Chaplains Call for Troop Protections over DADT
The recent controversy over the Navy’s apparent acceptance of homosexual marriages in base chapels (quickly reversed after Congressional disapproval) spurred a response by Chaplain endorsing agencies representing “over a thousand military chaplains.” The groups wrote a letter calling for conscience protections not only for Chaplains — but also for every servicemember:
When guidance…is forthcoming from senior leadership that implies protected status for those who engage in homosexual behavior and normalizes same-sex unions in base chapels, any outside observer would conclude that both homosexuality and homosexual unions officiated as marriages in base chapels are normative.
This creates an environment that is increasingly hostile to the many chaplains — and the service members they serve — whose faith groups and personal consciences recognize homosexual behavior as immoral and unsafe and do not permit same-sex unions.
For this reason, and particularly in light of the growing confusion regarding how DADT repeal will play out — indeed, we were told that issues like same-sex weddings were not a concern because of DOMA just months ago — we strongly encourage the adoption of broad, clear, and strong protections for conscience. No American, especially those serving in the armed forces, should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs or be marginalized for holding to those beliefs.
It is not sufficient to posit, as the CRWG report did, that chaplains and service members remain free to exercise their faith in chapel services. Service members should know that chaplains’ ministry and their own rights of conscience remain protected everywhere military necessity has placed them. We hope that you will join us in urging DoD and Congress to adopt such specific and intentional conscience protections…
In the spirit of cooperation without compromise, let us work together, for the good of all, seeking God’s wisdom and guidance for all our brave men and women in uniform.
For God and Country.
The letter seems to be the first substantial public recognition that troops themselves — not merely Chaplains — will be affected by the changes in guidance surrounding the policy most commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Alliance Defense Fund, in its press release on the letter, was more blunt:
Why no religious liberty protections for service members, who defend our liberties?
This premise is not without some foundation; General Benjamin Mixon, recently retired, has publicly stated the leadership’s response to his own benign statement supporting the current law ‘chilled’ speech:
“After folks saw the reaction to my letter, there was no chance of anyone else speaking up,” [Mixon] said. “It sent a message.”
The Palm Center of the University of California, which has advocated for repeal, had a predictable response that missed the point:
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, which pushed for the repeal, said the Department of Defense has made it clear that there will be no change in the way chaplains conduct their business once the ban is lifted.
Belkin misses the fact the letter addressed issues beyond what may happen to Chaplains. In fact, Belkin’s very next statement epitomizes the issue:
“This is yet another example of people with traditional and, quite frankly, anti-gay views demanding protection for something that doesn’t need protection,” he said.
By this advocate’s point of view, “traditional” views on homosexuality as expressed by the sending agents of over 1,000 military Chaplains — likely representing hundreds of thousands of troops — are “anti-gay.” And, of course, “anti-gay” is unacceptable and must be restricted. Belkin is simultaneously dismissing and validating that about which the Chaplains wrote.
The letter expressed concern the Navy’s short-lived decision to allow ‘gay marriages’ in military chapels was a “sign of things to come” — a sign, incidentally, potentially contradicting “reassurances” the Defense of Marriage Act made any discussion of such topics moot. (US military training on DADT continues to emphasize that “nothing will change.”) In addition, the letter noted the Chaplains had not been consulted in the recent controversy, despite their very evident stake in the process.
Interestingly, the letter focuses on a sometime theme of the military Chaplaincy — “cooperation without compromise.” In that vein, the letter notably calls only for protecting the religious freedom of US servicemembers, not reinstating the law (though such advocacy has been supported).
Also noted at the Religion Clause, the Washington Post, ArmyChaplaincy.com, Stars and Stripes, the Washington Times and the Christian Post.
If your conscience does not allow you to serve with other men or women in uniform, regardless of their background, religious faith or sexual orientation, then get out. There are plenty of other folks who would be more than happy to have your job.
What about the religious liberty of chaplains who want to preside over the homosexual marriages of their congregants? Are you as strongly supportive of that?
@Phoenix Blue
So tolerant of you.
Don,
Aren’t you forgetting the LAW? Defense of Marriage Act applies to Federal jurisdictions (i.e. bases) and while you can disagree with said Act, it is currently law. Those in military service have to follow the law – it cuts both ways. Those that opposed the DADT repeal still have to obey it when it is implemented; those who oppose DOMA have to obey it too.
@Dealer…but DOMA is next on the list to fall. The first step was to not enforce it. Within the next couple of years, DOMA will be targeted.
I sat through a closed-door briefing and the speaker, who I will not mention, stated (matter of factly) that DOMA will be a non-issue in a few years anyway. (The speaker knew what he was talking about and has been on the circuit)
Personally, I support DOMA but see where it is slowly eroding…it’s the next big obstacle for those that wanted DADT eliminated.
