Comments

  1. bill johnson says

    Even though it clearly states that chaplains aren’t required to officiate the weddings if it would conflict with his or her religious or personal beliefs I already know that the liars at FRC and others are going to say that this violates religious freedom. They almost can’t open their mouths anymore without lying. In truth they are the ones that want to deny religious freedom by stopping chaplains from accepting faiths from having the freedom to officiate these weddings. The military should be allowed to launch a legal suit against groups like the FRC when they deliberately lie about the change in policy.

  2. Married in MA says

    The question of benefits for SS couples may become the driving force to overturn DOMA. Gay military personnel are second class citizens still but not for too long I hope.

  3. Michael Bedwell says

    1. Between the marbles in Mullen’s mouth is the fact that the Pentagon is CHOOSING to deny some important benefits to gay couples that THEY admit are NOT banned by DOMA such as access to military family housing—and their excuses don’t mask the fact that they’re yielding to homohating brass asshats and those among the rank and file.

    2. They can legally get away with that—as well as denying gay troops crucial protections against harassment and discrimination “on the job” under the Military Equal Opportunity Program because of the story that is inexplicably missing from the Road: the historic betrayal by the Administration in convincing the 9th Circuit to vacate the LCR case ruling that discrimination by the military based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Or are we waiting for the Road’s legal puppy excuse me beagle to clock in with another of his disingenuous contortions trying to explain to us how that—and handing a future Repug Prez on a silver platter the power to reinstate a ban—is somehow GOOD for us?

  4. Artie says

    @ Michael Bedwell,

    Your first point is an obvious lie. Of course access to military family housing for same-sex married couples is banned by DOMA. Since 1997, the General Accounting Office has used the following to define the scope of DOMA:

    “1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor”

    Obviously, access to family housing for married couples falls under that definition. All the more reason for the DOJ to file aggressive briefs against DOMA, like the one they filed on July 1, 2011. Don’t you ever get embarrassed by lying so blatantly, Bedwell?

  5. says

    The notion of ritual untouchability is still used to discriminate against a caste in India and against blacks and gays in the USA. When the military decided to stop discriminating against blacks it told bigots to shape up or ship out. However, when it decided to drop DADT, it gave the option to religious bigots (chaplains) to continue discrimination against gays.

  6. Rin says

    @Roedy Green

    Catholics won’t marry Protestants in their churches. Baptists won’t marry Catholics or Mormons. Jews won’t marry Catholics or Protestants. Muslims won’t marry non-Muslims and so on. Other than UUs very few religious groups will marry atheists.

    I’m really missing how gays and blacks are singled out in your scenario? Religion is not some big panacea. The Unitarians will marry pretty much anyone because its in line with their “universalist” religious philosophy. Some Episcopal churches will marry gays, as will some non-denoms.

    Saying that Catholics are discriminating against gays is leaving out the fact that they also won’t marry Baptists in their church.

    The right to marry (as a legally binding contract between two people) is one issue.

    A religious ceremony is another.

    The fact that the military is saying: go ahead and marry who you want is a big step.

    In fact, there wasn’t even a breather between “Yay military! for DADT repeal success” and “you’re discriminating”.

    This is a HUGE bureaucracy with many factors playing into all policy decisions. Benefits are pretty much the only things the troops have over other government employees. The taxes are done differently–I mean, it would take years, literally to figure all of that in when the Federal government refuses to budge on marriage.

    The government will have to make the first move before the military can.

    However, IF military shows no signs of retention problems and recruitment stays the same this would be a HUGE boon for gay marriage and other issues of equality because it will send a sign to Federal lawmakers that this CAN happen without chaos and anarchy prevailing and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse showing up.

  7. says

    In the military, we used to do drag marriages as a joke.

    Now we’re supposed to take them seriously.

    But it’s just matrimony in “black-face”— a spoof of heterosexual marriage, the biggest difference being a comic cluelessness among the caricatured.

  8. Artie says

    @ Billb,

    I clicked on the link to your webpage, which is full of homophobic evangelical Christian idiocy. Then I reread your comment above. When you were in the military, you “used to do drag marriages as a joke”? Did you really now? Do you understand that you’re the textbook definition of a self-loathing gay man? If anyone is clueless it’s you, and I don’t mean that your clueless about “the issues.” I mean you’re clueless about yourself. “Drag marriages as a joke.” What fun you must have had.

    [Laughing My F*cking Ass Off]

  9. Artie says

    @ Michael Bedwell,

    One little bit of criticism directed at the substance of your claims and you sulk in silence like a Girl Scout who can’t seem to sell any boxes of cookies. Intellectual coward.

Leave A Reply