Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

GOP Congressman Proposes Amendment to 'DADT' Repeal That Would 'Accomodate' and 'Protect' Religious Homophobes

This is in addition to the disruptive amendments I posted about earliery.

Even though respect for religious beliefs is already protected in current "DADT" repeal language, Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) is proposing an amendment that would protect service members who view gay people as immoral, The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky reports.

Palazzo From the amendment:

The sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of a member of the Armed Forces that homosexual or bisexual conduct is immoral and/or an inappropriate expression of human sexuality according to the tenets of the member’s faith community shall be accommodated….

[...]

The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations setting forth guidance to insure that the sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of members of the Armed Forces regarding homosexual or bisexual conduct are protected, accommodated…

The House Armed Services Committee is set to meet tomorrow.

Previously...
GOP Serves Anti-Gay 'DADT' Amendments to House Defense Panel [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. How about an amendment protecting gay servicemembers who think that religious zealots are immoral?

    Posted by: John Equality Bickford | May 10, 2011 11:10:44 AM


  2. What does "accommodated" mean? It's very vague. Does that mean a deeply religious serviceman can't be reprimanded for verbally harassing a lesbian colleague? Someone with sincerely held moral beliefs can't be discharged for assaulting a gay serviceman? Or a Christian officer can withhold promotions from gay underlings with impunity? If we are going to start accommodating individual morality, I think I am going to start with Rep Palazzo's haircut which I find deeply and morally offending.

    Posted by: Chadd | May 10, 2011 11:14:15 AM


  3. Funny. I don't see them up in arms when it comes to soliders and the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". Because killing is far less immoral than 2 people loving one another.

    Posted by: mikey | May 10, 2011 11:25:11 AM


  4. So, love the "sinner", but hate the "sin" more and forget there's an actual person there and assume it's just a sentient sack of gay sex all of the time.

    You are not born Christian. Religion is a choice. Lifestyle choices shouldn't be protected or held in a special class.

    Funny how right-wing logic works better against them than against us.

    Posted by: Tanner Vale | May 10, 2011 11:26:28 AM


  5. @Tanner Vale,

    I agree with you, but unfortunately (or fortunately, I waffle on this weekly) religion is already protected in the First Amendment. It's things like race, sex, political affiliation, nationality (soon I hope sexual orientation/gender identity) had to come in through the door of the 14th Amendment.

    Kinda ironic, huh? A "lifestyle choice" (a particular religious belief one learns) has automatic protection, but innate things like skin color (black, brown, tan, olive, etc) and geographical ancestry (Irish, Italian, eastern European, Chinese...) and sexual orientation (gay, lez or bi) have to be dragged in against much opposition.

    Posted by: JakeSFExPat | May 10, 2011 11:40:13 AM


  6. I'd love to think that these amendments don't have a chance in the Democratic Senate, but alas...

    Posted by: TampaZeke | May 10, 2011 11:43:26 AM


  7. Christofascists always think that "deeply held religious beliefs" let them do whatever they want. No matter how immoral or illegal it is.

    What exactly do they want the SecDef to do? There are already regulations in place that protect people's religious freedom and that's also stressed in the repeal training.

    Posted by: Steve | May 10, 2011 11:56:56 AM


  8. Curious....does this "amendment" also protect anti-Semitism? Or bigotry against other religious beliefs, or non-religious beliefs?

    I mean, does the GOP want to protect Good Christian Soldiers from the struggles of serving alongside Openly-Jewish soldiers, whose ways of life and belief also run contrary to New Testament declarations?

    I'm always puzzled by this. There are more non-Christians than homosexuals in America. So....if these so-called "Christians" are acting all butt-hurt about their beliefs being threatened or challenged...why the focus on LGBT people?

    Are these men ok fighting alongside a Jew? If so, why not an LGBT person?

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | May 10, 2011 12:02:22 PM


  9. p.s.

    Congrats, GOP, on proving everyone on the Left to be correct: you don't have a fiscal plan, you don't have any integrity, you're once again pandering to the scum of america for political points by directing all of your energy toward The Gays.

