What do you think, yay or nay?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110510/us_nm/us_navy_gay_marriage;_ylt=AgE42CgR9Y721rpwPVz7SY9vzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTJxNDE5YWVnBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNTEwL3VzX25hdnlfZ2F5X21hcnJpYWdlBHBvcwMyMARzZWMDeW5fYXJ0aWNsZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA25hdnljaGFwbGFpbg--

Quote :

Navy chaplains cleared to perform gay marriages

– Mon May 9, 10:31 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Navy has authorized its chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on military bases once the ban on gays in the military is lifted, but some members of Congress argue the authorization violates another federal law.

An April 13 memo from the chief of Navy chaplains concerning training revisions said "a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage if it is conducted in accordance with a state that permits same-sex marriage or union."

"If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage," the memo read.

"There's been no change in policy, the only change that occurred was in training," Navy spokeswoman Lieutenant Alana Garas said in a telephone interview.

"It (the memo) emphasizes repeatedly that chaplains will not be required to officiate same-sex weddings if it's contrary to the tenets of their faith," Garas added.

She also said that current policy remained in place until the eventual end of "don't ask, don't tell."

The 17-year-old ban that prohibited gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces was repealed in December. But the policy remains in effect while new rules are being developed.

Representative Todd Akin, chairman of a U.S. House subcomittee that oversees Navy and Marine Corps programs, said the new Navy guidance violates a federal law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The Missouri Republican and 62 other members of Congress have sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy calling for the service to obey the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

"While a state may legalize same-sex marriage, federal property and federal employees, like Navy chaplains, should not be used to perform marriages that are not recognized by federal law," Akin, a Missouri Republican, said in a statement.

"My colleagues and I are calling on the Secretary of the Navy to make sure that the Navy actually follows the law."

(Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Jerry Norton)

It's not happening as fast as I would like but I think we're really beginning to move in the right direction. I look forward to the day when this isn't even an issue.

Now we'll wait for all the protests to fire any chaplain who refuses to do it. lol We'll never move in the right direction. Throughout history, we're still at the same place. The only thing that ever happens is we change the angle.

CeCe wrote:

It's not happening as fast as I would like but I think we're really beginning to move in the right direction. I look forward to the day when this isn't even an issue.

I know, right? I don't know why this is even an issue. I guess in America equal rights is something we struggle with. I think it's sick that it's taking us this long to grow - talk about stalled maturity. Anyway, I agree though that it gets us moving in the right direction. America needs to move forwards, not back.

I am with that. What I do not see a problem is if a chaplain refuses to do so because it is against his specific religious oranization he belongs to.

I believe there are chaplains that not specific in their religious organization. I am not 100% sure but I think there are. If they want to marry gays, great but as I said I do not agree forcing a chaplain that is let us say Catholic to marry gays. He is there to cater to Catholic Soldiers. He can still attend to non-Catholic Soldiers but I do not think he needs to go along with them on things that are againts Catholic precepts.

You have a great day.
Friendly Veteran

I think if you're going to tie yourself in a legal process (marriage), you're going to have to play it by the book. You can't cause a big stink because it's suddenly against your beliefs. Marriage isn't a religious matter; it's a legal one.

Rockbird wrote:

I think if you're going to tie yourself in a legal process (marriage), you're going to have to play it by the book. You can't cause a big stink because it's suddenly against your beliefs. Marriage isn't a religious matter; it's a legal one.

Marriage is a perfectly religious matter. A chaplain has every right to choose not to marry whomever he wants. (And "suddenly" against beliefs? Yeah right. lol)

Eventually a chaplain will refuse and all those yammering on about tolerance now will likely be first in line to crucify him because "tolerance" only goes one way in the modern era. Of course, there is always some excuse to justify the double standards. But either way, it's hypocrisy. If your chaplain doesn't want to marry you, find another one that does. If you force somebody to do it, you're the bigot.

If that particular demoniation does not recognize G&L marriages in civilan life, I don't know how a military chaplain of that faith can be compelled to perform the ceremony. I don't know how the military functions like that. Besides, why would you want to get married in a faith that doen't want you?

Marriage was adopted by religion. It existed beforehand. Get real.

Rockbird wrote:

Marriage was adopted by religion. It existed beforehand. Get real.

