jadmperry said:
I don't get the problem with this...."The Pentagon says a military chaplain may officiate at any private ceremony, but isn't required if it would conflict with his or her religious or personal beliefs." All this would do is allow it if the chaplain wants to do it. What's the problem with that? So far, if a state allows marriage among same sex couples, this has not been found to be a violation of DOMA. Are you saying repeal DOMA? If so, then I agree. Stupid federal government intrusion into matters reserved to the states.
Click to expand...
What are you saying, I'm a bit confused.

You agree that military chaplains should have the right to refuse to marry?

Random question. Military chaplains are these men of god paid by the military?
 
jadmperry said:
Are you saying repeal DOMA? If so, then I agree. Stupid federal government intrusion into matters reserved to the states.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm saying repeal it because as it now stands, directions to the chaplains violates federal law. Military bases are federal land. The state law wouldn't be applicable, only federal law. DOMA is law, so they are being directed to violate law.

So, lets say there is a chaplain that refuses, based on it being a violation of DOMA. But he base commander sees it differently and order him to perform the wedding. Big problem. Breakdown in military discipline. They're both wrong and both right. You can debate and disagree in the civilian world, but not in the military world. Cut and dry, black and white, chain of command.

Besides, I don't even see this as states rights.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

I see no compelling government interest at either the federal or state level in legislating the nature of marriage. As a principle of religious freedom, if a particular faith tradition allows for same sex marriage, then the government should respect that. If another faith tradition does not permit it, the government should respect that. It should interfere in neither.

States should decide for themselves if they will allow same sex civil marriages, but as a practical matter, its would be difficult to justify recognition of a same-sex religious marriage but not a civil marriage.

You see? I told you before, I'm not a republican. I'm a conservative who falls somewhere between republican and libertarian with a few moderate social views that are consistent with Catholic teaching (like amnesty for illegal aliens whose only "illegal" act is being here).
 
Fred Sherman said:
Yes. There is no authority on Earth than can force a Catholic chaplain to perform a same-sex marriage.

Yes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering Fred, just checking before I gave an opinion. Well if they're on the payroll and on the base and will not marry a same sex couple then they shouldn't be on the base or on the payroll.
 
But, the article just says the Chaplain "may" participate in the ceremony. I would need to look at the actual regulation to give an ironclad answer, but I can tell you, the chaplaincy would not be subject to an order to perform a marriage from a base commander in violation of professional and Chaplain Corps rules. The order would be invalid in the first instance.

It is not the case that only Federal law applies on Federal reservations. This point is probably not worth going into in depth, but it is much more complicated. (I was an Army line officer and then after Company Command, transferred to the JAG Corps, and I have dealt with these issues many times). A quick example, a murder committed on a base may, depending on the accused's status, may be prosecuted under the UCMJ. But, it could also be prosecuted under state murder laws in state court. Another related issue is that bases are not all "pure" Federal reservations. Some are concurrent state and Federal, some are mixed (different parts of the base fall under different statuses). Point is, state law often can and is applicable on bases. (If you look at Article 134, you can have state law incorporated into various offenses, too. This happens as a result of Federal Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 USC Sec. 13).

Past those points of disagreement, I do agree with your underlying feelings about DOMA, states rights, and powers reserved to the people. What we are apparently in full agreement on is that this should not be a federal matter. I think it is a states prerogative to have marriage rules (but this is not so much an issue of constitutionalism or federalism for me....it is based more on historical practice and pragmatism). If the states don't do it, then essentially you have no mechanism for legally formalizing marriage. So, to put marriage in the hands of the "people" would be to strip all power to have marriages in a legal sense (which would mean doing away with divorce as well, tax status, and would have real problematic issues with the passing of property after death...some of these may be good things in some people's views, and I am not weighing in on that now, but, I point it out because I think that is the consequence of prohibiting states from regulating marriage).

We seem to agree on some underlying principles. Not sure how close or far off we are on the execution of those principles. Where we are miles apart, it seems, is whether the new rule on allowing chaplains to marry homosexual folks is a problem.
 
Fred Sherman said:
Repeal this law and simply let people live out their faith traditions, neither promoting nor restricting. Don't tell chaplains what they should or should not do. Let them perform the duties of their office within their individual traditions.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what this new guidance allows?

Whether a Chaplin chooses to perform a marriage ceremony or not is already at their discretion. This doesn't change that.
 
ChemicalKicks said:
Thanks for answering Fred, just checking before I gave an opinion. Well if they're on the payroll and on the base and will not marry a same sex couple then they shouldn't be on the base or on the payroll.
Click to expand...
You can't say that. They are serving in their religious capacity. They are not subject to the traditional chain of command. A military chaplain serving on a base does not report to the base commander, nor is he under the commander's authority. He reports to a command chaplain within his own faith.

As an example, a Catholic chaplain is a priest incarnated to his home diocese, on loan to the Archdiocese for the Military Services (AMS) but not incarnated to it. A military chaplain is an ecclesiastically endorsed military officer commissioned to serve the spiritual needs of service members and families. This means he is not bound to an individual service and did not attend OCS. It is a direct commission as a chaplain. As spiritual needs dictate, he might be an Air Force Captain today and a Navy Lieutenant tomorrow.

Though the AMS is presided over by an Archbishop, the priest's vow of obedience is to the bishop or archbishop of his home diocese. He serves the military, but is not answerable to it. He can leave or be recalled by his diocese at any time.

Also, the priest's military pay comes for the AMS, which is not funded by the government directly, but by the generosity of its chaplains, men and women in uniform, private benefactors, and the Holy See in Rome.
 
Top Bottom