Military chaplains now allowed to perform same-sex marriages

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2011 3:00 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44730793/ns/politics/#.ToXZT-vyCy4
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2011 7:06 PM GMT
    AWESOME.

    One more step towards victory.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Oct 01, 2011 12:45 PM GMT
    The heads are exploding all over, especially from the conservative retirees and active duty bigots reading and commenting on Military.com

    I say, "Good!" --

    This is major. Hee hee!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 3:47 PM GMT
    Menergy_1 saidThe heads are exploding all over, especially from the conservative retirees and active duty bigots reading and commenting on Military.com

    I say, "Good!" --

    This is major. Hee hee!
    Link please... Lemme go in there and stir some shit up!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 3:54 PM GMT
    This is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 4:01 PM GMT
    Here's the memo by the undersecretary:

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM169_110929_signed_chaplains_memo.html

    Note the emphasis on voluntary participation of the chaplains at private ceremonies, and the disclaimer statement by the DoD.

    A military chaplain is still a chaplain. He/She can perform ceremonies in states that have laws that allow such ceremonies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 4:05 PM GMT
    DudeInNOVA saidThis is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
    It can if its on federal property!
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Oct 01, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    A small step towards equality,to be welcomed.
    The repeal of DADT was a move towards this,but they always leave other,related issues unanswered for the future.These will have to be thought about and dealt with in the longer term.This is the experience of the UK,though things seem more complicated in the USA.
    The whole history of equal rights(not just for gay men) is evolutionary,not revolutionary.
    A small victory has been achieved,but the fight must continue. It is heartening that the culture seems to be going in the dierction of increasing equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 4:14 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA saidThis is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
    It can if its on federal property!


    Not based on what I read, but I can no longer find the link.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 4:15 PM GMT
    How conservative americans have the cheek to talk about human rights when they have opposed them for decades has always been beyond me...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 4:22 PM GMT
    DudeInNOVA said
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA saidThis is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
    It can if its on federal property!


    Not based on what I read, but I can no longer find the link.
    'Legal' Officiating is one thing. Participation is another. Commitment ceremonies can't be barred by law anywhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 4:27 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA said
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA saidThis is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
    It can if its on federal property!


    Not based on what I read, but I can no longer find the link.
    'Legal' Officiating is one thing. Participation is another. Commitment ceremonies can't be barred by law anywhere.


    Exactly. Hence "private" ceremonies (not just marriages).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA said
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA saidThis is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
    It can if its on federal property!


    Not based on what I read, but I can no longer find the link.
    'Legal' Officiating is one thing. Participation is another. Commitment ceremonies can't be barred by law anywhere.


    Exactly. Hence "private" ceremonies (not just marriages).


    I'll concede the point for now because the articles I've found don't mention unofficial ceremonies. The military has very strict rules. I don't know if military chaplains are allowed to officiate non-government sanctioned ceremonies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 5:34 PM GMT
    DudeInNOVA said
    q1w2e3 said
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA said
    TropicalMark said
    DudeInNOVA saidThis is cool, but there are a lot of restrictions on it. It can't be done if it violates the state's laws. It may prompt a lot of states to update laws to prevent the services from being done. I'm also not sure how it might conflict with DOMA.

    In other words, this is very exciting and promising, but the fight is far from over.
    It can if its on federal property!


    Not based on what I read, but I can no longer find the link.
    'Legal' Officiating is one thing. Participation is another. Commitment ceremonies can't be barred by law anywhere.


    Exactly. Hence "private" ceremonies (not just marriages).


    I'll concede the point for now because the articles I've found don't mention unofficial ceremonies. The military has very strict rules. I don't know if military chaplains are allowed to officiate non-government sanctioned ceremonies.


    Lol, the memo by the undersecretary IS the sanctioning you need.

    This comment on DailyKos is revealing on the symbolic nature of this memo:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/30/1021565/-Military-Will-Allow-Same-Sex-Marriages-To-Be-Performed-On-BasesThis decision relate ONLY to allowing willing military chaplains to perform marriages in military chapels, and only in jurisdictions where marriage equality is the law.

    From the Federal Government and the Department of Defense view, these marriages performed at these facilities are purely ceremonial. The military will be endowing the servicemembers with none of the benefits that heterosexual servicemembers enjoy. No married housing, no VA benefits for the partner, no support network, no help with relocation if the spouse is transferred. The decision to treat married LGB servicemembers as legally single, remains unchanged.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 5:38 PM GMT
    And yay for the military chaplains for more moonlighting opportunities.

    From the "Legal guide for soldiers":
    "Off-duty employment, or moonlighting. is permissible if it does not interfere with official duties. does not bring discredit upon the Army, and does not violate basic ethical considerations."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 5:43 PM GMT
    I guess I mistranslated it when I first read it. I was only thinking about legal marriages and civil unions. I wasn't thinking about commitment ceremonies or other unofficial events. My bad.