    This moment in history will be documented, recorded and reflected on with great shame and embarrassment.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | May 10, 2011 12:03:38 PM


  10. @Jakesexpat

    Read the writings between Jefferson and Madison. The "Amendments"/Bill of Rights was a point of contention because Jefferson said that to delineate them would make people feel that those were the only rights afforded people. Madison disagreed. The wrote about what they felt was or would become controversial.

    At the time the United States didn't have Chinese or Hispanic, sexual orientation wasn't discussed, and slavery was "postponed" to hold the Union together in spite of protest from the Jeffersons and Adams followers.

    I believe that what this provision concerns is military clergy and their right to not marry people in the military that are same sex as most recently certain posts have okay'd it.

    I could be wrong tho.

    FYI, to better understand the First Amendment read Thomas Jefferson's Religious Freedom treatise.

    Posted by: Rin | May 10, 2011 12:06:26 PM


  11. I am so sick of this "sincerely held moral belief" nonsense. LOTS of people had sincerely and deeply held convictions about race. That didn't make them OK, and the bigots did not get a pass to continue discrimination just because they thought it was "right."

    This is the same stupid argument our governor used to veto marriage equality. Just because lots of people have a sincere belief in something doesn't make it true or important to "accommodate."

    Posted by: KevinVT | May 10, 2011 12:24:27 PM


  12. Why should this country protect evil?? Why should it "protect" and preserve discrimination? There is no right to ruin other people's lives, or else the laws would allow slavery and subjugation of women. Get this guy out of power!

    Posted by: X | May 10, 2011 12:40:11 PM


  13. This Republican Religious Fascist needs to worry about the floods that will be destroying his state and it's economy...or does he think the Federal Government has a Constitutional duty to reimburse him and his lifestyle choice to live in a low land swamp with last place educational stats with the tax dollars of North East Liberal yankees?
    Just sayin there out to be a law....

    Posted by: mcNnyc | May 10, 2011 2:12:15 PM


  14. "I believe that what this provision concerns is military clergy and their right to not marry people in the military that are same sex as most recently certain posts have okay'd it."

    That is incorrect. Clergy are never required to marry anyone they don't want to marry, whether they're in the military or not. Such protections are part of the DADT repeal, and part of all marriage equality legislation. This goes beyond that to protect bigotry among military personnel: it's the equivalent of making special accommodations for racists or anti-Christians. In other words, it is wrong. And typical of Republican attempts to set back the clock on all gay civil rights progress.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 10, 2011 3:50:40 PM


  15. I often hear people say that the republicans contradict themselves in principle then they advocate small government yet want the government to regulate marriage.

    This is actually ridiculous because these people assume republicans care about consistency in their positions. Folks, you know that is just false and so you should stop trying to convert republicans by just pointing out their inconsistencies. I hate to break this to you but they just don't care that much.

    All throughout history, the only thing consistent that we've seen in republican attitudes are their hatred of gays, non-whites, and low-income people. Every other position statement they make is only supported to the extent that it does not run counter to their hatred of the above groups. When a glaring contradiction is pointed out, the hatred reigns supreme, with or without logical support. Just about every single policy of theirs revolves around making these classes of people invisible.

    Posted by: Mark | May 10, 2011 5:26:28 PM


  16. What about those of us who think that toupee' is immoral?

    Posted by: Mark | May 11, 2011 7:03:26 AM


  17. @CHADD "What does "accommodated" mean? It's very vague."

    Hopefully it simply means that a soldier who goes to a fire-and-brimstone church can still go there and sing "Every sperm is sacred" (in church) without a risk of being discharged. It would be analogous to a DADT policy that would require everyone to "look the other way" if a soldier went into a gay bar, and to "don't ask, don't tell" about what you saw him doing there.

    But I doubt if the Republicans are that sensible.

    Posted by: Bill | May 12, 2011 2:10:57 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Photo: Chris Colfer, Chord Overstreet, Mark Salling Nap Together« «