@Phoenix Blue
You appear to be misunderstanding the point. At what point above did anyone say they couldn’t serve with others?
Lt Frank: I hope you are right.
Some chaplains are insisting that their own religious folklore be imposed upon everyone else — including other chaplains and other service men/women who do not share the same religious beliefs.
That is ludicrous, and unconstitutional.
American was founded upon freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. If one religion’s private, legal wedding ceremony can be performed, then all religions’ private, legal wedding ceremonies can be performed.
All of the 78,000 bisexuals, lesbians, and gays now serving in the armed forces have a legal right to a same-sex, religious wedding ceremony, in a private chapel, in all 21 states that have some form of marriage equality (same-sex marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership): CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, WI.
No other American, and no clergy person, has any right to say “My religion doesn’t allow your wedding.”
Here’s the thing, JD: Chaplains will, in the course of their duties, have to provide confidential counseling at some point in their careers to Airmen who are homosexual or bisexual. This is a core part of a chaplain’s job; a chaplain cannot, to my understanding, refuse to provide counseling on the grounds of sexual orientation.
So faced with that conundrum, a chaplain with a moral objection to homosexuality has two choices: either suck it up and do his job, or petition his endorsing agency to withdraw their endorsement, thereby initiating the chaplain’s separation from the service.
@Ned, DOMA doesn’t allow lesbian/gay weddings in federal facilities by federal employees, not “other Amercian’s, or clergy person”.
Ned,
The opposite case has also occurred: a photographer in NM was brought up and convicted on hate crimes because he refused to take pictures of a homosexual marriage ceremony. How is that Constitutional? (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/24/sex-marriage-experiment-work/?test=faces)
Homosexual couples have the legal right to a religious ceremony dedicating their commitment. But legal marriage is a different matter; which I imagine will be settled in the court system. For now, DOMA is law for federal jurisdictions.
Speaking of rights: I most certainly have a right to say “my religion does not allow your wedding.” That’s freedom of my speech and religion. At the same time, a homosexual couple has the right to not be a part of my religion and go to a different religious facility that does allow it.
Get your rights straight.
No.. he was NOT brought up on “hate crimes”. He was brought up on discrimination grounds. Just as someone would be if they refused to serve a black man in their shop.
Don,
I stand corrected…article says “human rights violations.”
Still isn’t Constitutional. Sexual preference as a protected category is not a law; it is from the executive office.
@Phoenix Blue
You are somewhat mistaken, both in what Chaplains have to do, and what they are willing to do.
A Chaplain is not obligated to provide counseling that is inconsistent with his religious beliefs. Take the example of an Airman seeking counsel on how to have a better relationship with his live-in girlfriend, from a Chaplain who finds that situation morally objectionable.
The Chaplain cannot be forced to provide counsel inconsistent with his religious beliefs. For example, as described in AFPD 52-1 (available here):
Thus, the Chaplain could choose to refer the Airman to another counseling source. He could also choose what seems to be a fairly common course for Chaplains: he could provide counsel from his perspective — ie, he could tell the Airman he believed the best relationship counsel he could give would be to say it was wrong for him to live (in the marital sense) with someone who is not his spouse.
Chaplains are already free to do this with someone who comes to them for guidance. What they have asked is that they be assured they can do the same thing with homosexuals without being accused of discrimination or facing retribution in the form of damage to their careers.
They have not said they cannot serve with homosexuals. In fact, they have consistently said they would serve and would be willing to counsel them (see the letter here). They just want to ensure they are not forced to do anything differently than they do now.
Dealer, it is best if you don’t get your facts from Fox News opinion pages written by bigots. In the state of New Mexico, it is not legal for a business to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. I think there are 20 other states with similar laws.
Donalbain, As I was unaware that homosexuality was covered as protected class in NM, the case confused me; I keep the understanding that businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish unless it is on the basis of one of the protected classes (race, gender, etc). Thank you for clarifying.
I heard about the photographer’s case from NPR. They did not mention that the state of NM lists sexuality as as a protected category, and cover the proceeding rather similarly. The photographer kindly refused service and was fined. Does that make the people of NPR also bigots for missing that detail?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340 if you would like to read it/listen to it yourself. (it is covered in act three)
End, Don,
After some research in the matter, I concede that NM did actually put into law that ‘sexual preference’ is a protected state, which is different from federal law (http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/03%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0028.html).
But there are some issues with the actual text of the law, as I don’t know what the working definition of ‘public accommodation’ is. Legal definitions (say from Civil Rights act) do not include a large portion of society-including many services that are not related to food, lodging, travel, or entertainment. I didn’t see anything in anyone’s definition that would imply photographer for hire was a ‘public accommodation.’
Side note: if you own a bed and breakfast that you live yourself, the rules change when you go from 5 rentable rooms to 6. Food for thought.