Amendment Protects Religious Liberty of Military Members

[KatherineS]

Negative. Under previous guidance quoted below, excepting Mass, etc., if a chaplain offered a public prayer, it was to be non-sectarian, period.

You would be mistaken. If it is an event of a particular faith (i,e Mass, Divine Liturgy, Protestant Bible Study), they prayer is up to the chaplain and his faith. It is a general assembly of all and no faiths, a chaplain is invented to give a non-sectarian prayer.

"CONSISTENT WITH LONG-STANDING MILITARY TRADITION, A BRIEF NON-SECTARIAN PRAYER MAY BE INCLUDED IN NON-ROUTINE MILITARY CEREMONIES OR EVENTS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE, SUCH AS A CHANGE-OF-COMMAND, PROMOTION CEREMONIES OR SIGNIFICANT CELEBRATIONS, WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE PRAYER IS TO ADD A HEIGHTENED SENSE OF SERIOUSNESS OR SOLEMNITY, NOT TO ADVANCE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. MILITARY CHAPLAINS ARE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH SUCH EVENTS."

This is a good and appropriate policy.

 

[KatherineS]

Pelosi Calls Chaplain 'Conscience Clause' a 'Fraud'

And she is 100% right. What the Republicans are trying to do is violate the conscience of those chaplains whose conscience and faith allows them to perform same sex marriages.

Another Republican lie.

 

[Davidnic]

So since there are incidents of organizations suing religious affiliated entities for not providing marriage services to gays outside of the military. What is wrong with congress taking steps to ensure that chaplains will not be required to perform gay marriages?

Isn't it basic common sense to take precautions when putting something new in place to make sure it does not do something that everyone apparently agrees it should not?

When planning anything in life you take measures to make sure the foreseen but unintended consequences in worst case do not come to pass.

So let them pass something saying a religion will never be required by law to marry a couple their faith deems can not be married. And that goes for service in the military too. Seems to me the only ones opposed to that would be those who ultimately want to force conscience violations.

Do those opposed have the same problem with homeowners insurance or taking precautions for the worst case in retirement planning? You look at the worst case and hedge against it. Common sense.

 

[KatherineS]

So since there are incidents of organizations suing religious affiliated entities for not providing marriage services to gays outside of the military. What is wrong with congress taking steps to ensure that chaplains will not be required to perform gay marriages?

First, there have been no incidents of any clergyperson being forced to perform gay marriages in this country.

On your second, but more signficiant point, I agree with you. So does Mrs.Pelosi. Last year, Congress already wrote into law the pre-existing Dept. of Defense policy saying no chaplain can be required to do a same sex marriage.

This year the Republicans want to go further. The want to PROHIBIT chaplains whose conscience and denomination allow same sex marriages from performing those rites of their faith.

So, on the very sensible point you make, we already have done that. What is on the table now is a violation of the conscience of those clergy who take a pro-gay view.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

First, there have been no incidents of any clergyperson being forced to perform gay marriages in this country.

.

Not individual clergy, but against religions, there have been and are on going law-suits, and it isn't going to end there.

See this story.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

First, there have been no incidents of any clergyperson being forced to perform gay marriages in this country.

On your second, but more signficiant point, I agree with you. So does Mrs.Pelosi. Last year, Congress already wrote into law the pre-existing Dept. of Defense policy saying no chaplain can be required to do a same sex marriage.

This year the Republicans want to go further. The want to PROHIBIT chaplains whose conscience and denomination allow same sex marriages from performing those rites of their faith.

So, on the very sensible point you make, we already have done that. What is on the table now is a violation of the conscience of those clergy who take a pro-gay view.

Do you have a link to the legislation that no chaplain can not be required to perform same sex marriage.

 

[KatherineS]

Not individual clergy,

Correct

there have been and are on going law-suits,

Incorrect. Lawsuit. Singular.

but against religions

debatable. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church. It is an unusual incorporation unlikley to be the basis for any other lawsuit. It is affiliated with the Methodist Church but the Methodist Church hwas not a party to its lawsuits.

It is a town on the New Jersey shore. About 8,000 people live there seasonally or year-round. People of all religions and sexual orientations are welcome. Residents do not own the property their houses sit on. The land is leased for 99 years from the Association.

The Association maintains a chapel for worship and opposite sex weddings. That has not been in dispute.

There is also a pavillion on the Boardwalk that is a secular structure and rented out to the general public. The pavillion received state funding for its repair.

The issue was the renting out of the pavillion. Whatever you think of that, it is a far cry from lawsuits against churches.

 

[Davidnic]

Not individual clergy, but against religions, there have been and are on going law-suits, and it isn't going to end there.

See this story.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR


Jim

Exactly. Many Knights of Columbus halls plan to close if necessary. And other Faith related services are under fire.

 

[KatherineS]

Do you have a link to the legislation that no chaplain can not be required to perform same sex marriage.

Here you go!