It doesn't matter either way really. A Chaplain is a chaplain! And they shouldn't be forced to perform ANY ceremony against their will. (And BTW, appealing to tradition is fallacious anyway. ) I don't care if they only got into the business in 2005. They still got the right to not perform a ceremony against their will. If you don't like it, find somebody who will do it for you. It's how it works with everything else in the business world.

Not really. I feel like this should fall under the category of restaurants, movie theaters and libraries. It's unacceptable to be told "You can't take out these books; you're gay."

This isn't based on somebody's dependability or character. This is something based upon something that one cannot control and should not have to control. That is discrimination in a nut shell.

Rockbird wrote:

Not really. I feel like this should fall under the category of restaurants, movie theaters and libraries. It's unacceptable to be told "You can't take out these books; you're gay."

If we're gonna go with that analogy... You can't force somebody to serve food that fits into your special diet needs, OR you can't force them to carry food that they don't wanna carry for whatever reason. If a Jewish deli doesn't wanna carry ham, it shouldn't be forced to. Likewise, no chaplain should be forced to marry a same-sex couple. If you try to force them, you're just as intolerant, if not more. It's as simple as that. If a chaplain won't marry you, find another chaplain.

But they aren't being denied a certain type of product. They're being denied a service based on the people that they are. And you never addressed my second point.

Rockbird wrote:

But they aren't being denied a certain type of product. They're being denied a service based on the people that they are. And you never addressed my second point.

They wouldn't be being denied a service. They'd merely have to get it only from people willing to give it to them. You have no right to the services of another. If they don't want to serve you, that should be their choice. Think what you will of them but forcing them to do it is really making you the intolerant one, not them.

Your second point was just flat out wrong. One can very much control who they choose to officiate their marriage ceremony. Forcing somebody who doesn't want to do it to do it and say that they have no choice but to accept you is bigotry plain and simple.

If a chaplain refused straight couples, I'd say the same thing. If you don't want to marry somebody, you shouldn't be forced to and if somebody tries to force you, they're wrong.

What a pathetic response. Flip the record already. You always have the same response to everything. That if ANYBODY disagrees with conservative thinking, then they are hypocrites and bigots.

You didn't rival my points. You just told me I was wrong. Try again later.

Rockbird wrote:

What a pathetic response. Flip the record already. You always have the same response to everything. That if ANYBODY disagrees with conservative thinking, then they are hypocrites and bigots.

You didn't rival my points. You just told me I was wrong. Try again later.

Welcome to how everybody treats me. lol Nobody cries tears for me so I won't shed any for you.

My response wasn't pathetic. You didn't make any real points to rival. All you said was that because two people want to get married that they have a right to force a chaplain to marry them. That's a pathetic claim. If somebody doesn't want to marry you, mature up and find somebody who will. Case closed. That's all the refutation your claims need because you've failed to provide an adequate reason to force somebody to do something they don't want to do. So hold your fingers on the soapbox.

It seems kinda stupid to tell them that they can't. If same sex partners can get married, any chaplain should be allowed to perform a marriage. It's the chaplain's choice, no matter how much people complain.

I too look forward to the day when this is not an issue.

Rockbird wrote:

Not really. I feel like this should fall under the category of restaurants, movie theaters and libraries. It's unacceptable to be told "You can't take out these books; you're gay."

This isn't based on somebody's dependability or character. This is something based upon something that one cannot control and should not have to control. That is discrimination in a nut shell.

The services do hire chaplains to cater to people of their denominations. In other words a catholic chaplain is there to provide the services required for catholics. The same for other denominations so it is not like ordering food. Now, a Catholic chaplain can attend to a gay if he has some type of problem but for the gay to expect the catholic to tell him it is alright to be gay in the eyes of God is not required.

An example could also be of a doctor. They have specialties. If I decide to go to an eye doctor because I have problem with my ankle can refuse service and send me to another doctor that specializes on that. In an emergency situation he may do some type of temporary solution and send me to the doctor. The same with a chaplain. If he is Catholic and I was gay I may have some type of emotional problem he is obliged to help me but once I tell him I want a marriage ceremony he can then send me to another chaplain that maybe his denomination may allow it, take care.