.: United States Senator Roger Wicker, Mississippi :: Newsroom :.

 

[Davidnic]

Incorrect. Lawsuit. Singular.

there are many others. One in NH against a Catholic couple who run a service from an Inn. And others. There are many more than one.

 

[Davidnic]

Here you go!

.: United States Senator Roger Wicker, Mississippi :: Newsroom :.

That's a good amendment. Give the Republicans credit, they proposed that one. And give the bipartisan agreement that passed it credit.

 

[Davidnic]

The article Jim posted lists 7 cases after discussing the one. So you really can't say singular. It is multiple.

 

[KatherineS]

That's a good amendment. Give the Republicans credit, they proposed that one. And give the bipartisan agreement that passed it credit.

So done and done. Signed by President Obama and is now law.

No reason to come back this year and take away religous liberty from chaplains that want to do same sex weddings.

 

[Davidnic]

So done and done. Signed by President Obama and is now law.

No reason to come back this year and take away religous liberty from chaplains that want to do same sex weddings.

Have any said they want to? Just curious actually.

 

[KatherineS]

there are many others. One in NH against a Catholic couple who run a service from an Inn. And others. There are many more than one.

Of course, those are not cases of churches or clergy being forced to perform gay weddings.

As far as people running a for -profit business serving the public like a hotel, restaurant, or department store, I not only think it should be illegal for them to refuse customers that happen to be gay, Black, Catholic, Jewish, etc, but I think they are vile bigoted sinners to do so.

But being a realist, I might accept a law that simp;y requiring them to post a sign in their front window that says "This business does not serve [or hire] Gays [or Irish, or Blacks, or Jews, whatever]"

 

[Davidnic]

So a Christian who owns a place they rent out should be forced to rent it out for a black mass if said Satanic ritual was modified to not kill anyone.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Incorrect. Lawsuit. Singular.

No, law suits. I just posted one of them.

Come to Massachusetts, gay groups along with the AG are suing everyone who doesn't provide gays with a variety of services.

Heck, the AG ended up closing down Catholic Charities as an adoption agency, because they refuse to place children with gay couples.

debatable. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church. It is an unusual incorporation unlikley to be the basis for any other lawsuit. It is affiliated with the Methodist Church but the Methodist Church hwas not a party to its lawsuits.

It's owned and operated by the Methodist and it really doesn't matter. It's a privately owned and operated service, with religious based beliefs.

They government can not force them to go against their conscience on this or any other issue.

But you can bet your life, that the Catholic Church and others will also be sued, when they refuse to marry gay couples.

Whether they win or not is not known, but here in Massachusetts, I wouldn't be surprised to see the gay activist succeed as they did on the adoption issue.



Jim

 

[KatherineS]

Have any said they want to? Just curious actually.

Well, there are 160 Episcopal chaplains, a denomination that allows gay marriages. The United Chuch of Christ also has a number of chaplains, a denomination that marries gays.

 

[KatherineS]

No, law suits. I just posted one of them.

On clergy ro churches on gay marriages?

Come to Massachusetts, gay groups along with the AG are suing everyone who doesn't provide gays with a variety of services.

As they should to any business that discriminates.

Heck, the AG ended up closing down Catholic Charities as an adoption agency, because they refuse to place children with gay couples.

Nothing to do with clergy being forced to do weddings, but yes. For years Catholic Charities placed children with parents who the Catholic Charities social worker thought would be a good parent, including gay people. Then Catholic Charities was ordered by the Archdiocese to stop giving children a home if that meant a gay person. The Commonwealth did not renew the contract after the policy was changed. it refused to allow CC to get taxpayer money to find children a home while leaving them homeless.

I fully support this action.

They government can not force them to go against their conscience on this or any other issue.

No Negros served here, huh?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

KatherineS

As they should to any business that discriminates.

I'm not talking about private businesses, but charities and religious institutions.

Nothing to do with clergy being forced to do weddings, but yes. For years Catholic Charities placed children with parents who the Catholic Charities social worker thought would be a good parent, including gay people.

Not here in MA. Chatholic Charities always placed children with a mother and father. They're not interested in playing social engineering games where a child ends up paying the cost when it doesn't work out.

Children need a mother and father, especially little boys. That's a reality.

Then Catholic Charities was ordered by the Archdiocese to stop giving children a home if that meant a gay person. The Commonwealth did not renew the contract after the policy was changed. it refused to allow CC to get taxpayer money to find children a home while leaving them homeless.

I fully support this action.

I don't. Why screw the child by giving them to two gay males, when a heterosexual couple are available?

No Negros served here, huh?

Come on Katherine, a poorly formed conscience is not what's going on here.

We're talking about mainstream religious organizations, who follow a doctrine that marriage is between a man and woman, who are being sued by gay groups for discrimination.

It's why the amendment for military chaplains was drawn up, as it should be.

Gay marriage will never be the moral equivalent of a heterosexual marriage.

You might want it to be, but that won't change it.

Jim